Just a quick thought...

Okay, so this is just a quick thought and something I've been thinking about since last week's section discussion. It's interesting that in Hawaii it's all about the blood. It's about how much blood someone has or doesn't have to be labeled a "true Hawaiian". So even if someone who is white or a haloe is THE most Hawaiian (in terms of attitude, familiarity with the Hawaiian land...lived there for decades, etc) they can never be a "true Hawaiian" because they are not of Hawaiian blood. I don't really agree or disagree with this concept. I understand it. However, I find it really interesting that America was build on mixed blood or "the melting pot" idea. America wouldn't be what it is today if it wasn't for the mixed blood of other countries/cultures that helped form it. And I love that America is so diverse. Hawaii, on the other hand, while part of the U.S., isn't necessarily built on that idea. It seems like many native Hawaiians would probably prefer that Hawaii was exclusively Hawaiian blood only. And Hawaii was originally a group of islands only inhabited by Hawaiians. I'm not really sure where I'm going with this idea, but it's just interesting to me. Although Hawaii is a part of the U.S....it's separate and not part of the continental U.S. And something that the continental U.S. is so proud of....diversity and the "melting pot idea" isn't something that native Hawaiians value or necessarily want. Anyways, I just found those conflicting idea so interesting.

( This is suppose to be a comment/response to "Pesky Hawaiians" by mlesueur, but it was too long. Just to let you know, I'm not just rambling.)

It Ain't Easy Being Colonized

I was born in the Philippines, probably a closer example to what Hawaii is today (clump of islands, strategic placement to the east and the Pacific Ocean, a culturally diverse place of various brown people).  And on a more relevant note I’m also half Ilocano, the largest group of native Filipino that immigrated to Hawaii during its heavy plantation times. Today, the Filipino economy is mostly based on tourism and modeled by you guessed it—the good ‘ol Americans! And though it was never “officially” colonized by Americans, the U.S. armed forces provided during the Japanese invasion in WWII and the eventual U.S. “occupation”, has definitely left a lingering imprint on the whole culture and the land.

Well let me rephrase “lingering” presence. It’s actually a lot more forceful than that. Because of colonialism (both official and unofficial) most of the Philippines became Catholic. The economy is capitalistic. The government, in all fairness, is democratic. The noble notion of the Philippines becoming independent came to be when the archipelago finally had to come to the conclusion that freedom meant unity under the common denominator of the term “country”. The whole archipelago of the Philippines, pre-Magellan, was not really a united country. I’m not trying to over simplify things, but the islands were rather divided with all sorts of ethnic groups, who had their own languages, religious beliefs, and too put it bluntly—their own separate cultures. The notion of a “country” and “entitlement” to the land didn’t really exist until outside powers started to enforce their paradigms upon it.

But don’t get me wrong…I’m not rooting for colonialism. I’m not rooting for the mass enslavement of people. I’m glad the Philippines fought for their rites as an independent country. And compared to Hawaii, the so called “native” people seem to be in better conditions.

But I can’t help to feel a bit indifferent when my relatives say, “we have it good.”  I want to scream because…Who the hell has it good? Who is the “we” here? I once asked my aunt this question and she said the “natives”. Technically speaking my family isn’t even native if you take in mind that the other half of me is Basque Spanish—the main ethnic group that colonized the Philippines in the first place.

Honestly, when I was growing up in the homeland, the only people who had it good where the people who lived in the cities. Doctors, business men, hotel managers—people who catered and fed off of the colonial footprint. The Philippines wouldn’t have doctors if it weren’t for Americans setting up medical schools after World War II. There would be no incentive to go into big business if the Philippines didn’t have a Capitalist economy. And our “booming” tourism wouldn’t be what is today without America’s help to exotify the people and it’s various cultures.

So here’s the strong connection with Hawaii—would Hawaiians even want their own country back? DUH! HELL NO! And…perhaps. It is in fact not a simple question. And has no simple answers. Sure the Hawaiians were definitely there first,  But how and can you erase years of rape of the land, (literal) rape of the people, and essentially rape of a culture?

I want to just end it all and say “give them back their damn land you bastards!” I do recognize that the terrible treatment of natives have basically made them the poverty stereotype of their own country. And I do recognize that their rich culture, cultivated from hundreds of years of history, has been reduced to really bad Luaus and tacky shirts.  I believe they should have ownership of the land their ancestors rightfully claimed. And I want them to reclaim their culture for themselves and not for the entertainment of others. But that just can’t be attained through a simple giving back of the land.

In (what my section thinks is) a cynical view of things—I don’t think you can just give them everything back. I think eventually, if the U.S. ever did do the “right” thing and give back the land to the “rightful” owners, the American presence would be there anyways. How would you tell the integrated peoples who have made a life there, who have embody what is to be a Hawaiian, they are in fact not native people; that they do not have a right to the land? And hell—tourism and agriculture has been a good economic base for the last 100 or so years.

It is so shitty that I think this way. Trust me, I feel horrible. But if Hawaii was its own country, was internationally (in the Western sense) recognized, as well as economically competitive, wouldn’t have to inherently succumb to these influences anyways. Even under the rule of King Kalakauam Liloukalani, the monarch before Queen Liloukalani, the economy of Hawaii was based on agriculture and attracted all sorts of people for its so called exotic “foreignness.”

