NationStates Jolt Archive

Kanaka Maoli - Is it a racist term?
----------------------------------------

Aloha kakou a mahalo nui.

"Kanaka Maoli" is a term used by Hawai'ian seperatists to mean "Indigenous
Hawai'ian People".

Kanaka means "Person (http://wehewehe.org/gsdl2.5/cgi-bin/hdict?e=q-0hdict--00-0-0--010---4----den--0-000lpm--1haw-Zz-1---Zz-1-home-kanaka--00031-0000escapewin-00&a=q&d=D6820)".

Maoli means "Real (http://wehewehe.org/gsdl2.5/cgi-bin/hdict?e=q-0hdict--00-0-0--010---4----den--0-000lpm--1haw-Zz-1---Zz-1-home-maoli--00031-0000escapewin-00&a=q&d=D12959)". (at it's base it means true/actual/real/very)

Is the interpretation of "Kanaka Maoli" to mean "Indigenous Person" a racist
coinage?

"Native" means "born here", regardless of race or any other condition. Is it
not racist to insist that the only way to be "kanaka maoli" (a real person) is
to have a bloodline to some people who occupied a particular piece of
land in the past?

And what if America decided one day to arbitrarily state that only "European
Americans" were "Real Persons" due to their ancestors "ultimate conquest" of
the land now known as America, and all other people had the choice of being
non-citizen resident/itinerant aliens, or to leave for their own "homeland"?



Does a minority "indigenous" population have any hope (or right) of "re-
conquering" territory that the normal course of history has "taken from them"?

..and if they do have the right, and do find the means to do so, how is it to
be decided who has "ultimate indigenousness" in competing claims for the
same land?


An interesting read: Hawai'i Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand (http://www.hawaiireporter.com/file.aspx?Guid=aefef5f6-a533-486a-9459-691138355dd1)


-Iakeo :)

Kanaka Maoli - Is it a racist term?
----------------------------------------

Aloha kakou a mahalo nui.

"Kanaka Maoli" is a term used by Hawai'ian seperatists to mean "Indigenous
Hawai'ian People".

Kanaka means "Person (http://wehewehe.org/gsdl2.5/cgi-bin/hdict?e=q-0hdict--00-0-0--010---4----den--0-000lpm--1haw-Zz-1---Zz-1-home-kanaka--00031-0000escapewin-00&a=q&d=D6820)".

Maoli means "Real (http://wehewehe.org/gsdl2.5/cgi-bin/hdict?e=q-0hdict--00-0-0--010---4----den--0-000lpm--1haw-Zz-1---Zz-1-home-maoli--00031-0000escapewin-00&a=q&d=D12959)". (at it's base it means true/actual/real/very)

Is the interpretation of "Kanaka Maoli" to mean "Indigenous Person" a racist
coinage?

"Native" means "born here", regardless of race or any other condition. Is it
not racist to insist that the only way to be "kanaka maoli" (a real person) is
to have a bloodline to some people who occupied a particular piece of
land in the past?

And what if America decided one day to arbitrarily state that only "European
Americans" were "Real Persons" due to their ancestors "ultimate conquest" of
the land now known as America, and all other people had the choice of being
non-citizen resident/itinerant aliens, or to leave for their own "homeland"?



Does a minority "indigenous" population have any hope (or right) of "re-
conquering" territory that the normal course of history has "taken from them"?

..and if they do have the right, and do find the means to do so, how is it to
be decided who has "ultimate indigenousness" in competing claims for the
same land?


An interesting read: Hawai'i Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand (http://www.hawaiireporter.com/file.aspx?Guid=aefef5f6-a533-486a-9459-691138355dd1)


-Iakeo :)


OMG YOUR SPEAKING IN TOUNGES!!!! THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU!! haha but seriously, yea its as racist as the term "Native American". Which any American born here is a Native American, but the term is used to refer to Indians. Also African American's many people believe only blacks are african americans, but there are white African Americans (Or people who were born in Africa and moved to America).
The whole politically correct rhetoric is getting annoying. Those are terms meant to refer to someone by race or ethnicity. Why dont they just say black, or Indian (Albiet you may need to find another term for the American Indians), or MExican, or white? But until those terms become acceptable again..... I'm an Anglo-Saxon, and if you call me any different I'll sue.

I would say no. Most tribal names throughout the world actually translate to either "the people" or "real people". Also, it isn't so much the direct translation that matters (the denotation), but the feeling it carries (connotation). If the term isn't used as being racist, then it isn't.

I would say Haole was closer to racist, but the modern use doesn't seem so.
by the way, I take it you're from the islands?

