Talk:Native Hawaiians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Hawaiʻi, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Hawaiʻi. Please participate by editing the article Native Hawaiians, or visit the project page for more details.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page.
WikiProject Hawaii priority open tasks:
Zuni girl; photograph by Edward S. Curtis, 1903 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:
Shortcut:
WP:PJHI

I felt compelled to move the information from the Hawaiian people container to a more appropriate Native Hawaiians container since more articles were linking references to "Native Hawaiians" and not "Hawaiian people." Gerald Farinas 19:53, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Subgrouping

I think, if I'm not mistaken, the subgrouping wasn't:

  • Native = >50%
  • native = <50%

but rather:

  • Native = any blood quantum
  • native = >50%
  • part = <50%

I can't cite the source off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure it was on a state Web page, like OHA's. (I know that the definition of capital "N" Native Hawaiian is actually written into state law.) If I find it, I'll put it here. Just wanna make sure we're putting the right info here. KeithH 18:31, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Found one. http://www.oha.org/databook/databook1996_1998/appendix.98.html KeithH 22:44, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks so much Keith for catching that mistake! Gerald Farinas 18:08, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Template for future "culture" work

The {{stub}} notice is valuable bcz it counteracts any impression that we think stub-sized articles are a good thing on the long term, and also offers newcomers an explicit opportunity to make a big local impact by a very managable contribution.

In contrast, what might be called "section-stub notices", in the article, like the following, interfere with reading, lack the redeeming social value of stub notices, and just look tacky. But we have the talk page available to preserve the (limited but worthwhile) info of a contributor's ideas for what next, harmlessly here. --Jerzy(t) 18:15, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)

[edit] Hula

Info to be entered soon

[edit] Music

Info to be entered soon

[Plz discuss the extent to which "Hawaiian steel guitar" style is and/or isn't connected to Hawaiian culture. --Jerzy(t) 18:15, 2004 Jul 15 (UTC)]

Steel guitar has been a part of native Hawaiian culture since it was invented. This came after European contact, but one still can not avoiding talking about native culture without talking about the steel and slack-key guitar styles (see steel guitar, slack-key and music of Hawaii). Tuf-Kat 06:06, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify my first sentence: I'm referring to the invention of steel guitar (in about 1900), not native Hawaiian culture, clearly.

[edit] Recreation

Info to be entered soon

Taken from the page on Kamehameha I "an incredible number for an island chain whose population had never exceeded 300,000" This would contradict the over 800.000 figure told here; does anybody know authoritative sources which would go more towards one way or the other?

Taken from the page on Kamehameha I "an incredible number for an island chain whose population had never exceeded 300,000" This would contradict the over 800.000 figure told here; does anybody know authoritative sources which would go more towards one way or the other?

Authorative? I believe Dr. Lilikala Kame'eleihiwa mentions the amount of 'Oiwi at the time of Captain Cook's arrival at one million to which she stated that Cook did not count the people mauka.

Population count is heavily politicized issue. Stannard postulates high pre-contact populations, in Hawai'i and in the Americas, so that the consequent depopulation is even more horrifying. His figure is 800, 000 for Hawai'i, I believe. Lilikala has inflated that even further. I think most estimates are lower. For an example of argument on this issue, see Population history of American indigenous peoples. It would take some digging to pull up a range of current estimates for the islands. Zora 05:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sovereignty

I noticed that there is mention of how native Hawaiians throughout the US held a plebiscite & voted in favor an interim native Hawaiian government. If it's Henry Noa we're talking about, I think it would be best to name that organization in order to distinguish it from others. I figured I'd say something since people like Zora feel that they are an authorative figure when it comes to editing and deciding the contents of anything "Hawaiian/Hawaii" for Wikipedia.

It helps if you take a username and sign your articles. I didn't contribute that bit re the plebiscite. It DOES need work. It's simply not clear, and it should be supported by sources. I can't even figure out what event it's talking about -- the vote sponsored by OHA? I have vague memories of that. Zora 03:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It helps if you take a username and sign your articles.
I'm still trying to get a hang of this. Be patient. Not all of us waste their time on Wikipedia. --66.215.9.164

