Part III: “From a Native Daughter”

            The chapter entitled From a Native Daughter demonstrates how historians distort Kānaka Maoli history in order to present a “perfected” image of itself.  In addition, Trask highlights that historians are perceived to be the dominant authority within their field of knowledge. Therefore, every aspect of historiography, especially that which is written, can only be issued and owned by historians. Not by those they are writing about. Ultimately, Trask argues that these ideologies are problematic because historians perpetuate Western/ Eurocentric models of thinking, and writing which further oppresses the people that they are writing about. In the next chapter, Trask expresses the same views towards Anthropologists and how they too exploit culture, and peoples through the promotion of these same modes of thought.

            Trask introduces the chapter by setting up a dichotomous relationship between what she had learned about her people’s historical past through the eyes of her ʻohana, and what she had been taught in school. On one side, her moʻolelo calls forth positive images of the people of old and how they worked together as a unit and celebrated the natural world. On the other side, Trask recalls her experiences entrenched in a colonial educational system as she “learned that the ʻpagan Hawaiians’ did not read or write, were lustful cannibals, traded in slaves, and could not sing. Captain Cook had ʻdiscovered’ Hawaiʻi, and the ungrateful Hawaiians had killed him. In revenge, the Christian god had cursed the Hawaiians with disease and death.” (114) This dichotomy is important because it is still perpetuated today. Trask believes that this system will continue to repeat itself as curriculum instruction upholds dominant Western theory and practice. Trask goes on to explain how she articulated both worlds, that of the Kānaka and that of the haole, by furthering her education to pursue a Ph.D. It seems that it was not until she fulfilled a higher education outside of her homeland that she was able to come to grips with these two worlds.

            Upon realizing how she had been so indoctrinated by the haole world, she quotes Fanon to describe how her culture had been stripped from her through U.S. assimilation as well as through written historical text. Her interpretation of historians had then become synonymous with “part of the colonizing horde.”(114) Not only was Trask forced to comply with these false written histories, but she was also forced to think within this same Euro-centric/Western framework. The Western view of history unlike her Native perspective, is interpreted as a chronological progression of time which incorporates ideals such as modernization. As a consequence, Hawaiʻi’s history is illustrated as fatalistic in nature due to the inevitable spread of imperialism acting under the guise of modernization.

           

            Another relationship that Trask highlights through her first example is the written word vs. oral traditions. The written word, or history that is written, was thought to be evidence of truth. Therefore, all the moʻolelo that had been passed from her kūpuna to her generation had been false according to historians who are allegedly considered to be the gatekeepers of historical knowledge. This was yet another issue that Trask had to deal with because she was being educated to shun her own value system instilled in her by her parents in exchange for the accommodation of a Western value system.

            Trask also contends that historians at the time did not speak ‘Ōlelo Hawaiʻi so how could they write about a people or culture without using the Hawaiian Language as a valuable resource to obtain a concrete depiction of their ways of life. For instance, Trask gives an example of an academic who believed that “there was no real evidence” (pg. 118) that supports that there was resistance at the time of the annexation of Hawaiʻi to America.  In order to provide “evidence,” Trask gives him the lyrics to Kaulana Nā Pua, which directly speaks to Native resistance to American hegemony, and should be considered a primary source.  Furthermore, she says that this song continues to be a symbol of resistance at political functions. This academic then refused to believe that this could be considered evidence because it was not written by a noted historian and because it was written by a Native person. In addition, the academic probably perceived it to be an “oral tradition” which also does not fall into the category of history.

            In order to challenge historians, Trask acknowledges that the Kānaka Maoli need to return to the land and they need to know their genealogies. Not just the genealogy of their family, but also their connection to Papahānaumoku and Wākea. One needs to go beyond the Western literary canon, to re-write our own history. I would also add that we need to learn our mother tongue to initiate this journey to tell our moʻolelo.