I don’t want to say that every amazing diamond in a rough, culturally unique, country, and its people, are somehow all going to be predisposed to the western colonial sphere one day…but then again I am. Call me insensitive, but hell, I am a product of colonialism too. So is more than half of the whole world. Are we all going to avenge our ancestors in a giant revolutionary uproar? Countries wouldn’t even exist if that were the case. It would be one people displacing other people for land till the end of time.  How do you even begin to solve that enigma?

- Marielle Argueza

Tourist Traps in TheBus

    A large theme from the poems of Thirteen Ways of Looking at TheBus is the effect of tourists and tourism on Hawaii. One poem in which this idea is evident is "Wahiawa No Mo' Starbucks." The poem is written in pidgin, giving the speaker a local identity. The speaker immediately declares that there is no more Starbucks coffee in Wahiawa, so if that's what a tourist is looking for, they have to take the bus elsewhere (Mililani and North Shore are suggested) to get it. In the middle of that statement, the speaker also criticizes any person (most likely a tourist) who is willing to pay three dollars for one cup of coffee. It is almost as if Gajelonia is suggesting in this poem that only a tourist would make the effort to seek out Starbucks for coffee, as it is popular on the mainland and essentially a familiar and "safe" place, since tourists most likely wouldn't want to try anything local.
    In the next stanza, however, the speaker assures the reader that just because there is no more Starbucks, it doesn't mean Wahiawa doesn't have anything else familiar, such as McDonald's (another huge, familiar name) and Jack in the Box. This stanza illustrates that a tourist should have no worries because though one familiar place is gone, there are many others to go to. I imagine it's the same as traveling outside of the country and choosing to eat at McDonald's or Burger King instead of somewhere local, because most people are familiar with that food and will choose to eat there first. It's safe, comforting, and something we've come to know throughout our lives. It's almost expected of tourists to choose familiar places like that.
    The third stanza lists off unfamiliar, local places in which a person can find coffee bags if they just buy their own coffee maker, which of course would be unlikely if the audience is imagined to be a tourist, who would not buy a coffee maker if they were just on a short visit. The following stanza lists more places, starting with the most familiar to a tourist and getting progressively local and unfamiliar. I think the root of the issue in this poem is that it's expected of tourists to pay more for something, as long as it's exactly what they went (like the familiar name brand of Starbucks). Locals are not willing to pay that much for something they know they can find cheaper elsewhere. Starbucks, and all the other familiar places are essentially tourist traps-they know they can charge more and stay in business without money from local consumers because of this reason. This is essentially what I think Gajelonia was trying to illustrate with this and other poems of Thirteen Ways of Looking at TheBus.

Side Notes

Something that has stuck out in my mind since last section is the discussion of understanding languages. In read Gajelonia’s “Thirteen Ways of Looking at TheBus” we are presented in many places with words in languages we are most likely not acquainted with. I enjoyed the discussion in section to see how many people take the time to look up a word they are unsure of, and how many more people, myself included, simply examine context but most likely move on without really knowing what the word signifies. What I liked particularly about Gajelonia’s poems are the way she includes small side notes directly on the page where a reference is made. For example, in the opening poem entitled “Thirtways of Looking at TheBus” she references a song by the band The Shins and provides us with the side note : “The phrase was taken from a song by a band called The Shins. Natalie Portman swears they will change your life” (3). In reading this I realized that there is really nothing more exciting as a lit major than reading one of these side notes and realizing it is about something you not only know but actually love- in this case one of my all time favorite movies, Garden State starring Natalie Portman and Zach Braff. I also must applaud Gojelonia in choosing to put her notes directly on the side of the page...I know I for one am much more likely to read a footnote when it doesn’t take flipping through pages to find it. It becomes clear that Gojelonia wrote this as an undergrad thesis because she, just like myself, was probably sick of four years of flipping to the end of a book to find the notes. Overall I loved her work and the way she constructed this thesis - creative and clever!

Sarah Eastland

pesky Hawaiians

So last Wednesday I brought up that I was having an issue issue empathizing with the Hawaiian people (of recent years), which led to a small heated discussion in the class, of which I feel I am wholly responsible. Sorry.
I also feel like I made a bit of an ass of myself, partially by broaching the subject in general, partially for speaking at about 70mph during my section of discussion, but also partially because (I feel like) I didn't clearly articulate myself regarding the issues I took with the Hawaiian claims to land/tradition/identity and their rights in regards to their sovereignty.

First off, I think that the attitude that I usually have about relating to people is not appropriate for this class (or indeed any class, really). I'm one of those people where I don't "get" what someone is complaining about unless I can directly or indirectly sympathize or empathize with them. But it shouldn't really matter if I can or can't. So long as I can acknowledge and tolerate other people's right to their own emotions-- a notion America was founded upon-- then I can coexist and observe without any tumult.

