Hawaii Reporter, February 18, 2010
Are Hawaiians Becoming Legendary?
By J. Arthur Rath, III
Author’s note: These reflections by life-time friends “of the blood” carry overtones of James Fennimore Cooper’s “Last of the Mohicans.” I bring their perspectives to readers who may not know a “real Hawaiian.”
Data for the new U.S. Census are being gathered; results on actual Hawaiians will be as fictional as it has since 1970.
Pure Hawaiians will be so few out of once so many—drifting like hacked pieces of a wrecked canoe rocked by the monstrous waves of non-Hawaiians. You hear wail about the whales and commendable enthusiasm for conserving the animal species in local waters. Why should they be more worthy of conservation than a race appearing on the verge of extinction?
Hawaiians used to be so many in number, but are so few now. Few souls seem to care, or even to count their heads separately.
Pride went with the Queen’s humanitarian sacrifice of throne in 1893 for saving the lives of friends and foes. We mentally relive the humiliating loss of sovereignty over our own race and land.
Some icy souls exterminated Hawaiians from the Book of Races rewritten in 1970—they were not deemed worthy of counting separately (U.S. Census Report has lumped all parts together). A new race was created for purposes of seeking federal largesse:—“Native Hawaiiians.” We Hawaiians are supposed to be no different from part-Hawaiians, now dubbed with a capital N—“Native Hawaiians” –who may have as little as 1/128th Hawaiian blood. They check the "NH box" in the senseless Census.
Some of us are buried alive under such monuments as “Others,” or “Not Reported.” in other professional statistics.
The age of plant rights and animal power calls for conservation of Hawaii’s Wildlife and Plants. What about us? What about conservation of a human race that has died away so much in a land where their roots are so deep?
I have never dreamed of any animal or plant species deserving conservation more than a human race once tied to its ocean and land—and once so generous as Hawaiians.
Some Congressional Records indicate that the Hawaiian Home Commission Act, 1920, was designed, at least in part, to increase our numbers. Our number has numbed down from the original 1920 figure of 23,723 and with so few benefiting. It was in limbo for such a long time. HCA danced at the pace of “slow, slow, never quick” with limited resources. Unlimited bureaucracy and very little in available mortgage money was available to build homes.
Hawaiians may vanish rather soon unless something is done. Now political geniuses have created the new breed called “Native Hawaiian”—we can’t count on any preference on the basis of who we are or by our vulnerability. Our destiny may lie in being part of this new mix...
The relentless scientific fact is that once lost for ever not a single drop of our pure blood shall ever be reproduced with the same purity. Our number is too close to the point of zero to grow.
Eventually, the average Hawaiian blood percentage among part-Hawaiians shall become thinner and thinner until it slips off the 50% mark. Then, one day, every part-Hawaiian shall become mostly something else and the new term “Native Hawaiian” will be hard to say with a straight face.
So many sophisticated true “weeds” have outgrown our race to suck so much cream out of the fertile and milky Canaan called “Hawaii.” Those behind us may be reduced into victims of malnutrition, metaphorically speaking.
As for the survival for revival? With even minimal numbers, it appears dim. Left unchecked, the remaining years of Hawaiians such as us are numbered—even when we tell our young people “you may need to choose between romance and balance.”
Some of our one-time guest are said to be looking down on us as if they were the hosts and we are sort of strangers in our own homeland.
...Are you stirred? Good? You read Hawaii Reporter for mental stimulation and information you can’t find just anywhere. Write Hawaii-based writer me if you wish: J. Arthur Rath, III,
Hawaii Reporter, February 19, 2010
In Defense of Impure Hawaiians and Weeds
Reply to J. Arthur Rath's essay lamenting the passing of "pure Hawaiians" and Hawaii's infestation with newcomer "weeds."
By Ken Conklin
Hawaii Reporter guest editorial columnist J. Arthur Rath III seems like a really nice guy. That's why it pains me to write this much-needed reply to his Hawaii Reporter essay of February 18, 2010, entitled "Are Hawaiians Becoming Legendary?"
The whole point of Mr. Rath's essay was to lament the decline (and eventual disappearance) of the number of native Hawaiians who have 100% native blood.
Mr. Rath repeatedly refers to the 100 percenters as "pure" Hawaiians. The obvious implication of that label is that approximately half a million other ethnic Hawaiians should be labeled "impure" -- somehow polluted by the admixture of the other parts of their genealogies. Since Mr. Rath bears the non-Hawaiian name "Rath", and also judging by his photo, he must logically regard himself as inferior. Such self-loathing is sad but unfortunately common. I wonder just what percentage of impurity fills his veins, and whether he might call Roto-Rooter or do a dialysis to remove it.