"Native" means "born here", regardless of race or any other condition. Is it
not racist to insist that the only way to be "kanaka maoli" (a real person) is
to have a bloodline to some people who occupied a particular piece of
land in the past?

And what if America decided one day to arbitrarily state that only "European
Americans" were "Real Persons" due to their ancestors "ultimate conquest" of
the land now known as America, and all other people had the choice of being
non-citizen resident/itinerant aliens, or to leave for their own "homeland"?
Hmm... the problem is that nowadays most people don't approve of conquering foreign lands and killing the previous inhabitants, but that's why we are where we are now. There's a tricky point in the middle (around the time of the European colonisation of the New World) where many people draw the line between 'another ancient atrocity' and 'something we must rectify'. Other people draw the line sometime after the creation of Israel, as it was sometime after that that people (other than those being moved from their homes) starting thinking about the ethics of the issue.

I refuse to feel threatened by a group of people who eat THAT much spam. :p

Is it racist? Probably not. It probably stems from ancient times. Many tribes thought of themselves as the "real" people.

Anyhow, I'm not really worried that a Hawaiian is going to lynch me.

Of course it's not racist. Many Indigenous people began referring to themselves as "real" or "normal" people when they encountered foreigners (who came to seize their land, in most cases).

That information is interesting, though. Seems the word 'Maoli', or variants, is used across the Pacific, as are several other words. Indigenous New Zealanders call themselves Maori, as do Indigenous Cook Islanders. (Similarly, the word 'marae', which refers to an important kind of meeting place, is present both in New Zealand and in the Cook Islands; in Niue, it's 'malae').

The word 'Maori' in New Zealand, incidentally, means "normal". Maori only started calling themselves that when they encountered Pakeha (i.e., White people). Europeans were obviously abnormal, by Maori norms, so the latter became "Maori". ;) Maori also call themselves "tangata whenua", "the people of the land" (as opposed to "tangata tiriti", "the people here by virtue of the Treaty").

I see nothing wrong with that. It would be supremely wrong if non-Indigenous people started telling Indigenous people what to call themselves.


[Edit:] Oh, and "kanak" is the word Indigenous New Caledonians use for themselves. I've forgotten what it actually means, though.

Of course it's not racist. Many Indigenous people began referring to themselves as "real" or "normal" people when they encountered foreigners (who came to seize their land, in most cases).


Why does it being old make it no longer racist. In the 12th century (I think) the citizens of York rounded up 900 Jews and burned them alive. They were being racist and if they refered to a Jew in an anti -semetic way they could not just say it was ancient tradition now could they?

Why does it being old make it no longer racist. In the 12th century (I think) the citizens of York rounded up 900 Jews and burned them alive. They were being racist and if they refered to a Jew in an anti -semetic way they could not just say it was ancient tradition now could they?

Three things.

First, I doubt it was intended as racist in the first place. (Calling themselves "real people" or "normal"). It wasn't when Maori did it in NZ/Aotearoa. The concept of racism didn't even exist. That they saw Europeans as abnormal simply meant they saw them as differing from the norm as they knew it. Doesn't mean they didn't trade with them or accept them into their communities, quite the contrary. So your comparison on that point doesn't stand.

Second, we're not dealing with what they're calling other people (as in your example); we're dealing with what they're calling themselves. And I would find it unacceptable for a non-Indigenous majority to tell an Indigenous minority it has to change the way it calls itself. So your comparison on that point doesn't stand either.

Third, who's talking about violence and killing people? Again, your comparison doesn't stand.

Three things.

First, I doubt it was intended as racist in the first place. (Calling themselves "real people" or "normal"). It wasn't when Maori did it in NZ/Aotearoa. The concept of racism didn't even exist. That they saw Europeans as abnormal simply meant they saw them as differing from the norm as they knew it. Doesn't mean they didn't trade with them or accept them into their communities, quite the contrary. So your comparison on that point doesn't stand.

Second, we're not dealing with what they're calling other people (as in your example); we're dealing with what they're calling themselves. And I would find it unacceptable for a non-Indigenous majority to tell an Indigenous minority it has to change the way it calls itself. So your comparison on that point doesn't stand either.

Third, who's talking about violence and killing people? Again, your comparison doesn't stand.

In responce, whether or not I mentioned violence is irrelevent, the point I was making is that the principal of racism does not alter with time.I would also suggest that racism has always existed whether realised or not. It is probably normal that they would view Europeans as different and thus give themselves a name in comparison, but still racist.First contact is now over, we no longer live in these times. To continue using terms like that espeically in a poltical context I would argue is wrong. Rember they refer to themselves not as "different" people but "real" people.