On to what I've been griping about (completely under my "old" frame of mind that I just discredited): I never really understood how people(s) can feel a sense of ownership or entitlement about something that hasn't directly happened to them. For instance, my father and I were both born in New Zealand. NZ was absorbed by England much int he way Hawaii was with the USA, albeit with more cooperation. In the end, though, England had to give back some (pretty small) patches of land to the Maori people... What I'm getting at is that I come from a country that was claimed in the name of the British Empire. With that said, I have never met a single person from NZ (Caucasian or Maori) who had a problem with England, or felt that they had been slighted in some way by the government.They acknowledge that some terrible things happened to the people when "the whites" first came, but they don't hate all white people, all English people, or hold the government responsible. How can the Hawaiians?

Let me take a moment to interrupt myself: I don't support colonialism. I think that the entire premises is disgusting. I also feel the same way about the Holocaust, and not just because I'm Jewish. As a matter of fact, I would love to visit Germany-- I wouldn't even be against living there. I just don't really see any credibility to this "genetic memory" that the Natives seem to have. As if I am somehow indebted to all descendents of US soldiers who emancipated my relatives in concentration camps?

Now, I can understand the argument that we TOOK things from the Hawaiians, and fairly recently, at that. We should have to give those things back, absolutely. But who claims them? If there's some way to probe lineage back to lands that were stolen, then I am all for returning those lands, and potentially even relocating the current owners elsewhere. But... Reading that last bit... How do you determine who gets to keep the limited land on the islands? Those who originally owned them? Or those who have legally paid and purchased the lands in recent years (I'm not talking about the people who paid the taxes on already owned lands and then gained them, I'm talking about people who traveled to Hawaii and bought said lands at much higher prices)?

I just don't think this issue is quite as black and white as many people see it. It WAS, at one point, I think. We've been studying the black and white that happened in history... But since then the two listed colors have intermingled/bred/loped, so we have many shades of grey instead.

To be a bit less dramatic: I get that bad shit went down. I'm not forgiving it. But just because there's a simple problem, doesn't mean there's a simple solution over a hundred years later. The only possible solution I see is creating a good socialistic system on the islands, and instituting a good public school system, that way future generations won't become the "pesky minorities" that folks like me can complain about.

If I was unclear/asinine about anything, please don't hesitate to let me know.

Surfing Revival

In the book Pacific Passages it states that Jack London is one of the men responsible for "ushering surf riding into the modern era of Westernized sports" (Moser 5). When reading through the section in the book about surfing revival a lot of questions came to mind. Is this okay that a white man helped to revive a native Hawaiian sport? Should people who are not Hawaiian still surf or should it have stayed a purely Hawaiian practice? Have Hawaiians benefited from the commercialization and globalization of their sport? How does modern surfing affect Hawaii? Does it bring in more tourism and make land rights more difficult? All of these were questions I asked myself when going through the readings and still am unsure about the answers.

In the book it credits Ford, Freeth and London with reviving surfing. I feel that surfing probably in reality never fully died. When we read through Liliuokalani's book she describes a more remote village where a lot of the traditional Hawaiian practices were still taking place despite the colonial presence. I feel in places like these or in secret many native Hawaiian were still practicing surfing. Despite the fact that they were still surfing it only became an acceptable sport until white men did it. As stated in Pacific Passages London credits his start in surfing because he believed that anything a Hawaiian could do a white man should be able to do better. I feel because of the clear racial prejudices against Hawaiians surfing was only able to be brought into the mainstream by white men. This does not justify what they did but it does somewhat answer the question.

My second question was if anyone besides a native Hawaiian should surf? I feel that in the surfing world today most surfers are very aware of the origins of surfing. Most know where it all started and how it has progressed through time. I feel that as long as people are aware of the origins of the sport and enjoy doing it they should be allowed to surf. Soccer was once an ancient Mayan game that progressed to an international sport and surfing should be viewed in the same way.

The fact that many people respect the origins of surfing I think has benefited Hawaiian in some ways.  Surfing tourism is a huge market in Hawaii with many surf competitions held there each year. These competitions can complicate lands rights but overall I feel they benefit the economy. They also showcase a sport that meant a lot to the native Hawaiians and can show how far their sport has come.

Overall there are many questions to be asked in regards to surfing and Hawaii. The book Pacific Passages addresses some of these and brings up more. The book though does offer a timeline to how surfing has changed through time that is very beneficial to any fan of surfing or Hawaiian history.

"Aloha Spirit Going to Hell" - Horton

In this blog post I am going to discuss the article by Tom Horton called "The Inevitable Visiting Writer". In this article he brings up the disappointment many writers felt when they visited Hawaii. He stated that many writers, "judges it to be below whatever standards he has raised for his personal vision of the ideal Island Paradise?" (Horton 84). Hawaii is a real place with real problems but so many people want to view it as a kind of utopia. This is a theme I discussed in one of my blog postings on The Descendants. As I discussed the setting of Hawaii in the book amplifies the problems they are dealing with because those kind of problems are not supposed to happen in paradise. As Horton discusses many authors felt this way too. They built up in their heads what Hawaii would be and were sorely disappointed with it's reality. An aspect of this is not wanting to see Hawaii as a place in the present. Instead many writers wanted to view it as this idyllic place that modernity has not touched. As Horton explains, "Hawaii isn't what it used to be or should have become" (Horton 85). Something has ruined Hawaii and prevented it from being the paradise is was or is supposed to be. They main culprit for destroying Hawaii or what it should have become is according to the article haloes (Horton 86). This blame is partially due but they are not completely responsible. By completely blaming haloes for Hawaii's not being paradise takes away the humanity of the native Hawaiian people. It assumes that they are not human and had no problems before white men came. Their problems became far greater once the haoles arrived but they were still humans and Hawaii was never a complete island paradise. They were real people who had hierarchies, competition, and so much more that kept them from being far from perfect. In the end the Horton article is another example of trying to dispel the common stereotypes held by outsiders about Hawaii.

