Cohabitation

By James Quirk

Introduction

In 1778, Captain Cook became the first man of European descent to set foot in the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi. While this event marked the beginning of a mutualistic relationship between Hawaiʻi and several global western powers, eventually capitalist and colonial expansion drove a revolt against the monarchy which enabled the United States to annex the kingdom illegally in 1898. According to the 2020 census, only 10% of people living in Hawaiʻi identify as Kānaka Maoli, the Hawaiian word for Native Hawaiian (“Quick Facts: Hawaii”). Of the population of Hawaiʻi, 37% identifies as pure Asian, 25% identifies as pure white, and 24% identifies as two or more races. As the people of Hawaiʻi have been forced to adapt to haole (non-native resident of Hawaiʻi) exploitation and occupation, its economy and society have been redefined to model western systems of power. This paper outlines the historical and contemporary relationship between Kānaka Maoli and haole and discusses how cohabitation has shaped the modern social and economic state of the archipelago.

Context

While the tendency of many Americans is to compare the marginalization of Hawaiians to that of racial minorities, the legal definition of “Hawaiian” is opposite to that of racial identities such as “African American.” Similar to their perception of Native Americans, the United States qualifies the validity of every Native Hawaiian using a blood quantum, which diminishes generationally. Historical American policy categorized anyone with “one drop” of Black blood as African American; however, this paradigm would be an impediment to the capitalist endeavors of the United States if applied to Hawaiians.

In accordance with the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA) of 1920, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) is responsible for the redistribution of land to Native Hawaiians at the rate of one dollar per year. In order to minimize the number of people who are entitled to this land, the HHCA defines Hawaiians as anyone “having at least 50 percent Hawaiian blood” (“Hawaiian Homes Commission Act”). The high threshold provides legal justification for the privileged, white elite to dispossess Hawaiians of their land. The barrier to entry has proven successful, with only 8,000 people being granted land through the commission since its inception in 1920, claims Wesleyan University professor and author of Hawaiian Blood, J. Kēhaulani Kauanui (Kauanui 24). This classification of Native Hawaiians both continues the colonial expansion of the empire and delegitimizes Hawaiians’ identity to further the Americanizaiton of the archipelago.

Some Hawaiians who are more than 50% Hawaiian support the threshold because it prevents the inclusion of Hawaiians who have “one native ancestor in 500” (Kauanui 193). However, the majority of Hawaiians, including many who are over 50% Hawaiian, believe that “Hawaiianness” isn’t something to prove and that blood quantum undermines the historical cultural importance of genealogy.

Genealogy

Genealogy demonstrates how cohabitation has resulted in a spectrum of “Hawaiianness” that blood quantum seeks to eliminate. Hawaiians place great importance in their ancestral heritage, whether it is in determining social status or illustrating their lineage through their tattoos. “Many Kānaka Maoli, if not most, can connect to an Ali’i ancestor and trace their mo’okūauhau further back than ten generations,” claims Kauanui (Kauanui 202). This commitment to situating oneself within one’s ancestral lineage is a stark difference from the minimal role that Americans’ ancestors tend to play in our individualist society. Because the capitalist society in America is based on tenets of self-sufficiency and monogamous, heteropatriarchal households, families are usually more oriented around strictly parent-child households that children leave upon adulthood. According to the 2020 census, Hawaiʻi was the only state where every county was in the upper quartile of multigenerational households (Washington). This community identity not only further demonstrates the disconnection of colonizers in Hawaiʻi but strengthens the Native Hawaiian identities that blood quantum intends to eliminate. As stated by Kauanui, “One cannot have an ancestor from ten generations without also having the same line be just one generation away” (Kauanui 202). In situating themselves within the fabric of their family, younger generations of Hawaiians view themselves as a link in the chain of their heritage rather than a further dilution of their bloodline.

