Ken Conklin's junk history Part 1
As a relative new comer to Hawaii, I have been intrigued by the debate over sovereignty for the Hawaiian people. One of the highest profile opponent of this has been Ken Conklin, so today I took a tour through his website and what I found, amounted to nothing more than junk history that does not stand up to even the most basic research. The first article that I was privileged to read concerned whether or not Ken Conklin considered the kanaka maoli indigenous to Hawaii? Would the status of being indigenous give them special rights?
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/indigenous.html
Ken opens up with some rational information in the first two paragraphs, concerning the settlement of Hawaii by the Polynesians. However it should be noted that he does place the emphasis on the final wave of settlers around 1300, no consideration is given to any earlier settlers that may have arrived between the first arrival around 400 AD and this final wave that had already established themselves in the islands. In this, Conklin fails to make the obvious point that earlier waves had likely already destroyed the people from the Marquesas.
Conklin then goes on to mislead issues with the following statement: “The tenure of kanaka maoli in Hawaii after the Tahitian invaders established their culture is shorter than the tenure of Englishmen in England after the Norman invaders defeated the Saxons. Some might say that the issue of Tahitians vs. Marquesans is irrelevant, because all were Polynesians. But kanaka maoli in Hawaii today do not recognize ethnic Samoans or Tahitians or other Pacific islanders as having any rights to kanaka maoli sovereignty in Hawaii.” Again he only refers to the final wave, as there is no firm dates of prior arrivals that could theoretically be anywhere between 400 and 1300 AD, this remains pure speculation on Conklin’s part. The later part of the above quote, has no relevance, what Conklin is supposedly trying to establish is whether or not the Hawaiian’s are indigenous, not whether they recognize other Polynesians rights to sovereignty in Hawaii.
Conklin’s next statement is remarkable to say the least, Conklin states “Even if kanaka maoli tenure in Hawaii is considered to be the tenure of Polynesians as a whole, that would still be only since about 400, which is shorter than the tenure of the Anglo-Saxon race as a whole in England.” For Mr. Conklin’s enlightenment I include the web sites to the primary sources of English history from the Anglo-Saxon period.
1) The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, http://omacl.org/Anglo/,
2) Saint Bede http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/bede-book1.html,
3) Saint Gildas http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gildas.html,
In it you will notice that the first mention of the Angle, Saxon or Jutish people is 443 AD and that all three sources agree that they arrived around 449 AD and these were not settlers but hired mercenaries to help fight the invading Picts from Scotland. When Ken Conklin asserts here, http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/indigenous.html and here, http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/faq.html that the Hawaiian’s have a shorter tenure and less claim to being called indigenous than the Anglo-Saxons, it is clearly wrong. I don’t know what sort of arithmetic Ken Conklin uses but by my reckoning (and everyone else I know) someone who arrived in 400 AD has a longer tenure than someone who arrived in 449 AD. Also, the Polynesian’s were the first settlers of Hawaii, while the Anglo-Saxons arrived in a land that had been inhabited, firstly by the Britons, then the Celtics for thousands of years. Conklin may argue that I am interchanging Hawaiian’s and Polynesian’s but the “Hawaiian’s” are Polynesian’s and are only named Hawaiian after the location of where they live.
Ken Conklin correctly states “Indigenous people who have continuously maintained their cultural traditions as their primary and regular way of life clearly deserve special protection so they may continue doing so.” He also mentions the Makah Indians reviving a dormant cultural practice, which is what a section of the Hawaiian people do. Conklin argues that this is more akin to voluntarily choosing to pursue a hobby when in reality a hobby is the last thing it should be considered as. Would he consider Hui Malama’s work in repatriation and burials a hobby? No sane person would, they are reviving a cultural practice Mr. Conklin. Ken Conklin really establishes his bias when talking about indigenous peoples special relationship to the land. By Conklin’s definition, “unlike true indigenous tribes whose dependence upon the land is direct, immediate, and inescapable”, the oldest existing culture in the world does not qualify as an indigenous people. There are Australian Aboriginals that still speak the same language and live off the land as they have done for thousands of years but their dependence upon the land is not immediate or inescapable. It would appear that Ken Conklin might well be the only person alive today that would not consider a people practicing a 40,000-year-old culture an indigenous people. Perhaps Ken Conklin considers it to be a case of, the Aboriginal stops being indigenous when he puts on a pair of Levi jeans!
In yet another example of his habit of distorting the truth, Ken Conklin then brings up the issue of the location of bones and uses the example of American’s having ancestors in England but not having political rights in England. This scenario would be appropriate if the Hawaiians were making a claim on their ancestors’ bones in Tahiti or the Marquesas but they are not.