The Descendants: Now What?

Throughout The Descendants the characters are mostly dealing with the loss of Joanie. A secondary plot line to this is dealing with their Hawaiian heritage. As stated in the title of the book they are descendants of Hawaiian royalty and missionaries. One quote I found interesting to this theme was when Matt King was discussing his family. He states, "Their sole purpose in life is to have fun. They Jet Ski, motocross, surf, paddle, run triathlons, rent islands in Tahiti. Indeed some of the most powerful people in Hawaii look like bums or stuntmen. I think our bloodline's progression. Our missionary ancestors came to the islands and told the Hawaiians to put on some clothes, work hard and stop hula dancing. They make some business deals on the way, buying an island for ten grand, or marrying a princess and inheriting her land, and now their descendants don't work. They have stripped down to running shorts or bikinis and play beach volleyball and take up hula dancing" (Hemmings 157). I felt this quote packed a lot of punch. As we have learned throughout this course and as stated in the quote missionaries came to Hawaii to change the native people. Now though their descendants are living the lifestyle they came to oppose. This role reversal is probably not far from the truth of what is actually happening in Hawaii. These missionaries came for a pious Christian cause but instead ended up very wealthy or at least their descendants were and living the life they opposed.

I feel that in the book the characters deal with this issue of role reversals with a sense of guilt. They are aware they are not fully native Hawaiian and living a life against their missionary ancestors wishes. They also do not look or act like most Hawaiians which makes them feel separate. This guilt and distance can be seen in many quotes in the book. As stated in the book when they discuss their cousins, "walnuts. What happened to me? Why am I not like them" (Hemmings 228). The characters in the book are not fully Hawaiian or fully haole. This creates a sense of displacement that they don't belong in either category because they don't look Hawaiian or even speak like Hawaiians. Another place this is brought up in the novel is when Matt King states, "All around, people speak pidgin English and glare at the two of us like we're crazy white fools, even though we're Hawaiian. But we don't look it, and we don't count as true or real Hawaiians because we don't talk right either" (Hemmings 18). These two quotes show how to native Hawaiians they seem separate. This makes the fact that they inherited so much and are responsible for a huge decision that will affect Hawaiian even more difficult.

 The King family feels this huge amount of guilt for the privileges and family property they have inherited. Their missionary and royal ancestry gave them money and freedom to do as the previous quote described ride Jet skis or buy islands. Matt King rejects this though as he says his father did. He doesn't touch the money and wants to avoid dealing with the land. It isn't until the end of the novel that he finally takes on his role and decides to accept his responsibility to his ancestors and the land.

 Despite not looking or acting the part they are responsible for this huge amount of land and their decision affects many people. Throughout the book other characters ask about the land decision and makes comments about the property they own or their wealth. This shows the huge responsibility they inherited. The fact that they inherited it also means they did nothing to deserve it, it was simply given to them to deal with. This is similar to the situation with Joanie. Her accident just happened and they were left to deal with the aftermath, even though they did not do anything.

Dear God/Gajelonia's Insightful Youth

Maybe I'm copping out of dialoguing with some of the more challenging prompts Rob gave us this week, but I decided to follow my heart and write about my favorite poem in Thirteen Ways of Looking at TheBus -- "Dear God: A Prayer in Six Parts."

Nestled within a steady stream of reinterpreted American canonical poems, "Dear God" is one of the few pieces in this book that isn't attributed/directly connected to the lore of American poetry. In that respect, I thought it was a breath of fresh air and an excuse to not have to compare it to those (usually dry) canonical poems.

First off, her aggressive hybridization of pidgin and "texting" language (i.e. "lol," "plz") was initially bewildering. It took me several re-readings and speaking the text aloud to understand many of the phrases. While most of the other poems in her collection take on the heavy-handed task of writing back to those supposed American masters of the poetry form, I honestly found this poem to be a stronger exemplification of a uniquely Hawaiian identity. Her combative use of pidgin, the many references to specific Hawaiian chains (and the subtle nod to globalization with chains like McDonald's), and the reference to Filipino-Hawaiian relations all assert the poem's identity as a markedly Hawaiian text/voice.

The poem also operates as a dynamic glimpse into the lives of high school/middle school Hawaiian life. Whether or not Gajelonia developed this poem with an auto-biographical lens or not, it offers many of those heightened and/or hormonal responses to the plights of young Hawaiians, such as: "But I'm so pissed off! I no can believe she would do dat! Faking slut, I hope she get preggo and den John Boy dump her sorry ass..." I loved these moments, not simply for their humorous slant, but because they casually inserted a more deeply personal narrative into the book. Although other poems in TheBus also address personal views/voice, none came close to "Dear God" in intensity.

