Post from Niko

Niko also had problems logging in, so here is his post on todayʻs readings:

Perhaps one of the most uneasy and yet important issues regarding the colonial state in which Hawai‘i is in, is the acknowledgement of a settler-state. Building on Trask’s early work as well as other Native and settler scholars, Fujikane’s Asian Settler Colonialism in Hawai‘i was an enlightening work that brought up uncomfortable issues and brought about possible steps towards a good direction.  Andrea Smith brings up a particularly good point about how we settlers contribute to colonization of Native Hawaiians (as extrapolated from this example for Indians).
“…One strategy that many people in US-born communities of color adopt, in order to advance economically out of impoverished communities, is to join the military. We then become complicit in oppressing and colonizing communities from other countries. Meanwhile, people from other countries often adopt the strategy meaning of moving to the United States to advance economically, without considering their complicity in settling on the lands of indigenous peoples that are being colonized by the United States.” (Smith 67)

The points that Smith raise here are significant because this is how the “American Dream” mythology is perpetuated amongst not only minorities but other indigenous populations in their own specific localities contribute to our own complicity in the whole scheme of US settler colonialism in Hawai‘i.
I am  reminded in particularly about Samoans (even Chamorros and other Micronesians) who settle in Hawai‘i and how we, as well as the Asian settlers are complicit in Native colonization in Hawai‘i. A lot of Samoans and other Pacific Islanders (including my own family) had come here for economic opportunities; a significant proportion of Samoans from American Samoa as well join the military and are complicit in the colonization of other peoples (both indigenous and minorities in other countries.)

These points bring out lessons for settler positionality and politics and how we can be more  cognizant about working through the discomforts to not only support Native rights and causes for self-determination but how to take a back-seat sort of approach in letting the Native lead their cause.

Two main outcomes that I got out of Fujikane’s anthology are:
1) that there exists a set of obligations and responsibilities of settlers (not only Asian) to the indigenous people of Hawai‘i:
“The identification of Asians as settlers focuses on their obligations to the indigenous peoples of Hawai‘i and the responsibilities that Asian settlers have in supporting Native peoples in their struggles for self-determination.” (p7)
Though her work focuses on the disproportionate influence of Asians (and haole) with regards to other minorities/settler groups in Hawai’i, the same principles apply as well to all other settler groups. That we as settlers have obligations and responsibilities to the indigenous people of this land is a point that is not really brought to light or emphasized from others. That is was brought up by Asian settlers themselves is significant because it shows willingness to acknowledge the presence and position of Natives in this land. But in mind with the subsequent point, Fujikane emphasizes a great point in quoting Haunani-Kay Trask.

2) Quoting Trask: “Defending Hawaiian sovereignty is only beneficial when non-Natives play the roles assigned to them by Natives.”
“Hawaiians will determine the political structure of the Hawaiian nation; Native nationalists remind us that the Hawaiian nation must be built by Native peoples themselves. If settler scholars and activists seek to support Hawaiians in their political struggles, settlers must stand behind Natives.” (Fujikane 30)