Candace Fujikane & Andrea Smith

 Candace Fujikane's Introduction to Asian Settler Colonialism

A couple classes ago during the Trask reading, the question was brought up about the “forcibly displaced” settler: the refugee, the slave, the persecuted running from genocide in their own lands— would they still be considered colonists? In her Introduction to Asian Settler Colonialism, Professor Candace Fujikane’s argues that they would because A) the definition of indigenous people themselves is the ancestral people who call that land their homeland—not because they “feel” Hawaiian enough, and B) many of the Asians who originally migrated to Hawai’i now play a role in and benefit from the colonist system ruling it. 

When people on the mainland think of Hawai’i, they think diversity. In Washington state, where I’m from, 2011 statistics from the Washington Census Government website listed white people as making up 82% of the population. In Hawai’i, Hawaiians, whites, Japanese, and Filipinos make up at least 20% of the population. Fujikane examines the issue of Asians trying to establish legitimacy for their place in Hawai’i. Because of a claim to being “local,” the political and economic success of Asians over the years contribute to an illusion that Hawai’i is thriving and multicultural. The term “multicultural” state is critiqued, because it can give the illusion that the indigenous people have been exterminated, and now all have claim to the land.  Civil Rights are used for other ethnic groups to stake a claim to Hawaiian land. In Rice vs. Cayetano, Cayetano contended that OHA should be opened up to non-Hawaiians because voting based on “race,” is illegal under the 15^th amendment. The Hawaiians have now been classified as merely another racial group.

In the timeline of events that happened, the immigrant flight to Hawai’i is a sympathetic one. Sugar plantations meant cheap labor was needed, cheap labor to toil away in conditions that were “unfit” for the white settlers. Gunboat diplomacy, traced back to the imperialist interests of the US and other Western European powers, drove first the Chinese, and then Japanese to Hawai’i. Finally, when those two populations looked like they would get too big to control, the Koreans were approached as well, by means of illustrating immigrant to Hawai’i as a way to maintain independence from the Japanese government. The Filipinos were approached last.  If we trace the historical accounts, Fujikane shows the following:

From the 1920s – 60s: White settlers wrote their own historical accounts

1970s – 90s: Scholars wrote about their own ethnics groups

90s - Today:  A focus on mixed ethnicities and this concept of the “local” identity are center stage

Local Nation— “We working people struggled for and built Hawai’i” (2)

I’d like to talk about Hawai’i as this state separated from the mainland and this image of an island state— What other places inspire the same claim to “local” background that many Asians and other ethnicities on the islands so strongly feel? In the words of Benjamin Cayetano:  “I’ve lived in Hawai’i long enough to feel I am Hawaiian.” (9) When looking at the mainland United States, many people, even though they have lived there for generations, could not propose to  claim some sort of solidarity with the Native Americans—although I suppose they try, after reading about Deloria’s encounters with people who claimed “1/10 Cherokee blood on my grandmother’s side,” ect. And claims to locality are apparent in small town locations, such as Cordova, Alaska, small towns in the deep South, or even places as big as New York city, because those people get the cultural mindset that governs their everyday lives. Is that what being “local” means to Fujikane’s “third space” settlers?  Is it just the grasp of where the best hidden surfing spots are, or knowing what opihi is? Is it because it is an island state that makes Hawai’i seem to have such a distinct culture compared to the rest of the mainland it is connected to through name? 

Is it more a question of the 1970 Asian laborer working class rallying around a “local” identity, trying to find a culture they could identify with when they had never seen their ancestral homeland, and their ethnicities were fast becoming mixed—Half Japanese, a quarter German, a quarter Puerto Rican—who to identify with? Trask, of course, hits the nail on the head when she critiques the “third space,” warning that a settler is still a settler, and privileged classes were often using claims to locality to claim a history of oppression for themselves.

Huli

Imaikalani Kalahele

If to help us is your wish then stand behind us

            Not to the side

                        And not in front.