This weightiness of topic appears in the narrator's depiction of her parents. In part four of the poem, she writes, "Plz bless my faddah, I no like him but he my faddah so I guess bless him too...I no like him go jail again, God. I not gon' pray to u to make him stop doing drugs cuz I tink if I do dat I asking too much..." The speaker's slight naivete connotes the scene with a heavily sympathetic portrait -- one I couldn't help appreciating. Gajelonia's clever use of prayer as a poetic device to further penetrate the character's psyche is extremely effective. These casual yet emotionally piercing scenes deftly deliver tidbits of information about the narrative while also developing the struggles of the lead Hawaiian character.

The final part addresses Hawaiian-Filipino relations, saying, "I steh sorry I got into one fight wit da Filipino girlz dat hang out by da bench at sku." This part paints a convincing portrait of the embedded social dilemmas facing young Hawaiians while simultaneously addressing the continued problematics of Filipino-Hawaiian interactions. Maybe kids are simply cruel, but it's easier to vent those hormonal/developmental urges by translating them into a racialized power play. Gajelonia crafts this prayer to address those brimming racialized frustrations that linger between even the youngest on the island, pervading their preconceived notions of each other. I think it's a haunting yet realistic portrait of the difficulties facing the youth on the island. Furthermore, the fact that the narrator apologizes to God for her cruelty to the Filipino girls points to the ambivalences coursing through youthful society. In other words, it's not easy to choose between abstaining from racialized antagonism (which pervades the social hierarchies of Hawaii) and perpetuating the frayed relationship between Hawaiians and Filipinos.

If none of what I've previously said makes any sense (I'm feeling pretty exhausted/incoherent today), I mostly just want to convey how critically insightful this poem is. By placing it securely within an overt Hawaiian discourse, Gajelonia more deftly investigates the social/cultural problematics of Hawaii while offerring a more probing glimpse into the struggles of Hawaiian youths. Thus, "Dear God," more so than the other poems in TheBus, best exemplifies the emotional dynamics of Hawaii through a figure of hormonal yet keen perception.

-Jon Vorpe

London's Surfing

I found Jack London’s portrayal of surfriding in “Riding the South Seas of the Surf” particularly interesting because the descriptions of the beaches, the waves, and the surfers allows for the entire experience to come to life in the eyes of the reader. London leaves nothing out, and his writing style makes you feel like you’re the one actually riding the waves. From the opening lines, “…The grass grows right down to the water at Waikiki Beach and within fifty feet of the everlasting sea. The trees also grow down to the salty edge of things, and one sits in their shade and looks seaward at a majestic surf thundering in on the beach to one’s very feet,” I felt like I was there on the beach, seeing and feeling all of what was described (Moser 138).

What was also interesting about London’s portrayal was the description of the native Hawaiian surfers. While other travelers categorized the natives in exotic manners, London pays close attention to the actions of the surfers and their connection with the nature of the wave, painting a literary picture of the reality of surfriding. I was curious about the term London used to describe the Hawaiian surfers—“his black shoulders, his chest, his loins, his limbs… He is a Mercury—a black Mercury” (Moser 138-9).  While London uses these words to point out the differences of the Natives from the white European, his descriptions are almost inviting the reader to come join the native surfer, rather than describing surfing as some foreign ritual that requires one to be Hawaiian in order to be successful at trying it. 

“Everything in this world is eater or eaten, seed is the food, fire is the eater.” - W.B. Yeats, the Upanishad. A quote to peck back at.

“N 21* 18’ 28” W 157* 48’ 28”

Some of We 

and the Land That Was 

Never Ours

We are. We of all the small ones are. We are all. We of all the / small ones are. We are in this world. We are in this world.” (9-11)

Spahr begins this poem, and all the poems in this book, with latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates. These coordinates are at once mere information, they tell us nothing of human conditions, nothing of volition’s direction and biological inertia. If everything were to move, if everything were to change, the coordinates would still refer to the same place. As indices, they do no more than indicate. Once the location is indicated the orientation of the speaker towards the location is given--it is to a certain, “We” a, “Land that Was Never Ours”.

This itself seems an all at once simple assertion, but the poem immediately begins with complicating the notion of We. As soon as a first first person plural unity is established, she undermines it with a disparate alternative We. The first assertion is an affirmation of relational unity, “We are all.” yet it is immediately followed with “We of all the small ones.” There are two We’s and yet they are not contradictions--because We is a mental organization of entities, is essentially a categorizing of people according to some imagined mutual valence, most We’s are only exclusive in appearance. A.K. Ramanujan writes that this failure is for,  “As anthropologists like Franz Boas pointed out earlier in the century, race, language and culture are three independent variables. Neither is any of them pure and single in itself, though the labels, black, brown, yellow or white, Caucasian, Mongolian or Dravidian are used as if they were pure and singular entities...” (116-117)

She is communicating the nature of We as simultaneously valid and subjective--a construct, sure, but a construct based on similarities abstracted from something very real, i.e.: “Some of we are eating grapes.” (11) versus, “Some of we let ourselves be all the grapes to be eaten together.” (11) These conditions are criteria for a We, they are properties of reality abstracted to create categories. Yet, this togetherness is not a unity, but an amalgamation. Some of the We are eating grapes and some of the We are being the grapes that are eaten. As Audre Lorde said, “There is a mistake that a lot of us make: the belief that we can all merge into one gigantic unit. It just doesn’t happen that way. There is a difference between unity and amalgamation, and that difference is enormous.” (9) 