[edit] Education

Under "Education," it was noted that Punahou School was formerly the Royal School, where Hawaii's royalty were educated. Following the link to Royal School, however, it is quite plainly stated that "However, it is not Punahou School, which was also run by Protestant missionaries." I removed the statement about Punahou School being the successor to the Royal School in this article as a result. Could someone clarify this? 青い(Aoi) 02:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely true. Punahou was for missionary children; the Royal School was for ali'i children. Zora 07:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
So just to be clear, it it the case that the Royal School used to be on the same grounds as Punahou, but was moved to its current location at Royal Elementary School at some later date? Is that where the confusion was, a matter of two completely different protestant schools that occupied the same land at one point in time? --JereKrischel 07:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
No, that isn't the case. The Royal School was somewhere in what is now downtown, near Iolani palace. I'd have to check to find the location. It may have changed over time. Punahou was agricultural land, far on the outskirts of town, when it was given to the missionaries. It was desirable property, however, because of the spring there. As to why somebody confused the two schools -- can't say. There's no reason to do so. Zora 06:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Indigenous"

Seems like the controversy over claims of being "indigenous" (and any special privileges that would entail) should be discussed in the article. I'm more than happy to do a break out section with it, but I don't think it should be removed entirely. --JereKrischel 07:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The link is still in the federal developments section. Eekadog 13:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fine to put those links in, but there should be others representing the spectrum of Native Hawaiian perspectives on what it means to be "indigenous" as well. It's one-sided to have links to external documents only for the skeptical POV. I don't have time to add these at the moment, but JereKrischel, even knowing that it goes against your grain, perhaps you would be generous enough to add some links fairly and accurately representing a POV you don't agree with? Mahalo. Arjuna 19:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Great idea Arjuna - I'll find some counter point to balance things out. --JereKrischel 19:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent -- thanks. Arjuna 22:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crown/public/ceded/public lands

I put in more information regarding the chain of status for the public lands now used by OHA - we could get more detailed into the Mahele, and how the konohiki were divided, as well as Liliuokalani's failed lawsuit in 1910 to claim the crown lands as personal lands for herself, but the crucial point is that they were originally meant to benefit the public (through specifically the monarchy at first, but always the government in general in service of the public). --JereKrischel 00:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The edits you made look good, and moving them to the reference section retains the information without cluttering the rest of the text. Cheers, Arjuna 00:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical precedent

Sorry Arjuna, when I meant "historical precedent", I meant in the history of the Hawaiian islands, there had never ever been a race-based government. --JereKrischel 00:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough -- wasn't clear before. Arjuna 00:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overthrow vs. Revolution

There are 12,300 links on google when "overthrow of the monarchy" is searched in conjuction with "hawaii". Mr. Krischel, if you look at the webpage (http://www.hawaii.gov/hidocs/annexation.html) that you based your edits on you would have noticed that it was titled, "Impact of Change: Overthrow and Annexation" and the term "Hawaiian Revolution" was the name of a reference. Overthrow is clearly the more common term for the events of 1893.Eekadog 23:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that it is both referred to as an "overthrow" and a "revolution", I suggest a more neutral phrase: "fall of the monarchy". Is that acceptable? (P.S., "revolution" "hawaii" and "1893" pop up 214,000 links in google, and "overthrow" "hawaii" and "1893" only gets 79,300) --JereKrischel 04:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be hard to argue that "overthrow" is by far the more common term, locally. but your edit sounds good.Eekadog 18:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- thanks to JK for coming up with the compromise wording. Arjuna 19:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Mahalo, thank you for helping find a middle ground. I think Eekadog, you were correct in pointing out that the pendulum had swung too far in one direction with the terminology. Please continue to challenge any wording you may find POV, and we can work together to find more appropriate phrases. --JereKrischel 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Fall of the Monarchy" is deliberately evasive. A mother comes into the living room and sees a shattered vase on the floor, and two guilty-faced kids. "What happened in here?" she asks. "Mommy, the vase fell." That is a starting point, but it tells us virtually nothing and "does not lead to elucidation." I.E., it aint useful.

If we know that Johnny was throwing the ball in the house after having been told multiple times not to do so, and that the ball bounced off the wall, hitting the vase and the vase fell to the ground and shattered, there is no useful purpose to write"The Vase Fell" unless you are trying to obscure the actual events.

The monarchy was overthrown, by the Honolulu Rifles, in conclusion with Ambassador Stevens and the marines from the USS Boston. The plot had the backing of a hardline, pro-imperialist faction of the US government and the national Republican Party.

