Bad Guavas.... (Week 9)

This may offend you....or not. 

My reflections this week were on the Ancestral Places reading, Chapter 1. I liked how the author established her voice and identity from the very beginning of the book. Oliveira's writing feels argumentative, but not in a combative or disgruntled way, where she seems to be trying to convince the reader to share her convictions more than to simply present interesting information about Hawaiians. Perhaps I felt this way after I had read her introduction. There is an amiable authority in her written voice that is strong, yet humble, which adds to her likeability and kept me interested. She definitely has a passion to improve the Hawaiian condition and in a greater sense give honor to her ancestors. This book is her contribution.

I had a feeling of cautiousness while reading Chapter 1. I believe this feeling comes from being careful around people who are trying to sell me on absolutes. Anyone can notice that Oliveira doesn't mince words regarding her views on what Hawaiians believe per a "Kanaka worldview". In my annotation, I commented that it is interesting for us to consider the philosophical implications of the Kanaka worldview, the stories (including that of creation), and why they were told. As such, the most interesting thing I gathered from this reading was the rampant inconsistency of records (oral and written) and the irreconcilable uncertainty of it all. I mean, there's no way to gather anyone's complete genealogy, don't even bother when we get into the early wā. So really this whole perception of Kanaka ancestry is rooted in a kind of faith and interpretation. Given the existence of so many versions of mele ko'ihonua I can't believe with any confidence that these records are reliable enough to shape my beliefs on cosmology, or more simply serve as the authority for what Hawaiians should believe about the world. Sure, I am cool with the historical piecemealing of mele ko'ihonua, and the creative storytelling of natural evolution over time. But, that may be all.

It seems that some Hawaiians who are committed to an authentic Hawaiian identity buy-in to believing the animistic and polytheistic characteristics of Olivera's Kanaka worldview. Which makes me wonder, is this common? Do many Hawaiian people actually believe in these beings, characters, stories, and gods that they give ho'okupu and pay homage to in hula? Or is it a guise, quietly disregarded as mere fables and folklore and called upon when necessary? And if so, at what point is it okay to simply pick and choose the things we like, and disregard the things we don't like, from this ancient Hawaiian belief system if we want to call ourselves Kanaka? I have a real issue with this, and it comes down to a discussion of worldview. First, I don't think that most people even understand what a worldview is. In many cases, it is thought of as ambiguous and subjective. Which is true for many people, nonetheless, we all have one. In the same way we can think of sense of place  as dynamic and part of our identity (which is a subset of our more comprehensive worldview system), we can think of this thing called worldview; a set of beliefs and values about life and the world, typically inclusive of our beliefs on the origin of life, development of societies and cultures, and our purpose in existence.

In my experience, people who do not spend much time wrestling with the essential "big questions" are easily contented with shallow and inconsistent explanations, which persist because of fancy rhetoric or emotionality. Concerning Hawaiians, some people really believe in Pele as an immortal fire goddess and give her gifts (which could also just be superstition, but who knows?). Others simply think of pele as a term for describing a natural phenomenon involving volcanoes. But, how deep do these beliefs go? What compels people to want to use the Kumulipo, or any other text for that matter, as a spiritual guide, moral compass, or authority on life? Getting back to my original point of cautiousness in the face of absolutism. Despite being a Hawaiian living in Hawaii with a considerable love for Hawaiian culture, I cannot reconcile Olivera's presentation of Hawaiian cosmology with my already developed worldview. I want to be clear that I am not bashing "Hawaiian spirituality" or this particular author's lens of looking at her cultural identity. I need to say that I deeply respect all people in their individual pursuits of truth, whether that be in an ancestral sense or otherwise.

I do agree, however, with Olivera's ideas that in order for people (not just Hawaiians) to understand themselves and their society better, they can learn from the past and their kupuna. Wisdom is ageless. Hawaiian stories are clearly saturated with wonderful truths about how people are to care for their environment and live in harmony with each other. I can see many of the virtues, disciplines, innovations, and successes that defined Hawaiian society within Hawaiian literature and stories. It is these precepts and accomplishments that set Hawai'i apart as special in the world's eyes. Understandably, there is a small tendency for people to sugarcoat Hawaiian history and over glorify only the positive qualities of the ancient days. I do not see the harm in this. Especially if talking about Hawaii's failed struggles (some at no fault of her own) is too difficult. Some things Hawai'i has never recovered from.

But, I have questions about ancient Hawaiian society still. For example, in the Kumulipo there are notable cases of incest between gods, and the later monarchs were notorious for marrying within their families ( a common practice for most other royal monarchies ). Why would incest be recorded in the mele ko'ihonua unless it was meant to convince society of the legitimacy of the practice in order to maintain political power within families? And if this was the name of the game, couldn't the entire premise of Hawaiian genealogy be based on a gross political corruption? And what about the crappy ancestors? Not to sound too disrespectful, but there had to be some bad guavas. I'm sure few contemporary Hawaiians, if any, are lining up to claim those bloodlines. Again, at the risk of sounding trite, I am starting to have a problem with how the word kupuna is used. Nowadays, any old person is called kupuna. Any deceased person is called kupuna. Any elderly teacher or mentor is called kupuna. The collective passing of all the people before us are called kupuna. Everything wise came from the kupuna. And then sometimes, only Hawaiians can be kupuna. And wouldn't all Hawaiians share all Kupuna? I don't know, in practice, this term is quite confusing. It behaves like a ferrofluid, taking solid or fluid form on demand. Give credit where credit is due. But, be clear whose name is on the card.

Lastly, this book caused me to reflect on what makes Hawaiians fundamentally unique from all other people on the planet. My most honest answer to this is...nothing. The values that Hawaiians say are "Hawaiian values" are really universal in their applications and are typically shared by many other groups of people (primarily indigenous animists) all over the world. Sure the expression is different. We could go on and on about that. As I think about these ideas more (beginning long before I started STEMS2) I question why race (particularly in such a mixed up world) is still so highly valued. Especially, because it is continuously used as a tool for segregation, power grabbing, and elitism. The politics of it all is unnerving and angering. In the process of Hawaiians finding a solidarity in ancestral genealogies, language, traditions, and land I hope we can truly stay "relevant" and avoid the tempting trap of trying to relive the past.

The inverted Hawaiian flag represents the Kingdom of Hawaii in distress and is the main symbol of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. Credit: Wikipedia.

Members of the Royal Order of Kamehameha I in 2012. Credit: Wikipedia.