This relationship between togetherness and the individuals that make togetherness possible is used throughout the poem as a template for showing the global social problem of inequality. Not only are some being consumed and some are consuming, as she writes of the grapes, but, “Some of us are sparrows picotant with our hand...Some of we are pecking back... We are pecking at our hand... Some of us are flying at our hand.” (13) This is a metaphor for activism, not the contrived lifestyle activism so typical to a mimetic western population, but an expression of natural frustration with being controlled. The hand is reminiscent of Adam Smith's invisible hand, the unifying dimension of economic activity that is supposed to "hold" our (notice that Our of the We) collective interests "above" all else. Spahr's explanations at the end of the poem make this much more clear, “Someone was feeding sparrows, making them perch on the thumb and eat out of the hand if they wanted any food. The sparrows preferred to eat on the ground... I thought about who owned what, and divisions.” (15) This problem of division and of control, especially resource control as a way to control people, is especially relevant to contemporary Hawaiian conditions. 

Ramanujan, A.K. “Some Thoughts on ‘Non-Western’ Classics: With Indian Examples” The Collected Essays of A.K. Ramanujan ed. Dharwadker. Delhi: OUP, 2004 

p.116-117, Text.

Winter, Nina. “Interview with the Muse: Remarkable Women Speak on Creativity and Power.” Berkeley, California: Moon Books, 1978.

We Are In The World

I really liked the first chapter of Well Then There Now because of the higher consciousness approach it takes to the idea of colonialism. We tend to forget that the whole world countless things in common; we are all connected with to the Earth cohabiting and just trying to thrive on the Earth. This land was given to us to nurture and for us to grow as humanity. The poem mentions grapes, fruits that grow in bunches,   much like communities of people. Our identities can "ferment" and reveal our complexities much like fine wine. As a young and violent life form, humans at this point in history are destructive and selfish, but hopefully as we age as a species, we'll become refined past the idea imperialism and work together to advance as a collective. The more we age the wine of our existence, maybe we can get past the cruelty that is ever present in our society today.

Comparing The Descendants book and movie

After reading through the book The Descendants I was curious how the movie compared. I had heard of the movie and how good it was, but never heard about the book before this class. I think this fact is seen in the movie as well. I feel the movie is a backdrop to feature George Clooney and a new up and coming actress Shailene Woodley. I feel the focus of the film is to show the actors acting abilities rather than accurately portray the book. In general the movie follows the book but there are some key changes.

The first change I noticed was the change in Scottie's role. I felt that throughout the book Scottie had a big presence and was a major character. In the book she shows the emotional turmoil the situation is causing them all to go through, she also reveals the family relations, and her father's lack of parenting skills. This is partially seen in the movie but not to the degree it is seen in the book. One scene that was very different was when the doctor comes to tell Matt King that his wife is not going to get better. In the book Scottie is there being a child by refusing to leave and distracting from the situation. She acts like a shield to her father because he really does not want to know what the doctor has to say. In the film though Scottie is absent from this scene and her father is simply told by the doctor without anyone there to distract him. This difference affects how Matt King is displayed as well. In the books version he is scared, overwhelmed, and not ready to face what is happening. The movie however makes him seem much braver and willing to take on what is happening to him. I feel this also shows the emphasis that is being put on George Clooney over the character he portrays in the book and over the role of Scottie. The movie is serving to show off George Clooney as the hero dad character rather than accurately portray the storyline of the book. It wants to show George Clooney as a hero dealing with all these problems rather than a real man who doesn't want to face his problems.

Another reason I feel Scottie's role is decreased is to focus on Alex. Alex's problems in the movie are emphasized and Scottie's are decreased. In the movie we do not see Scottie with the sea urchin spins in her hand or her play acting out things she saw in a porn movie. Instead we see all the ways Alex is messed up. They include her drunken scene at boarding school and reference her drug addictions. I feel this is done to showcase the actress Shailene Woodley's abilities rather than stick directly to the story line. They want to emphasize her as the messed up daughter who redeems herself instead of showing the progression of both girls. It brings the focus of the film onto Matt and Alex instead of the trio that is was in the book.

A third change can be seen in how Sid's story is portrayed. It was more of an omission than a change. They reveal in the movie that his dad has died but  they don't reveal the backstory or after effects of his death. I feel this is done throughout the movie where the follow the basic storyline but leave the deeper issues out. They show the basic pain the characters are in but leave out the deeper more painful meanings. I feel this is done to keep the movie as more a form of entertainment to feature acting abilities rather than give a message like the book does. It makes the movie lighter and much more humorous. The changes are subtle but very profound when you look at the many differences between book and movie.