To claim that there are other interpretations of this event is to say that "creationism" and the theory of evolution deserve to be taught as co-equal explanations of biological diversity in a science class. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.130.210.48 (talk • contribs).

Besides disagreeing with your obviously POV premise that there was a conspiracy between the Comittee of Safety and the U.S., I think that given the extremes of "overthrow" versus "revolution", "fall of the monarchy" represents a fair compromise. Perhaps you would prefer, "the Hawaiian Revolution, which overthrew the monarchy"? --JereKrischel 23:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling of "Hawaii"

According to long-established usage in federal and state government documents, it is the State of "Hawaii" rather than the State of "Hawaiʻi". This is clear from Article XV Section 4 of the state constitution --- http://www.hawaii.gov/lrb/con/conart15.html --- so references to the state should use "Hawaii", with no "okina". Besides, this is the English version of Wikipedia, so English spellings are correct and should be used by default. In addition, the spelling used for over 100 years by native writers of Hawaiian, in the Hawaiian newspapers, is "Hawaii" and not "Hawaiʻi". So the traditional spelling of native speakers of Hawaiian is "Hawaii" with NO "okina". I will edit the article accordingly. Agent X 16:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I won't argue with the first point you make. The second, however, seems dubious. Simply because it was rendered as "Hawaii" and not "Hawaiʻi" by newspapers, it does not logically follow that "the traditional spelling of native speakers of Hawaiian is Hawaii with no okina". Your data sample is biased if you are only basing this assertion on newspapers. Among other things, newspaper editors here in Hawaii clearly had a POV / agenda back in the day. Please provide supporting evidence, otherwise I will re-edit the article accordingly. Arjuna 08:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Agent X is referring to olelo Hawaii newspapers run by native Hawaiians - certainly they didn't have any POV or agenda against the okina "back in the day"...unless that agenda was simply to save ink. An example can be seen here. You can also take a look at any other of the newspaper images on http://nupepa.org, it's quite obvious that the okina is a fairly modern crutch - native olelo Hawaii speakers didn't need such indicators because to them it was obvious from context, from what I understand. --JereKrischel 08:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
How's this for biased... http://www.hawaiitribune-herald.com/articles/2004/12/30/local_news/local04.prt
Yeah, that's right--HAWAII. No damn apostrophe.--EightyOne 09:37, 08 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups?

Hi,

This article is of course a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii. I'm wondering whether it would be acceptable to add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups as well... ?

I'll add this Talk page to my watch list, and wait about a week for a reply. Thanks!--Ling.Nut 19:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

JK, was there a reason for deleting the three external links? They seem relevant to the article and thus legitmate. Cheers, Arjuna 02:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

They seemed to be a bit like political linkspam, although I may just have been a bit touchy from cleaning up other articles. I'm more than willing to entertain restoring them, could you have a look at the external links, and give me your opinion of their importance and relevance? Thanks! --JereKrischel 10:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
My take -> At first blush, CNHA seems like a non-profit lobbying group, Hawaii-nation.org seems like another political lobbying page more suited to the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement than Native Hawaiians in general, and "nativehawaiians.com" seems like a lobbying effort to promote the Akaka bill. I guess my objection is to the assertion that groups that promote race-based programs are somehow representative of Native Hawaiians as a whole. That being said, even though OHA explicitly is race-based, because it's a state organization (rather than simply a volunteer lobbying group), it seemed like it should stay. I think that as soon as we enter into pasting links to lobbying groups, we open the door to requiring both sides of the issue for NPOV (perhaps adding links to grassrootinstitute.org, or aloha4all). --JereKrischel 10:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I take your point in regards to hawaii-nation.org - this is overtly political pro-sovereignty and thus would belong on the sovereignty article rather than here. I disagree with you on CNHA; they are a 501c3, and thus by law are primarily not a lobbying group. ("Non-profit" and "lobbying group" are definitely not synonymous.) Their website states that they are "dedicated to capacity building and providing support services to agencies and organizations focused primarily on Native communities in Hawaii and the Pacific." This seems very legitimate, whether or not one agrees with their criteria for who is Hawaiian. The case of "nativehawaiians.com" is less clear at first glance, but (again, whether or not one approves of their goal/criteria/strategy/etc.) if you look closely, the site is "...developed and maintained by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs". So while they may promote a political perspective, they don't lobby for it (presumably -- please advise if you find out differently). As for your general point, I see where you are coming from, but would question any facile definition of the issue being a "race-based" one. Though I understand the issue is rather complex, and blood quantum aside, I don't think it's that simple. One can also see the issue as "ethnicity-based". But that is a whole different can of worms that, well, let's not get into. It's pretty irrelevant to this discussion. Finally, I did a partial revert of your revert, since (the non sequitur reference to California aside) it definitely seems an NPOV statement of fact, as commonly understood and experienced on a daily basis here. Anyhow, as for the links, I'll give you a chance to respond before restoring CNHA and the third one. Cheers, Arjuna 09:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

