OHA Racist Kau Inoa TV Commercials — transcripts and analysis; plus background information about how the Kau Inoa program fits into strategy for the Akaka bill, and how much OHA has spent on lobbying
by Ken Conklin
SUMMARY
A webpage provides transcripts and in-depth analyses of three especially offensive racist TV commercials for OHA’s Kau Inoa project, featuring Lilikala Kame’eleihiwa, Vicky Holt Takamine, and Butch Helemano. A fourth “cutesy” commercial featuring youthful singer Raiatea Helm is also described. These commercials were broadcast repeatedly on all major and many minor TV stations throughout Hawaii during at least early to mid 2007.
The commercials are racist and offensive because they say explicitly, or strongly imply, that ethnic Hawaiians are uniquely descended from the gods and are brothers to the land in a way nobody else can ever be; the 80% of Hawaii’s people who lack a drop of Hawaiian blood can (and perhaps should) go “back” to their ancestral homeland (even if they and their parents and grandparents have never been there); and ethnic Hawaiians have the genetically encoded ability to perceive spirituality and messages in land, sea, and sky which nobody can perceive who lacks a drop of the magic blood.
“Kau Inoa” literally means “Place [your] name” or, informally, “Sign up.” The State of Hawaii Office of Hawaiian Affairs [OHA] is sponsoring this project to get ethnic Hawaiians to sign up for a racial registry. Anyone with a single drop of Hawaiian native blood can register, no matter where in the world they live. All such people would be eligible to join the phony Indian tribe which the Akaka bill proposes to create. The Kau Inoa registry would probably serve as the initial membership roll for the Akaka tribe, and could also be used as the membership roll for a state-recognized tribe in case the Akaka bill fails to deliver federal recognition.
For details please visit
mauicougar said,
July 27, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
I’ve seen all the Kau Inoa commercials and I don’t recall any of them saying or even implying that
“the 80% of Hawaii’s people who lack a drop of Hawaiian blood can (and perhaps should) go “back” to their ancestral homeland (even if they and their parents and grandparents have never been there);”
I’m sure there are some in Hawaii who would like non-Hawaiians to go back to their homeland, but the ads that I saw did not seem to say that. Or, at least that’s not the message I got from them.
One thing about looking at the above statement that sticks out for me is that it concedes that those 80% who lack Hawaiian blood actually HAVE a “homeland” they could return to — whether it be Japan, China, England, or whatever — even if they have not ever been there. The culture and language of their “homeland” is able to survive in this increasingly homogenized world, even if they aren’t there themselves. The people of their homeland carry everything for them. Hawaiians, on the other hand, have no homeland to go back to. They are in their homeland. There is no other place where Hawaiian language, culture and customs can be carried forward by others. Thus, they face the challenge of trying to help their culture and language survive in what should be the easiest place for it to thrive. If someone can figure out a way/system for Hawaiians to survive and not be assimilated into non-existence, I would be interested to see what it is.
jere said,
July 27, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
Would you also be willing to figure out a way/system for white supremacists to survive and not be assimilated into non-existence?
Hawaiian language, culture, and customs are not race-based, and have grown and adapted and changed with the addition and inclusion of all outside influences. If anything, the native Hawaiians of 1778 showed an incredible ability to adapt by actively trying to assimilate - an assimilation that has gone both ways.
The problem with your desire for the survival of a “culture and language” is that for the most part, it is already dead, and you would hardly want to revive it in any authentic form. I doubt you’d like to retreat back to the days of death for stepping on an ali’i’s shadow, or when women eating with men was a capital offense. Neither, I assume, would you embrace the revival of kauwa and the slave class.
What you may want to preserve and carry forward is modern Hawaiian culture and language, and if you are willing to be honest, you’ll admit that that culture and language is a product not of a single race, but of all the people who ever immigrated to the islands, be it from Tahiti in the 1300’s, or from Micronesia in the 2000’s.
mauicougar said,
July 27, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
Aloha Jere,
Why do people always try to start everything off by implying or stating that Hawaiians are racistf? Hawaiians are not racist. They are proud of their heritage (as are most people) and are currently feeling besieged by the numerous attackss against anything Hawaiian. Contrary to what you may think, I was not posing a rhetorical question. I am seriously looking for suggestions on how to save Hawaiians and their culture and language and would truly like to find a solution that would satisfy everyone. Below are your responses to my first posting with my comments.
“Would you also be willing to figure out a way/system for white supremacists to survive and not be assimilated into non-existence?”