Living with Reality in Paradise

In the book the Descendants it starts out with the line, "The sun is shining, mynah birds are chattering, palm trees are swaying, so what" (Hemmings 3). This quote sets the tone for the book, I feel. The characters are in Hawaii, a place that has come to symbolize paradise, vacations, and an escape from reality. The characters of this book though are not having a stereotypical Hawaiian experience. They are, as the quote goes on to explain, in a hospital. By setting the story in Hawaii it causes the reader to question what they previously thought about this island paradise. It places a fictional version of a real family dealing with real issues in a place that has been traditionally viewed as an escape. This traditional view is almost always from a Western perspective where Hawaii is really viewed as a vacation spot. It is separate from the mainland USA and could be viewed purely as a place to get away from the stress of everyday life. This view though forgets about the real people who live, love, work, and so much more on the islands.

Despite the setting of "escape" the characters cannot escape their situation. They are left to deal with their dying mother and the property issues. The setting then seems to heighten their loss and tough decisions. They are surrounded by tourist and happy people but they themselves are in anguish. They see so many people not dealing with reality when they are being forced to deal with it. This is especially seen in the last chapter when they are scattering Joanie's ashes and a booze cruise goes by. The characters decide this is a fitting farewell to their mother but it shows the dichotomy of the situation. The characters trying to face their problems surrounded by people trying to escape theirs.

Even the climate makes it a difficult situation to be upset in. As Hemmings states, "The tropics make it difficult to mope. I bet in big cities you can walk down the street scowling and no one will ask you what's wrong or encourage you to smile, but everyone here has the attitude that we're lucky to live in Hawaii; paradise reigns supreme. I think paradise can go fuck itself" (Hemmings 5). This quote again shows how the setting in the story heightens their problems. They aren't supposed to be sad or angry or frustrated. Bad things should not be happening in such an idyllic place. Despite this they are happening and that the reality everywhere. No one is immune from human suffering. I feel that Hemmings places the story in Hawaii to reveal the reality that people face there. To help to humanize the inhabitants instead of viewing them as happy cartoon like characters. I feel she is trying to show that in Hawaii there are real people that deal with real issues just like the rest of us.

I feel revealing the reality of Hawaii is one of the larger themes seen throughout Hawaiian literature. It is trying to dispell the myth that this is a happy island nation everyone should come visit. Instead many of the books we have read show the racial, sovereignty, land, and more problems that affect real Hawaiian people. I think one of the quotes from The Descendants says it best when it states, "We're back to reality miles and miles away from the slow and easy island" (Hemmings 224). Hawaii is not the island paradise it is portrayed as but instead a real place where many real problems exist.

The use of Language and Translation within "Thirteen Ways of Looking at TheBus"

Jessica St. Martin

I found it interesting that in the poem "Bustainabillity" the speaker visually sounds out long difficult English words, like "trans-por-ta-tion," "con-ges-ted," "ex-cel-lent," and "re-pu-ta-tion," forcing the reader to sound out the words with her. This connects us to the general distance placed between non-English speakers and complicated English words. Also within "Dear God: A Prayer in Six Parts," instead of catering to an English audiences demand for literature written in English, the speaker fully transforms her poetry into language so saturated with the pidgin speaking culture that we must transform our own view of poetry and the speaker in order to understand where the poem is taking us. The English speaking audience is forced to slow down and sound out every syllable in our heads to be able to make sense of each sentence, the same way a non-English speaking audience would be required to while reading English literature.

The refusal to translate Hawaiian words, and even the inclusion of a separate version of "A Bus of MyGod" in a language which appears to be Filipino, comments on the need to expand the use of various languages and cultures within literature to avoid the importance placed upon knowing English in order to participate in reading and analyzing literature.

I keep wondering why every poem we read that is written in pidgin feels like a whining teenage diary entry.  I want to read something not based on someone complaining to the reader in first person. Why don't these poems go further than what English audiences might expect from a pidgin peaking culture?

Spahr's Origins in Well Then There Now

One of the things I like best about Well Then There Now is the way in which Juliana Spahr expresses her views on how negatively we treat the environment and each other. Most of her poems are filled with descriptions and details of every little thing, and "Gentle Now, Don't Add to Heartache" overflows with descriptions of nature and Spahr's feelings towards her early life in Chillicothe, Ohio. In stanza one of "Gentle Now, Don't Add to Heartache" Spahr illustrates how we remember most of the initial world we are born into. Especially if our childhood is spent all in one place, we come to know all of the people and the land very well; we "breathe it in" as Spahr says.
In two we are introduced to the scenery of the stream that Spahr grew up near. Living near a stream and woods myself, I can somewhat relate. Spahr isn't just listing off random plants and creatures, you really do come to learn all about your surroundings, including all of the different types of trees, flowers, and animals that you come to see every day. As a reader, it seems as though there is a different childhood memory or story connected to each thing she lists off, and that's why she remembers it all so vividly. Three continues with the descriptions and further demonstrates Spahr's affections for the wildlife and nature she grew up with.
Four is interesting because it shows the reader what it's like to love all of something: the good and the bad. It's obvious that the stream has a special meaning to Spahr, and she recalls all of the beauty of it as well as the bad- the soda cans, cigarette butts, runoff from agriculture and construction sites, and all of the chemicals. She describes letting all of these things absorb into her skin as well as her memory, so it will always be a part of her physically and metaphorically.
The bittersweet ending of five denotes the changes Spahr begins to see in Chilicothe; changes in economy, ecology, society, and herself. When she turns "to each other" she illustrates growing up and losing the innocence of childhood and of losing her connection to the stream. All in all, "Gentle Now, Don't Add to Heartache" is Spahr's way of leading the reader through her childhood and showing us the importance of having memories and connections to home.