Aside from connection to one’s ancestors, genealogy is also a tool for Hawaiians to connect with their contemporary relatives. The collective recognition of numerous Hawaiian lineages throughout generations of history allows Kānaka Maoli who are generations removed as relatives to find common ground through their shared heritage. Whereas “the conversation tends to stop once the fractional answer is produced” when discussing blood quantum, conversations about heritage are “the means by which one gets to kinship” (Kauanui 60). This genealogy also informs the social hierarchy between Hawaiians of different backgrounds, once again raising the question of how haole fit into Hawaiian society.

Acceptance of Mixed-race Hawaiians

Throughout history, Hawaiians have demonstrated their acceptance of people from mixed backgrounds. For example, in the 1874 election deciding King William Lunalilo’s successor after his death, the two candidates for the throne were Queen Emma and David Kālakaua. While Kālakaua was completely Hawaiian and the son of a high chief, Queen Emma, the daughter of an Englishman, was also the great-great niece of King Kamehameha I and was correspondingly considered to be from a higher genealogy (Dabagh). Her status was in no way diminished by her father’s background because of the Hawaiian value in genealogy. David Kālakaua won the election 39-6, but the reasons cited for Queen Emma’s loss were her intention to distance Hawaiʻi from American influence and her sex (Kauanui 79). In fact, the result of the election led to public outcry and riots. The priority of the Hawaiian people was Queen Emma’s loyalty to Hawaiʻi rather than an Hawaiian monarch. However, the priority of the American-backed legislation was to protect Hawaiian-American relations. This willingness to place power in the hands of someone who herself would barely qualify for the HHCA demonstrates the extent to which blood quantum fails to capture what defines Native Hawaiians.

This narrative is supported through the anecdote with which Kauanui commences her first chapter (Kauanui 56). She describes a blonde-haired blue-eyed woman who received special attention from two Hawaiian women at an event. A woman from the continental United States perceived this interaction as a demonstration of the power dynamic between white and Hawaiian individuals in Hawaiʻi, but in reality, the woman was Hawaiian and received special attention because her Hawaiian ancestors were of higher rank than those of the Hawaiian women. Once again, this dynamic demonstrates the limitations of the imposition of a blood quantum to qualify “Hawaiianness.”

Kauanui expands on the notion of “mixed-blooded” Hawaiians, making a distinction between public perception of the trajectory of the Hawaiian identity and the reality of its future. She criticizes the “genocidal logic” of Elizabeth Kapuʻuwailani Lindsey’s film Then There Were None which details the “story of a race displaced and now on the verge of extinction” (Lindsey). Lindsey cites “the extinction of ‘full-blooded Hawaiians’ in the islands by the mid-twenty-first century” as proof of the end of Hawaiian culture (Kauanui 35). However, pointing to the fact that “full-blooded” Hawaiians are not the only Hawaiians, Kauanui criticizes the film for being “a romantic desire for extinction” (Kauanui 35). Lindsey’s perspective reflects a colonial perception of Hawaiians as a people who can be defined by their blood, as though white “blood” is in some way superior to Native “blood” and will result in their erasure.

Meanwhile, Kauanui presents Hawaiians’ future through the lens of Hawaiʻi’s historical and contemporary multicultural exchange. Since the 19th century, colonialism has stripped Hawaiians of their culture and sovereignty, but she does not consider interracial procreation to render future generations any less Hawaiian. Considering “mixed-blooded” Hawaiians as Hawaiians, “the population of Hawaiians will more than double in the next fifty years” (Kauanui 36). The conditions of identity are inherently vague, and this discussion prompts the question of who is endowed with the right to decide who is or is not Hawaiian. That being said, when given the opportunity to await Hawaiians’ “extinction” or reframe their existence in the context of a global society, we continue to embody the cultural inheritance characteristic of Hawaiian culture.

