Does Rob’s “formulation of culture” in his essay Reimagining the American Pacific really “diminish…or erase attention to history”?

After reading both Rob’s article and Franklin and Lyon’s article Remixing Hybridity, I found myself questioning this curious statement.  Now to be clear, Franklin and Lyon’s state that his definition of “culture,” which they define as a ‘quest for states and mixtures not of identity but self-transcendence, impurity, outreach,’ only “sometimes diminishes or erases attention to history” (176).  However, do Rob’s examples of Hawaiian postcolonial works, and thus expressions of modern Hawaiian culture, definitely and/or constantly deny aspects of Hawaiian history?  Nope:

• Featherston’s 26 Islands not only references Hawaiian place names, and thus its unadulterated past, but also the leper colonies on Moloka’i
• Banggo’s 4-evaz, Anna use of “hard-core pidgin English” and its “underworld” setting ripe with “drugs, sex and brutalized ecstasy” shows the effects of American intervention in Hawaii as seen in the present
• Joseph Balaz interact with Hawaiian history in a similar way, except he uses “expressive humor…wit and joy” as an expression of the present as opposed to a darker representation
• Saijo’s experimental poetry renders Hawaii as part of a more global history as it is “tied into the larger ecology systems of the planet and the political economy of the US war machine”
• And so forth…

All of the examples that appear within Rob’s essay do not “diminish or erase attention to history,” they embrace aspects/moments/places within Hawaiian history, often as an exploration of how U.S. colonialism affects the present.  Thus, it seems ludicrous that Franklin and Lyons can say that Rob’s “mongrel poetics…focuses on style at the expense of history,” when the postcolonial works that Rob references in Reimagining the American Pacific explicitly reference Hawaii’s unfortunate past.