Ken Conklin then goes on to spend two paragraphs discussing issues regarding spirituality, which only acts as a lead in for him to plead “all persons can become attuned to this spirituality; and people who are so attuned, regardless of race, should be placed in positions of authority in land management.” Of course he fails to consider that the Kanaka Maoli have generations of family buried here, regardless of how long they have been away from Hawaii. Could someone who is not kanaka maoli be as spiritually affected as a kanaka maoli when some bones are uncovered, knowing that there is no chance that they may be the bones of their ancestors? The answer to that can only be a resounding no. This could be extended even further, imagine what the outrage would be if a foreigner was to dig up burial sites at Arlington Cemetery or Westminster Abbey regardless of their reasons for doing so.
Conklin then discusses rights, before bringing up the issue of cultural practices that have been re-invented, re-discovered or lost completely. Ken Conklin is mistaken in thinking that the loss of some aspects of a culture is a determinant in whether a people are indigenous or not. Cultures are a dynamic force, constantly evolving; as a result, certain aspects of a culture become obsolete or forgotten for other reasons. The making of Greek Fire was lost for centuries and the Greeks no longer worship their gods of old but the Greek culture did not die with these changes, it evolved. The Fijians once practiced cannibalism, ceasing the practice a little over a hundred years ago but their culture survives and they remain an indigenous people. The fact that rituals or practices do not survive in their ancient forms only indicates progress. Ken Conklin displays his
intent at vilification of the Hawaiians when he states “most modern kanaka maoli are only "wannabe" indigenous.” Does Ken Conklin mean to infer that kanaka maoli were once indigenous but no longer are? This would appear to be the case, since prior to the arrival of Captain Cook, the kanaka maoli certainly were hunter gatherers, living a subsistent lifestyle and their dependence upon the land was unquestionably direct, which Ken Conklin asserts is a requirement for a people to be considered truly indigenous. It is a remarkable claim to say that people can lose their indigenous status merely by the introduction of another cultures ideas and practices. No Mr. Conklin modern kanaka maoli are not wannabe’s, they are indigenous and your rebuttal by comparing kanaka maoli to the English is historically incorrect, as the original Britons no longer exist, having been over run and replaced by the Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Norseman and finally the Normans over a long period of time. With the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Norsemen and Normans all arriving in England after the kanaka maoli arrived in Hawaii. The kanaka maoli were and remain the indigenous people of Hawaii regardless of changes in cultural practices over the years. They are part of the original inhabitants by virtue of their Polynesian blood, the Polynesians are indigenous to the Pacific Islands, regardless of whether they reside on one of the earlier settles islands such as Tonga or on one of the later settled islands such as Aotearoa.
Perhaps Ken Conklin would in the future like to look up the definition of “indigenous” before he makes judgment in his haste to vilify a people. For this reason, I include the definition as found in the Oxford English Dictionary:
Indigenous
- Adjective originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native
- DERIVATIVES indigenously adverb indigenousness noun.
- ORIGIN from Latin indigena ‘a native’
There is no question that kanaka maoli are native to Hawaii and they certainly were not artificially implanted here.
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/indigenous.html
Ken opens up with some rational information in the first two paragraphs, concerning the settlement of Hawaii by the Polynesians. However it should be noted that he does place the emphasis on the final wave of settlers around 1300, no consideration is given to any earlier settlers that may have arrived between the first arrival around 400 AD and this final wave that had already established themselves in the islands. In this, Conklin fails to make the obvious point that earlier waves had likely already destroyed the people from the Marquesas.
Conklin then goes on to mislead issues with the following statement: “The tenure of kanaka maoli in Hawaii after the Tahitian invaders established their culture is shorter than the tenure of Englishmen in England after the Norman invaders defeated the Saxons. Some might say that the issue of Tahitians vs. Marquesans is irrelevant, because all were Polynesians. But kanaka maoli in Hawaii today do not recognize ethnic Samoans or Tahitians or other Pacific islanders as having any rights to kanaka maoli sovereignty in Hawaii.” Again he only refers to the final wave, as there is no firm dates of prior arrivals that could theoretically be anywhere between 400 and 1300 AD, this remains pure speculation on Conklin’s part. The later part of the above quote, has no relevance, what Conklin is supposedly trying to establish is whether or not the Hawaiian’s are indigenous, not whether they recognize other Polynesians rights to sovereignty in Hawaii.
Conklin’s next statement is remarkable to say the least, Conklin states “Even if kanaka maoli tenure in Hawaii is considered to be the tenure of Polynesians as a whole, that would still be only since about 400, which is shorter than the tenure of the Anglo-Saxon race as a whole in England.” For Mr. Conklin’s enlightenment I include the web sites to the primary sources of English history from the Anglo-Saxon period.
1) The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, http://omacl.org/Anglo/,
2) Saint Bede http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/bede-book1.html,
3) Saint Gildas http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gildas.html,
In it you will notice that the first mention of the Angle, Saxon or Jutish people is 443 AD and that all three sources agree that they arrived around 449 AD and these were not settlers but hired mercenaries to help fight the invading Picts from Scotland. When Ken Conklin asserts here, http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/indigenous.html and here, http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/faq.html that the Hawaiian’s have a shorter tenure and less claim to being called indigenous than the Anglo-Saxons, it is clearly wrong. I don’t know what sort of arithmetic Ken Conklin uses but by my reckoning (and everyone else I know) someone who arrived in 400 AD has a longer tenure than someone who arrived in 449 AD. Also, the Polynesian’s were the first settlers of Hawaii, while the Anglo-Saxons arrived in a land that had been inhabited, firstly by the Britons, then the Celtics for thousands of years. Conklin may argue that I am interchanging Hawaiian’s and Polynesian’s but the “Hawaiian’s” are Polynesian’s and are only named Hawaiian after the location of where they live.