American Infiltration of Hawaiian Culture

Despite the persistence of Hawaiian ideals, there are ways in which cohabitation with Americans has led western ideals to infiltrate their culture. As mentioned, genealogy is an important factor in the maintenance of social hierarchy in Hawaiʻi, so few men were capable of marrying above their ranks. Because they married freely below their social class, women were capable of social mobility in a way that rarely extended to men. Additionally, unlike American culture, heritage was matrilineal and patrilineal, meaning that each side of every Hawaiian family equally impacted the social status of each new generation. These factors led to women holding a valuable role in society.

However, because the creation of a heteropatriarchal society furthered the agenda of capitalism, colonialists imposed American ideals of patriarchal inheritance and family-unit living on the people of Hawaiʻi (Speed 125). The equal footing of women was undermined when “female subordination was encouraged” and unlike the historical practice of following both matrilineal and patrilineal heritage, “naming practices eventually privileged the paternal side” (Kauanui 58).

Another domain which demonstrates the cohabitation between Native Hawaiians and haole is education. Unlike the continental United States, where many Native Americans were forcibly displaced into boarding schools off their land, where they could be isolated from their people, westernized, and christianized, the isolation of Hawaiʻi in the Pacific Ocean led the American government to find another way to thrust their ideals onto Native Hawaiians. Their tactic of choice was to take control of the Hawaiian education system internally, starting to exert influence as early as the 1840s, fifty years before their annexation (Morgan). By the time of the annexation, thirteen of the seventeen schools in Honolulu taught in English, and the government had programs to Americanize local teachers and encourage continental white teachers, known as “tourist teachers,” to move to Hawaiʻi (Morgan). By seizing control of the schools, the government was able to shift Hawaiian children’s perception of themselves to be as Americans, even before they were Americans. Learning in English rather than Hawaiian, the next several generations of Native Hawaiians were deprived of the primary tool they had to transmit their heritage. Additionally, the normalization of the English language further bolstered American integration into Hawaiian society.

In the modern day, education is still the source of debates about the cohabitation of Hawaiians and colonizers. A prime example of this is Kamehameha Schools, a private school system established by Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop in 1887 (Osorio). The school receives a portion of the profit of businesses constructed on the land of Princess Bishop, which accounts for 9% of the land in the archipelago, making it one of the ten wealthiest academic institutions in the United States, rivaled only by Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, and other prestigious post-secondary institutions. Given its resources, the Kamehameha School System is reputed for its academic excellence. However, the schools exclusively admit Native Hawaiian students. This policy has resulted in conflict in Hawaiʻi. The admissions policy was named a violation of constitutional rights in court in 2005, only for the decision to be overturned in 2006. The argument of Native Hawaiians was that the lack of a blood quantum placed on admissions meant that the school is not exclusionary based on race, as “Hawaiian only does not necessarily mean only Hawaiian” (Kauanui 36). Once again exemplifying the acceptance of people from mixed backgrounds, the decision demonstrates how Hawaiians perceive their forced assimilation into American society. While they seek autonomy, they do not claim that “mixed-blood” Hawaiians are not Hawaiians.

Decolonization

The cohabitation between Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians also poses a unique challenge to independence movements. In Rice v. Cayetano, the Supreme Court ruled that “Hawaiʻi’s denial of Rice’s right to vote in OHA trustee elections violates the Fifteenth Amendment” despite Rice not being of Hawaiian descent (“Rice v. Cayetano”). Unlike Native Americans, whose annexations were violations of treaties, the annexation of Hawaiʻi was not related to any treaties, meaning the Hawaiian people are still not recognized by the federal government as Indigenous peoples. As a result, Hawaiians are not entitled to self-governance, meaning colonizers have control over the future of their sovereignty.

Furthermore, because Kānaka Maoli are outnumbered by haole, they cannot win sovereignty disputes without votes from non-Hawaiians. As a result, there is a neocolonial relationship between Hawaiians and haole where natives cannot enact change in their community without the support of their colonizers. Yet colonizers’ opposing priorities render progress impossible. In the Stanford Law Review, Hawaiian poet Haunani-Kay Trask demonstrated this paralysis by stating, “Haole environmentalists... tend to get nervous when Hawaiians begin to talk about indigenous claims, about the influx of haole and Asian settlers who demand more housing and land when our own people are homeless in our homeland” (Trask). The cohabitation in Hawaiʻi creates dissent which impedes the improvement of Hawaiians’ lives.