I think your point is that doing something to preserve Hawaiians would be the same as doing something to save white supremacists. If that really is your point, then you missed my point, which is that there is no other place in the world where Hawaiians can go to as a homeland except Hawaii. Even white supremacists have a “homeland” somewhere that will keep their culture and language alive (Germany? Ireland? England? ). Think of it this way, if the O-bon dance at the Hongwanji in Wailuku is not exactly the same as the one in Kashihara Japan because it’s been changed over time and the dance steps are not the same, or the music is different or something, that’s o.k. because the O-bon in Japan will be the one that the Japanese people carry forward. The one in Wailuku is an adaptation to the environment its in. It’s like having the digital image of a photograph - as long as you save a clean copy it’s o.k. if someone “photoshops” a copy of the image a little. You can still get a good clean picture again by going back to the clean copy. Hawaiians are on the verge of losing the clean copy and once its gone, we’ll only have photoshopped copies to work with.
“Hawaiian language, culture, and customs are not race-based, and have grown and adapted and changed with the addition and inclusion of all outside influences. If anything, the native Hawaiians of 1778 showed an incredible ability to adapt by actively trying to assimilate - an assimilation that has gone both ways.”
If Hawaiian language, culture and customs are not a product of the indigenous people of Hawaii, then where did those things come from? Did they not have a culture before the haole came? True, the culture has changed and adapted over time, but that does that negate the fact there was a culture and language here pre-contact. In that sense, it is race-based because at the time the language and culture were originally developed, the only people here were Hawaiians. Someone will probably say that those Hawaiians came from Tahiti or Aotearoa or some other place and that there is no real “Hawaiian” culture because it was really Tahitian. However, this argument would negate ALL culture world wide because every populated place was previously unpopulated and the cultures that sprang up as people settled in those areas were those of the first people to enter that location. If Hawaiian culture is Tahitian, where did Tahitian culture and language come from? Should there even be a group of people we call Japanese? The islands of Japan were populated by people from China and Korea, so should we just say that the Japanese language is Chinese? When it comes to culture and language, the origin of the first settlers matters far less than what is developed by those first settlers as they build up a country in their new homeland.
“The problem with your desire for the survival of a “culture and language” is that for the most part, it is already dead, and you would hardly want to revive it in any authentic form. I doubt you’d like to retreat back to the days of death for stepping on an ali’i’s shadow, or when women eating with men was a capital offense. Neither, I assume, would you embrace the revival of kauwa and the slave class.”
You’re correct. I would not want to return to those particular thingss that you cite. However, there are many things that are good that I WOULD like to see survive. My Japanese-born wife does not want Japan to retreat to the feudal days and ways, but she does want the Japanese language, culture and customs to survive in modern Japan. Even with all the pressures of modernity - particularly from the West (i.e. - U.S.), Japanese society actively seeks to keep the culture, customs, and language alive and evolving. I am always amazed at how some people can so openly long for the extinction of an indigenous people. They simply say, if it’s headed for a demise, just let it die. No effort whatsoever to do anything to help sustain it.
“What you may want to preserve and carry forward is modern Hawaiian culture and language, and if you are willing to be honest, you’ll admit that that culture and language is a product not of a single race, but of all the people who ever immigrated to the islands, be it from Tahiti in the 1300’s, or from Micronesia in the 2000’s.”
I don’t dispute the fact that modern “Hawaii” (the State) culture is a product of post-contact influences, but you are confusing the point. There is a huge difference between “Hawaii” culture and “Hawaiian” culture. The former is full of outside influences (e.g. - pidgin english, rubbah slippah, ukuleles, jawaiian music, aloha shirts, etc) and is understood and lived by most who make Hawaii their home. The latter was here pre-contact and is specific to the indigenous people of these islands. Nothing about “Hawaii” culture can erase the hundreds of years when “Hawaiians” where here developing their “Hawaiian” language, culture and customs. Both here and in Japan, post-contact culture changed, but at least in Japan they kept the good parts of “Japanese” pre-contact tradition and culture alive while the “Japan” culture changed. What’s wrong with doing that in Hawaii?
Finally, based on what you wrote, I take it that you don’t think it’s a bad thing for Hawaiians to be completely assimilated and lose whatever culture they have left or that they are trying to revive. Many people on this site are consumed by this desire to erase anything Hawaiian. Why? Did a Hawaiian do something to offend you or your family? If so, I’m sorry for that and ask you not to hold it against all Hawaiians. Is it based on the principle of “fairness” or “equality”? Principles are important, but I would expect that there would have been some personal effect that was felt to drive people to do so much merely for the principle of it. Have you been treated unfairly? Unfortunately, nothing in this world can ever be truly equal or fair. Sometimes people are treated differently, but that doesn’t automatically make it unfair. When I take my children to the movie theater I want to pay the child’s fare, but I can’t. Now, that’s unfair and has a real personal effect… : ) Mahalo for reading my post.
jere said,
August 1, 2007 @ 5:21 am
Aloha mauicougar, thank you for sharing your mana’o. I believe you misunderstand me, and make a few completely unjustifiable assertions.
