08-24-2015, 04:33 PM
Shockwave rider, that's some impressive ethnic social work credentials you outline there. I can see where you get your passionate perspective from. It's not uncommon among relative newcomers or those from the outside looking in to end up overcompensating a little in the noble effort to sympathize with a perceived underdog.
As far as stereotypes, "Conquered people" thrown in with plenty other damaged and victimized language especially caught my eye. I find all that very patronizing and actually quite demeaning, despite the sympathetic intentions.
My mistake about "the Hawaiians". I forgot to include "Native" in there. So, i meant "the Native Hawaiians", "the" included.
"...about the Native Hawaiians and their pain...
In answer to my question you said: "To me, Hawaiians are descendants of the people who were living in Hawaii prior to the arrival of Captain Cook. Descendants of everyone who came later are the children and grandchildren of immigrants to Hawaii, and we will never be Hawaiians, although we can be residents of Hawaii."
Ok. So what of the majority of the people who have Hawaiian ancestry and are also "descendants of [anyone] who came later"? Does the pain of, say, an individual with 10% Hawaiian ancestry trump that of the remaining 90% ancestry in that individual which came later...which will never be Hawaiian? Do we get to cherry pick our mixed ancestry, emotionally self-identifying with the "native" portion and ignore the rest? Otherwise I would imagine someone with ancestry both native and directly linked to actual missionaries could get quite confused as far as their genetic and cultural emotion goes. pain AND guilt... what a combo to carry forth in this life from our respective genealogies.
As far as anyone telling anyone else what and how they should feel, I must say I detect much more of that coming from this sovereignty/cultural renaissance movement than anywhere else.
-----------------
As far as stereotypes, "Conquered people" thrown in with plenty other damaged and victimized language especially caught my eye. I find all that very patronizing and actually quite demeaning, despite the sympathetic intentions.
My mistake about "the Hawaiians". I forgot to include "Native" in there. So, i meant "the Native Hawaiians", "the" included.
"...about the Native Hawaiians and their pain...
In answer to my question you said: "To me, Hawaiians are descendants of the people who were living in Hawaii prior to the arrival of Captain Cook. Descendants of everyone who came later are the children and grandchildren of immigrants to Hawaii, and we will never be Hawaiians, although we can be residents of Hawaii."
Ok. So what of the majority of the people who have Hawaiian ancestry and are also "descendants of [anyone] who came later"? Does the pain of, say, an individual with 10% Hawaiian ancestry trump that of the remaining 90% ancestry in that individual which came later...which will never be Hawaiian? Do we get to cherry pick our mixed ancestry, emotionally self-identifying with the "native" portion and ignore the rest? Otherwise I would imagine someone with ancestry both native and directly linked to actual missionaries could get quite confused as far as their genetic and cultural emotion goes. pain AND guilt... what a combo to carry forth in this life from our respective genealogies.
As far as anyone telling anyone else what and how they should feel, I must say I detect much more of that coming from this sovereignty/cultural renaissance movement than anywhere else.
-----------------