Mr. Rath also says "So many sophisticated true 'weeds' have outgrown our race to suck so much cream out of the fertile and milky Canaan called “Hawaii.” Who are those "weeds"? Since he uses the phrase "our race" including himself by contrast to the "weeds", and since Mr. Rath himself has less than 100% native blood, he's clearly using the word "weeds" to refer to everyone lacking a drop of the magic blood. Like me. And I resent that. Mr. Rath ended his essay by asking "Are you stirred?" to invite comment. Yes, Mr. Rath, I am stirred (to reply), but not shaken (out of my fundamental commitment to civil rights).
I'll need to reconsider whether Mr. Rath really is a nice man or whether he only seems to be. One of the terrible things about the Akaka bill (there are many) is that it would give governmental powers to people with this sort of attitude -- people who regard 80% of Hawaii's population as "weeds" -- people who wish they could somehow rip out and throw away not only those weeds, but also the weedy portion of their own blood. Most ethnic Hawaiians do not share Mr. Rath's contempt for non-natives. But the government established under the Akaka bill will be based entirely on race and therefore will be headed by the most radical racial partisans -- they are the ones the rest of us must defend ourselves against.
There was a little book published in 2003 as a Christmas stocking stuffer which does the job much better than Mr. Rath. It's entitled "Then There Were None" by Martha H. Noyes (based on Elizabeth Lindsey Buyers TV docudrama). The book is mostly photos arranged in chronological order, with small portions of text describing historical events that accompanied (caused?) the decline of "pure Hawaiians."
Page 11 consists entirely of this statement, centered as though in a picture frame made of tapa cloth: "In 1778 there were between 400,000 and 1,000,000 Hawaiians in these islands. By 1822 there were only 200,000 pure Hawaiians left alive." Page 35 in its entirety: "By 1836 there were only 108,000 pure Hawaiians left alive." Page 79 in its entirety: "By 1922 there were only 24,000 pure Hawaiians left alive." The final population figure is given as the entirety of the first page of content, which dedicates the book "To the five thousand piha kanaka maoli [pure-blood Hawaiians] who remain"
The book is a real tear-jerker, intended to make haoles feel collective guilt for the decline of the Hawaiians, so we'll support demands of the tycoons of the Hawaiian grievance industry for money, land, and political sovereignty. What would make me really cry is if Congress and the State of Hawaii grant those demands. Readers might enjoy my detailed book review of "Then There Were None" at
People like Arthur Rath, Martha Noyes, and Elizabeth Lindsey Buyers who lament the decline in the number of "pure Hawaiians" have a lot of explaining to do. The only way to stop "pure Hawaiians" from producing "impure" children would have been to stop them from reproducing entirely, or to somehow imprison them or fit them with chastity belts to ensure they mate only with other "pure Hawaiians." Try doing that with ali'i like Bernice Pauahi BISHOP, Lydia Kamaka'ehu DOMINIS Lili'uokalani, and Miriam Likelike CLEGHORN who produced the lovely Princess Victoria Cleghorn (Ka'iulani).
I encourage readers to listen to a series of one-minute audios, most accompanied by YouTube videos, regarding the issue of race in relation to the Akaka bill. Perhaps the best responses to Mr. Rath are the audio "Hawaiian enough?" noting that even a full-blooded descendant of Kamehameha The Great could be expelled from the Akaka tribe by tribal leaders; and the video about Saint Damien noting that he would not be eligible to join the Akaka tribe; and the video about Hawaiian Kingdom hero and founder 'Olohana (who?) who also would not be eligible to join the Akaka tribe, even though he is buried with the Kings in Mauna Ala (Royal Mausoleum) and his tomb, in the shape of a heiau, is guarded by a pair of pulo'ulo'u (sacred taboo sticks).
By the way, Damien and 'Olohana were Rath weeds, although Damien did not spread his seed and 'Olohana did. The entire collection is at
Dr. Conklin's book "Hawaiian Apartheid: Racial Separatism and Ethnic Nationalism in the Aloha State" is in the Hawaii Public Library, and also at
(c) Copyright 2010
Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D.
All rights reserved
Send comments or questions to:
You may now
GO BACK TO OTHER TOPICS ON THIS WEBSITE
(c) Copyright 2010 Kenneth R. Conklin, Ph.D. All rights reserved