1) Of course Hawaiians, in general, are not racist. That does not mean that they cannot be, and that does not mean that those Hawaiians who want special racial privileges are not acting in a racist manner. Surely you can concede that.
2) I believe you improperly conflate preserving Hawaiian culture with preserving what you see as the “Hawaiian” race. We are all humans - the entire world is our homeland. We may have ancestry to specific geographic points for longer than others (not much longer in the case of native Hawaiians, who arrived in waves circa 1000AD and 1300AD from Marquesas and Tahiti respectively), but the planet is our homeland. Arbitrarily scoping out the Hawaiian islands as the legacy of a single “race” is racist, pure and simple, even if you don’t intend it. Ask yourself if you would be okay with the preservation of the Hawaiian culture (even the ancient Hawaiian culture), even if it was by people who did not have pre-1778 immigrant ancestry. Maybe you can explain to me why the culture would not be just as well preserved and honored if it was done by people of any racial background.
3) Insofar as photocopies, and the preservation of some sort of “genuine” culture, I think that’s a dangerous path to tread. We cannot glorify the past simply because it is ancient - we must be critical of traditions, culture, language and lifestyle. And the native Hawaiians of 1778 were critical, and did adapt, and THAT is their greatest contribution to the world. To be “native Hawaiian” does not mean to be an ali’i, or a kahuna, or to have dietary restrictions, or capital punishment, or continual warfare -> the true mark of “native Hawaiian” is to be adaptable, embracing, looking to the future instead of the past. During the Hawaiian Kingdom period, native Hawaiians were eager to have their children learn English over olelo Hawaii, because they looked to the future, and saw adaptation as the key to success and survival. And arguably, native Hawaiians are much better off than any other “native” people in the entire pacific.
4) Hawaiian language, culture and customs came from the Marquesas and Tahiti, originally (since they were the first and second colonists to the islands, respectively). Since then, Hawaiian language, culture and customs have been the product of the inclusion of every other group that has come to Hawaii, from the first haole, to the last Micronesian just off the plane. You seem to denigrate the idea that Hawaiian culture is derivative of somewhere else, and insist that it must be considered unique because it separated from Marquesan and Tahitian culture - fine. Let me ask you this then: who is going to preserve the Hawaiian culture, language and customs you and I grew up with, that were a part and parcel of every racial group in Hawaii? Modern Hawaiian culture is as different from pre-1778 Hawaiian culture, as pre-1778 Hawaiian culture is different from Marquesan or Tahitian culture - if not more so. If you believe that there is some sort of race-based culture that is deserving of preservation, simply because it was unique and separate for more than a century, why isn’t the new culture of Hawaii also so deserving?
You seem to think that I’m trying to negate all culture world wide - I get the idea that you’re trying to stop any new cultures from forming or being recognized.
Although, I must agree partially with your statement “When it comes to culture and language, the origin of the first settlers matters far less than what is developed by those first settlers as they build up a country in their new homeland.” Remember, the origin of the first settlers matters far less than what is developed by those first settlers AND THOSE WHO COME AFTER THEM as they build up a country in their new homeland. The first people off the boat from Marquesas were not recognizably “Hawaiian”. Neither were the first Tahitians who came and conquered them recognizably “Hawaiian”. Neither were their children. Or even their children’s children. Generations passed before you could identify a distinct culture -> and I submit to you that since the waves of immigration starting in the 1800s, that continues to be true. Generations have passed since 1778, and you can now identify a distinct modern Hawaiian culture that is unique, and matters far more due to the mixture of all immigrants, rather than the influence of merely the first two waves.
If culture is headed for demise, just let it die, or adapt. That’s what happens in Hawaii, and the world over. I think you make the mistake, however, of confusing assimilation with a one way street - it is not a bad thing for the world to assimilate each other. Even as Hawaiians migrate to California and Washington, they bring their culture with them, and spread it, just as they are affected by the cultures they embrace. It seems you are consumed with the idea that you must erase everything non-Hawaiian, and get back to some romanticized past. Why? Why is my family, which includes both Hawaiian and non-native Hawaiian going back to the 1800s, not considered equal to each other in your eyes? Is your Japanese wife, and her relatives not deserving of the same rights as you have? Or do you think that your in-laws should get special race-based programs back in Japan?