Ken Conklin correctly states “Indigenous people who have continuously maintained their cultural traditions as their primary and regular way of life clearly deserve special protection so they may continue doing so.” He also mentions the Makah Indians reviving a dormant cultural practice, which is what a section of the Hawaiian people do. Conklin argues that this is more akin to voluntarily choosing to pursue a hobby when in reality a hobby is the last thing it should be considered as. Would he consider Hui Malama’s work in repatriation and burials a hobby? No sane person would, they are reviving a cultural practice Mr. Conklin. Ken Conklin really establishes his bias when talking about indigenous peoples special relationship to the land. By Conklin’s definition, “unlike true indigenous tribes whose dependence upon the land is direct, immediate, and inescapable”, the oldest existing culture in the world does not qualify as an indigenous people. There are Australian Aboriginals that still speak the same language and live off the land as they have done for thousands of years but their dependence upon the land is not immediate or inescapable. It would appear that Ken Conklin might well be the only person alive today that would not consider a people practicing a 40,000-year-old culture an indigenous people. Perhaps Ken Conklin considers it to be a case of, the Aboriginal stops being indigenous when he puts on a pair of Levi jeans!
In yet another example of his habit of distorting the truth, Ken Conklin then brings up the issue of the location of bones and uses the example of American’s having ancestors in England but not having political rights in England. This scenario would be appropriate if the Hawaiians were making a claim on their ancestors’ bones in Tahiti or the Marquesas but they are not.
Ken Conklin then goes on to spend two paragraphs discussing issues regarding spirituality, which only acts as a lead in for him to plead “all persons can become attuned to this spirituality; and people who are so attuned, regardless of race, should be placed in positions of authority in land management.” Of course he fails to consider that the Kanaka Maoli have generations of family buried here, regardless of how long they have been away from Hawaii. Could someone who is not kanaka maoli be as spiritually affected as a kanaka maoli when some bones are uncovered, knowing that there is no chance that they may be the bones of their ancestors? The answer to that can only be a resounding no. This could be extended even further, imagine what the outrage would be if a foreigner was to dig up burial sites at Arlington Cemetery or Westminster Abbey regardless of their reasons for doing so.
Conklin then discusses rights, before bringing up the issue of cultural practices that have been re-invented, re-discovered or lost completely. Ken Conklin is mistaken in thinking that the loss of some aspects of a culture is a determinant in whether a people are indigenous or not. Cultures are a dynamic force, constantly evolving; as a result, certain aspects of a culture become obsolete or forgotten for other reasons. The making of Greek Fire was lost for centuries and the Greeks no longer worship their gods of old but the Greek culture did not die with these changes, it evolved. The Fijians once practiced cannibalism, ceasing the practice a little over a hundred years ago but their culture survives and they remain an indigenous people. The fact that rituals or practices do not survive in their ancient forms only indicates progress. Ken Conklin displays his
intent at vilification of the Hawaiians when he states “most modern kanaka maoli are only "wannabe" indigenous.” Does Ken Conklin mean to infer that kanaka maoli were once indigenous but no longer are? This would appear to be the case, since prior to the arrival of Captain Cook, the kanaka maoli certainly were hunter gatherers, living a subsistent lifestyle and their dependence upon the land was unquestionably direct, which Ken Conklin asserts is a requirement for a people to be considered truly indigenous. It is a remarkable claim to say that people can lose their indigenous status merely by the introduction of another cultures ideas and practices. No Mr. Conklin modern kanaka maoli are not wannabe’s, they are indigenous and your rebuttal by comparing kanaka maoli to the English is historically incorrect, as the original Britons no longer exist, having been over run and replaced by the Celts, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Norseman and finally the Normans over a long period of time. With the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Norsemen and Normans all arriving in England after the kanaka maoli arrived in Hawaii. The kanaka maoli were and remain the indigenous people of Hawaii regardless of changes in cultural practices over the years. They are part of the original inhabitants by virtue of their Polynesian blood, the Polynesians are indigenous to the Pacific Islands, regardless of whether they reside on one of the earlier settles islands such as Tonga or on one of the later settled islands such as Aotearoa.
Perhaps Ken Conklin would in the future like to look up the definition of “indigenous” before he makes judgment in his haste to vilify a people. For this reason, I include the definition as found in the Oxford English Dictionary:
Indigenous
- Adjective originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native
- DERIVATIVES indigenously adverb indigenousness noun.
- ORIGIN from Latin indigena ‘a native’
There is no question that kanaka maoli are native to Hawaii and they certainly were not artificially implanted here.