Author’s Note

In outlining a brief history of American imperialism in Hawaiʻi, I hope to have shared the continued growth of Hawaiian culture and to have situated the role that haole continue to play in a society they inherited from colonizers. I want to emphasize that my definition of the word “cohabitation” for the purpose of this paper is purely the act of inhabiting the same place at the same time; I do not wish to use it as it is often employed to indicate a mutually beneficial relationship.

I am not Hawaiian, nor have I been to Hawaiʻi, and as a result, I am merely sharing my opinion based on the research I have conducted over the last month. As a Dartmouth student, I have had the privilege of learning from the ‘25s and ‘26s in Hōkūpaʻa. As fellow Dartmouth students who will engage with the same community, although the definition of “Hawaiian” is disputed, I would urge you not to consider the mixing of cultures in Hawaiʻi as an indication that Hawaiians are a people on the brink of extinction. This notion only delegitimizes movements for sovereignty, relegates the Hawaiian culture to the past, and furthers American imperialism on the archipelago. Despite the government’s efforts to seize control of the Hawaiian people and their resources, the persistence of their cultural beliefs has enabled them to place themselves despite forced integration into American society. I want to end this essay with a poem written by Kanaka Maoli poet Dr. Jamaica Heolimeleikalani Osorio that demonstrates mixed-blooded Hawaiian self-perception and to what extent the Hawaiian identity supersedes modern colonial perception.

“im 5 shades too dark to be worth anything
and 10 shades too light to be legit...
they say my father isnt hawaiian
call him foreign
so what am i?
we've learn to count quantum like pennies,
see with our skin
but my father
holds this soil in his blood
its stories in his hearts
and its beauty is his eyes.” (Osorio)

Works Cited

Dabagh, Jean. “A King is Elected: One Hundred Years Ago.” University of Hawaii Manoa Library Database, 1974, https://evols.library.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/93c22645-64ff-4924-a348-a8b4248f3b5d/content.

“Hawaiian Homes Commission Act.” Department of Hawaiian Homelands, 1920, https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/hhc/laws-and-rules/.

Kauanui, J. Kēhaulani. “Hawaiian Blood.” Duke University Press, 2008.

Lindsey, Elizabeth Kapu‘uwailani. “Then There Were None.” Pacific Islanders in Communication, 2013, https://www.piccom.org/programs/then-there-were-none.

Morgan, Michelle. Americanizing the Teachers: Identity, Citizenship, and the Teaching Corps in Hawai‘i, 1900–1941. Western Historical Quarterly, 2014, https://doi.org/10.2307/westhistquar.45.2.0147.

Osorio, Emma Kauana. “Struggle for Hawaiian Cultural Survival.” Ballard Brief, 31 July 2023, ballardbrief.byu.edu/issue-briefs/struggle-for-hawaiian-cultural-survival.

Osorio, Jamaica. “Day 68: for my father.” Mai Ka Po Mai Ka ‘Oʻiaʻiʻo, 27 September, 2009, http://jamaicaosoriopoetry.blogspot.com/2009/09/day-68-for-my-father.html.

“Quick Facts: Hawaii.” United States Census Bureau, 2022, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/HI/PST045222.

"Rice v. Cayetano." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1999/98-818.

Speed, Shannon. “Keywords for Gender and Sexuality Studies.” NYU Press, pp. 125-128, 2021, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2tr51hm.40.

Trask, Haunani-Kay. “Coalition-Building between Natives and Non-Natives.” Stanford Law Review, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1197-1213, July 1991, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1229037origin=crossref&seq=10.

Washington, Chanell et al. “Several Generations Under One Roof.” United States Census Bureau, June 2023, https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/06/several-generations-under-one-roof.html.