CNHA seems like you make a decent argument, but the "nativehawaiians.com" definitely seems to be purposed to promote specific legislation. AFAIK, OHA spent several million dollars last year lobbying for the Akaka Bill, although I cannot say for sure they counted the money spent on "nativehawaiians.com" as part of that. I made some modifications of your revert, since it seemed to be insisting on a usage without any authority. Also, check out some of my other changes, some to be more clear, others to be more true to the source material cited. Mahalo again for your attention! --JereKrischel 09:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

JK, ok -- seems fair enough. I'll add CNHA back but leave the others out. I'm going flat out here lately, and haven't had time for anything other than the mindless 3 minute random article copy edit for sheer escapism, but I'll have a look at your other changes soon too. Mahalo back to you as well. Cheers, Arjuna 23:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrations?

I'm having a problem with the entire idea of "native Hawaiian" celebrations as a race-based topic. None of the holidays on the list of state of Hawaii holidays are racially limited, and it seems like it is inappropriate to conflate Hawaiian holidays with "native Hawaiian" holidays. There are no specifically "native Hawaiian" holidays, especially after Kaahumanu's destruction of the old religion. Perhaps any ancient holidays may be appropriate to list here, but anything dating from the multi-ethnic Kingdom period doesn't seem right. Comments? --JereKrischel 07:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not my bailiwick, but my sense is that it doesn't necessarily have to be a big deal in terms of how it's represented. Agreed that the old "holidays" (itself a Western construct -- they would have been seen as festival/sacred days but not holidays as we now experience them -- are no longer the locus of most Hawaiians' celebrations. However, there are holiday seasons -- ex. makahiki -- but these aren't really exclusionary. People regardless of ethnicity generally kind of "observes" or at least pays homage to these here, and it doesn't seem to be a big deal -- this is an imperfect analogy that perhaps some people might attack me for, but it sort of is experienced in the same way that you don't have to be Irish to celebrate St. Patrick's. It's a way to honor Hawaiian traditions without being political one way or another. My two cents. Arjuna 09:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Makahiki is the only ancient holiday I've ever heard of, and it's an entire season. I did find an article regarding a racially exclusive ceremony on Haleakala related to makahiki, [1], but it only reports a small group of people recreating a ceremony for 1999 and 2000...no info on whether or not the celebration has continued, or whether it continues to be racially exclusive, or whether or not it is at all representative of ancient traditions, or is just a modern invention. After all, many of the ancient Hawaiian celebration traditions included social customs that just wouldn't be accepted today, including ritual human sacrifices and strict kapu restrictions. I wonder if there is a good reference for ancient Hawaiian holidays somewhere...since the Kingdom period was dominated by christian culture thanks to Kamehameha II and Kaahumanu, much of the ancient traditions were completely lost, especially after those kahuna opposed to Kaahumanu's breaking of kapu were defeated in battle. Maybe a section discussing the cultural gap between ancient Hawaiian holidays and the cultures and traditions of modern part-native Hawaiians would be more appropriate there instead of just a disputed table. --JereKrischel 18:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I spent minimal time on this, but did find a few events that could generously be construed as Hawaiian holiday festivals: see http://www.molokaievents.com/ To what extent these reflect authentic Hawaiian traditions, I do not know. Not being Hawaiian I certainly cannot speak for the community. I agree with your take (although again, I take exception to your characterization of this being race-based -- I would use the term ethnic -- but that is beside the point here): certainly a great many of the pre-Kaahumanu traditions would not actually be welcomed by anyone anymore (!), and romanticizing the past is not something I would espouse either... In any case, this is a moderately interesting topic, and I will ask around with some of my colleagues who might have better knowledge or can recommend sources. Regardless, I agree that discussion of the discontinuities in traditional celebrations would be perfectly appropriate. Cheers, Arjuna 06:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/t/Talk%7ENative_Hawaiians_784d.html"