This world can be equal and fair, but only if we want it to be. When it comes to race based privileges, they are never proper or correct, as absolutely as sexually molesting children is never proper or correct. I understand that a victimhood mentality and industry around native Hawaiians has built itself up over the past 30 years, and that well intentioned and well meaning people, such as yourself, truly believe that the only way to move forward is to give special racial privileges to native Hawaiians, but I assure you, this is an evil which must be resisted.
If you have children, and they adopt, will you want the same rights for your adopted grandchildren as your blood ones? If not, why not?
jere said,
August 1, 2007 @ 7:05 pm
One last thing, I had to respond to:
Would you think it was fair if your child paid $5 to go to the movies, you paid $7, but a white child only had to pay $2? One can make an argument that an adult is different than a child, but can you really make the argument that a japanese child is different enough from a white child to allow a different movie ticket price?
Now take that same thought and apply it to race-based school admissions, or race-based government programs paid for by the general public, or with revenues from public lands. Pick a race different than native Hawaiian and see how you feel about it.
jere said,
August 4, 2007 @ 12:18 am
I also wanted to point out a bitter irony here - if the people who first colonized the Hawaiian islands had held attitudes about preserving culture statically and preventing change and adaptation, there never would have been any uniquely Hawaiian culture pre-1778. This isn’t to say that there might not have been luddites pre-1778 in Hawaii; there very well could have been a movement amongst the original colonists to preserve the Marquesan language, custom and practices, and to prevent any change or adaptation. When the Tahitians came and conquered in the 1300s, there may have similarly been a movement in the islands to resist their influence, and to hearken back to the culture, language and society pre-Tahitian contact.
The same can probably be said of places like Japan, originally colonized by the Chinese culture - had traditionalists ruled the day, and decried adaptation, change and development of culture, there would never have been a distinctly Japanese culture established.
I am proud of the culture, language, customs and society of the Hawaiian islands I was born and raised in, the islands where my ancestors arrived over 100 years ago. I know that this culture will not last forever, and that nothing can stop the change over time. What I do care about is that a core, distinct “Hawaiianess” is maintained - something I believe that mauicougar and I probably agree on. Where we seem to disagree is what that core is. I do not believe that core has anything to do with race. I also don’t believe that core has anything to do with preserving the superficial trappings of culture, such as dress, clothing or religion. I believe that the core distinction of Hawaii is in fact the complete opposite - what I hope Hawaii and Hawaiian culture will be known for in the future, no matter what changes may happen and no matter how we all may adapt, is the complete lack of racial boundaries, the willingness to embrace changes in language and customs, and the perception of all people as human brothers and sisters united by the aloha spirit regardless of religious background.
Think for a moment about pidgin - probably the penultimate example of how language is a superficial and adaptable part of Hawaiian culture. Pidgin doesn’t have limits, boundaries or strict rules of preservation. It changes with time, adapts to new influences, and becomes a common language, a common bond, between people from wide and distant backgrounds. It represents change, openness and a genuine desire to connect with those different than you. This is Hawaii.
Now, Hawaiian culture and history is precious to me, even though I disparage its perpetual maintenance on a racial basis - I believe that every child in Hawaii, regardless of race, should learn olelo Hawaii, and that every person in Hawaii, regardless of race, should have the opportunity to share in pre-1778 traditions such as diet, music, dance, celestial navigation, spirituality or any other valued cultural institution. Where I part ways from folk in OHA, or KSBE, or any other group that values Hawaiian culture and history is when they insist that Hawaiian culture is the sole province of a single racial group.
mauicougar said,
August 21, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
I don’t know if anyone is reading this anymore, but I did want to respond to Jere.