Referring to the poem, Huli, it is pointed out that Hawaiians must possess the right to self-determination without aid, or else groups trying to help will taint the mission with their own self-interests.  Fujikane relates that  Asians supportive of Hawaiian movements still contribute to the colonial power the US holds over Hawaii— teachers, administrators, and others may not see themselves as political, but they still benefit from the system. “Until the Hawaiians regain their lands and nations can Asian settlers liberate themselves from their roles as agents in a colonial system of violence.” (5) Fujikane draws the conclusion that again, A) Asian settlers must recognize their role in the colonist state, and B) hold leaders and community members accountable when they pursue colonial interests.

"Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy" by Andrea Smith

Oppression Olympics 

Andrea Smith advocates for women who have suffered from white oppression to rally together against continued victimization, but the task is easier said than done. Often, she notes, in her article, "Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillar of White Supremacy:” “We are too busy fighting over who is more oppressed.” (1) Below I have provided a summary of the three pillars white supremacists use to maintain claims to power: 

Pillar One: Slavery and Capitalism 

Smith purposefully places these two concepts in the same pillar. Through slavery, white supremacists claim that black people are property. Although the Civil War has been fought and a Civil Rights Movement endured, Smith points out that slavery has merely changed its shape in today’s contemporary society: the prison system. Indeed, statistically speaking, black people are much more likely to face prison time than white people. A horrid sort of racial hierarchy has been established, and black is at the bottom. This way, white supremacists can still beckon to other ethnic groups with the hope that they can climb higher on the racial pyramid, and thus the capitalism cycle founded on exploitation continues.

Pillar Two: Genocide and Colonialism 

The second pillar conveys the “logic of genocide,” the reasoning behind why indigenous people must vanish so their lands can be claimed. Kate Shanley is quoted in the idea of a “present absence.” The native people are disappearing, so there is justification in seizing their lands.  

Pillar Three: Orientalism and War 

Smith chose Orientalism and War for the last pillar, to illustrate how the U.S. uses the myth that white culture is superior to the Oriental to justify a perpetual state of warfare, because the U.S constantly has to protect itself from these eastern “enemies” posing a threat to the stability of the empire.

Smith reaches a conclusion that several of our other authors have reached: Indigenous people, or in this article, ethnic minorities, must recognize the colonist state and operate outside of it, operate outside the pillars, in order to reach self-determination.

Personal Disagreement 

The one area in this article I took issue with was the part about the nuclear family model being a perpetuation of white interests. Of course, I have a definite bias here, as I am fiercely protective of my family, who falls under this model. I understand what Smith is trying to say, and she brings up interesting ways of thinking about this “traditional” family model as being only another way for white interests to exercise power, but I took issue with the wording. I think a better way to phrase  “we can reconstitute alternative ways of living in which the family is not an island alone” would be “The mindset that the nuclear family model is the only correct way to have a family is what is so dangerous.” (8) 

I do agree: Ethnic groups should be able to determine what a family is without having white culture dictate that for them. If a father, mother, sister, and brother is determined to be that family, than that is an example of that model of family existing in an indigenous community and not threatening it with colonialist interests. Especially with the issue of gay/lesbian marriage or biracial families, it is not only white people who haven’t embraced them as a culturally accepted way of family, as many other ethnicities, too, have their struggles with accepting the sexuality of their children. Is that an effect of colonialism? It’s hard to say.  Parents, especially of the older generations, are sometimes influenced by their ethnic group’s own background and traditions. Smith could point out the influence of Christian churches, but she uses the term “Christian” too broadly. As someone who has an aunt who is an Episcopalian priest, I have seen her and her community fighting on the frontlines for opening the gates of the church to all sorts of relationships. “We need a model based on community relationships and mutual respect” is what Smith concludes, and I agree fully, I would just point out that it is the mindset that one way of life is the only acceptable one which is the danger, not that lifestyle itself. (8)