I refer to people from my country as "Die Leit" ("the people"). Never thought that this could be racist! :eek:

And hey - as long as Hawai'i has sunshine, great beaches, wonderful volcanoes and the Jurrassic-Park-forests, they can call me any name they can think of - it won't stop me from going there and loving it :)

In responce, whether or not I mentioned violence is irrelevent, the point I was making is that the principal of racism does not alter with time.I would also suggest that racism has always existed whether realised or not. It is probably normal that they would view Europeans as different and thus give themselves a name in comparison, but still racist.First contact is now over, we no longer live in these times. To continue using terms like that espeically in a poltical context I would argue is wrong. Rember they refer to themselves not as "different" people but "real" people.
In many cases, the Europeans were seen as the coming of certain assorted gods. Hardly a racist thought if I've ever seen one.

you're reading into the English translation, which is inevitably flawed.

when you only see polynesians for oh, 2000 years, seeing a white person would seem quite odd. Therefore, the white person is the "different" one. "real people" in the English sense doesn't mean the same as Kanaka Maoli in the Hawaiian. Welcome to the world of translations. The proper connotation is lost to denotation.

Of course it's not racist. Many Indigenous people began referring to themselves as "real" or "normal" people when they encountered foreigners (who came to seize their land, in most cases).

Of course it IS racist, but not maliciously so.

It's no more maliciously racist (but nonetheless racist) than the english word "us" used to describe one's family.


That information is interesting, though. Seems the word 'Maoli', or variants, is used across the Pacific, as are several other words. Indigenous New Zealanders call themselves Maori, as do Indigenous Cook Islanders. (Similarly, the word 'marae', which refers to an important kind of meeting place, is present both in New Zealand and in the Cook Islands; in Niue, it's 'malae').

The word 'Maori' in New Zealand, incidentally, means "normal". Maori only started calling themselves that when they encountered Pakeha (i.e., White people). Europeans were obviously abnormal, by Maori norms, so the latter became "Maori". ;) Maori also call themselves "tangata whenua", "the people of the land" (as opposed to "tangata tiriti", "the people here by virtue of the Treaty").

Aloha nui loa, kanaka..!!

I don't consider "kanaka maoli" to be "racist" (malevolently) unless used by
racists.

I consider MOST of the Hawai'ian separatist movement to be racist.


I see nothing wrong with that. It would be supremely wrong if non-Indigenous people started telling Indigenous people what to call themselves.

Absolutely.


[Edit:] Oh, and "kanak" is the word Indigenous New Caledonians use for themselves. I've forgotten what it actually means, though.

"Kanaka" means "person".


-Iakeo

Kanaka Maoli - Is it a racist term?
----------------------------------------

Aloha kakou a mahalo nui.

"Kanaka Maoli" is a term used by Hawai'ian seperatists to mean "Indigenous
Hawai'ian People".

Kanaka means "Person (http://wehewehe.org/gsdl2.5/cgi-bin/hdict?e=q-0hdict--00-0-0--010---4----den--0-000lpm--1haw-Zz-1---Zz-1-home-kanaka--00031-0000escapewin-00&a=q&d=D6820)".

Maoli means "Real (http://wehewehe.org/gsdl2.5/cgi-bin/hdict?e=q-0hdict--00-0-0--010---4----den--0-000lpm--1haw-Zz-1---Zz-1-home-maoli--00031-0000escapewin-00&a=q&d=D12959)". (at it's base it means true/actual/real/very)

Most indigenous people call themselves 'The People' or 'The Real People'. Translate the name of almost any aboriginal group, and that's what you'll find it means. Mapuche indians of southern Chile and Argentina...it means People of the Earth. My own people are the Nehiyawak...the People. It's not racist...it's our name.

No one wants to argue? *walks away dejectedly*

No one wants to argue? *walks away dejectedly*
Haha!

The only possible avenue of argumentation I can think of is to attack the whole concept of ideological "-isms". Whatever racism might mean to different people, it seems to me unnecessary to make an issue of the "us and them" mentality. It's central to our being (both individual and community) and our languages.

Oh, and "kanak" is the word Indigenous New Caledonians use for themselves. I've forgotten what it actually means, though.


"Kanaka" means "person".


Thank you. :)

Anyhow, I'm not really worried that a Hawaiian is going to lynch me.

mostly they stick to muttering 'stupid haole' under their breath when you ride your bike right into the path of the bus