Jere writes that without the adaptation of the first settlers there would never have been a Hawaiian culture - it would have remained Tahitian or Marquesan. Luckily we don’t have to worry about that hypothetical. Hawaiians DID adapt and DID develop a uniquely Hawaiian culture and language, at least portions of which Jere himself wants to maintain. However, in the same breath (or at least in one of his prior responses) he states that if a culture is dying, let it die. How can you hope to maintain some “Hawaiian-ness” in the culture and let it die at the same time? Moreover, if Native Hawaiians are completely assimilated and become simply Hawaiians, i.e. - Hawaii residents, similar to Californians being mere residents of California, how will any “Hawaiian-ness” survive? Hawaii would be the equivalent of California - with no discernible culture other than that of it’s ethnic minorities (who all have a “home base” country to maintain the language and culture even if they don’t do anything to maintain themselves). There is no other place on earth where Hawaiian culture can survive because Hawaiian culture is based on the land, the specific places that Hawaiians recognize as historically important, the plants, the ocean, the fish, and everything else that makes Hawaii unique. You can’t just put a bunch of Hawaiians on another island in the pacific (or on the Mainland) and expect that the culture will survive. It’s the connection to the land - THESE SPECIFIC LANDS that their ancestors were the first to find, inhabit and develop from a bunch of rocks in the pacific into a thriving society - that makes the difference. No one else has that connection. Only Native Hawaiians. Everyone who came after the first Hawaiians came to a land that was already populated, had an established system of government, and an existing culture and language. I think it’s because of this “first inhabitants” connection that Hawaiians have to these islands that they feel that they are a part of this place and seek to protect what little they have left. I don’t know any non-Hawaiians, and that includes non-Hawaiians who have lived here there entire life, who “feel” the connection to these islands the way that the Hawaiians I know do. I don’t like to say this because it takes the issue out of something that is articulable to something that is felt in your soul, not merely thought out in your mind. But, it’s the truth… All the argument in the world will not change that.
One last thing. Even after living in Japan for extended periods of time, I never expected to be able to pass on the culture of that country to the extent that a Japanese could. Neither did I expect to be treated better than (or even equal to) the way native Japanese were treated. I was a guest in their country. I followed their rules. When I was treated differently because I was not Japanese, I didn’t sue them to make them change. Jere asks if I my Japanese wife, and her relatives are not deserving of the same rights that I have? The simple answer is no. She is not connected to this land like I am. She is not indigenous. She is not in jeopardy of losing her culture or her language. In the case of Hawaiian-only programs, she has no expectation of being a recipient. Neither is she going to sue to change the programs. She is in Hawaii and as they say, “When in Hawaii, do as the Hawaiians do.” Jere also asks if I think that my in-laws should get special race-based programs back in Japan? Again, its a simple answer — yes. Why shouldn’t the Japanese government do everything it can to protect it’s native people, language and culture? If that means they get special programs that I am not eligible for, so be it. I won’t sue them to change the programs, because as they say “When in Japan, do as the Japanese do.” I’m sure someone will say, that we’re in the U.S., so we should do as the U.S. does, but that would require us to totally disregard the “Hawaiian-ness” of Hawaii, which even Jere seems to admire.
People who want to sue to dismantle Hawaiian programs are soulless. No matter what higher value (equality, equal protection, civil rights, etc) they say they are fighting for, the truth is that they don’t care about an entire people. Whatever is needed to serve their “higher value” is justifiable, even if it leads to the ultimate destruction of the Hawaiian people. Destroying Hawaiians is just collateral damage in their battle for equal protection. That is not right. That is not pono.
jere said,
September 8, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
E kala mai, mauicougar, but you conflate race with culture - they are not the same thing.
The way you talk about connecting race to culture makes it sound like you don’t believe Mozart can be truly played unless one is Austrian, or that French cannot be truly spoken unless you are native Gallic, or that the Pope cannot be legitimate if he is not Italian.
I understand you hold your position sincerely, but I hope that one day you learn better. That you would discriminate against your own wife and her family is unfortunate, but notably consistent with your point of view - I respect that consistency, even if I abhor your premise.
Culture only expands if its reach is broadened, not limited. If it is the culture of Hawaii you wish to protect, you must expand its reach - not limit it to only those of specific DNA.
The people who want to sue to open up Hawaiian programs to everyone, regardless of race, are fighting for the soul of Hawaii - a soul which will be destroyed if your course of action is held to.
jere said,
September 8, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
mauicougar wrote,
E kala mai, mauicougar, but I doubt your ability to see into the soul of others so definitively. You have no right, nor any divine power to know how any person feels a connection to the Hawaiian islands.
But let me ask you this - would you assume the same thing about native Kauaians versus native Oahuans? Would people who have unbroken ancestry to the first people who landed on Kauai have a better connection to Kauai than those people who can only trace their ancestry back to the first settlers of Oahu, and vice versa?
Or do you make the bold claim that everyone who is part-pre-1778 immigrant ancestry is related to all the initial colonists of the islands by direct descent? If we did a DNA study, and were able to definitively determine who had Kauaian ancestry, who had Oahuan ancestry, and who had Big Island ancestry (traced back to whoever the first people who set foot on the particular island were), would you assert that those with the proper DNA are superior to the others?
And if not, why doesn’t the same apply to post-1778 immigrants, as it did to pre-1778 immigrants?