"The Incinerator" once again returns to Chillicothe and dissects the aspects of economy and gender. Spahr begins to unpack the meanings of work and "middle class" and what they mean to her family and the nation. It is almost a revelation that Spahr's childhood may not have been as beautiful and glamorous as she had described it in "Gentle Now, Don't Add to Heartache." It's as though it was a difficult realization that Spahr struggled to understand, growing up she felt confused as to which class her family fit into: "I was trying to understand my mother when she called us middle class all through my childhood. And why she said this since by all the markers...we were working class" (143). What I mostly took from "The Incinerator" is that it's hard to define what categories are and which one you feel you may fit into, and this was something Spahr realized when she looked back on her childhood in Chillicothe and how it may have shaped her life after Ohio.

Just as a side note, I'm from Kent, Ohio which, as it turns out, is 3 hours and 18 minutes away from where Spahr was born in Chillicothe, Ohio. (Kent is A, Chillicothe is B)

American Manifest Destiny & Jack London

While reading Jack London’s “Riding the South Seas Surf” I thought a lot about the pervasive trope stressing the importance of man’s need to conquer the waves and ocean. It made me wonder when will Americans ever be satisfied? It seems to me that after Americans colonized Hawaii they had to conquer not only the land and people but the ocean as well. 

Jack London begins by defining surfing as, “a royal sport for the natural kings of earth.” Just the fact that he has to redefine surfing for his American audience can be seen as an American claim on Hawaiian culture. By describing the sport as “royal” he indicates that the rulers are the ones that are supposed to be in charge- on land and at sea. When he says that this sport is for the “natural kings of earth” I cannot help but see two meanings of that statement. The first being what I believe London meant which was that man- meaning man in a collective global way; mankind- is the natural king as the top species on Earth, and so it is only natural that we should conquer the sea as we have the land. 

I see a more sinister meaning behind those words. I see a privileged white American male perpetuating the idea of American Manifest Destiny. Manifest Destiny is the American political trope conjured up to justify American claims to Western lands already inhabited by natives. Once Americans reached the West coast they ran out of land to conquer so they continued West, across the Pacific and colonized Hawaii. Once Hawaii was annexed as a territory, Americans had control of the island and overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy. Which brings me to my point, in class Rob talked about the irony that Jack London would say things like, “he is a man, a natural king, a member of the kingly species that has mastered matter and the brutes and lorded it over creation” (139). But I see this as a natural extension of the American attitude as colonizers. Of course Jack London would say that surfing is for kings, because as the new kings of Hawaii, Americans can now master (the once feared and despised) art of surfing. By doing so, they truly establish themselves as conquerors.

By Matina Tryforos 

What Did You Say?

The most intriguing part of this week’s readings, for me, was its discussion on languages. In Connecting Disconnection and Localized Globalism in Pacific Multilingual Literature by Juliana Spahr, she discusses the placement of languages in literature. While most Hawaiian text utilizes English as the primary language, the dynamic of Hawaii can be shown by including other languages such as Filipino, Hawaiian, pidgin, Japanese, etc. Spahr calls this a multilingual gesture and states “In these works, languages exist side by side, but their closeness often emphasizes the struggles between distinctive cultural traditions and values.” (138) I feel that the language barriers found in literature allow the reader to gain an exposure to various cultures and provides an opportunity to accept a different way of speaking. I was interested in Spahr’s analysis of how a foreign word can be dealt with by both the reader and the author. The author can choose to translate the word or, simply, not to translate the word.

I think the former is a much more powerful statement because it forces the reader to realize their limitations. The reader has to either accept that they are not “in the know” or they must pursue that knowledge of the language so that they can be. I really found it interesting that by choosing to not translate a word, the author is also able to make a political statement. It’s as if they’re saying, “Why should my language be inferior to yours? Why should I have to translate my language (and therefore a part of my culture and identity) to make it easier for you to understand? This is not a one way road, you have to explore other dialects as well. I will let my language stand on it’s on with no explanation.” I love that! I love that the italics of Hawaiian words in Trask’s writings show “emphasis on the history of how the Hawaiian language was outlawed in Hawaii.” (137)  I love that the foreign languages in texts can act as the dominant term while English has to “act as if it carries with it the translative obligation that…it is not entirely fulfilling.” (143)  The act of not translating a word could have such a powerful effect!

On the total opposite spectrum of this, I also love what translating a word can mean for the text. When the author chooses to reveal the secrets of their language, I suddenly feel enlightened to their culture. Translating a word brings in an element of closeness for the two languages and helps to bridge the gap between various cultures.

The link I post, here, is a video about how English might sound to non-English speakers. I think that it nicely ties into this week’s readings and highlights the fact that sometime we just can’t be “in the know.”

Juliana Spahr_Jackie

The poem that I really enjoyed from Juliana Spahr's Well Then There Now was the one titled Things of Each Possible Relation Hashing Against One Another. This poem focused on nature, plants, wild animals all beautiful and appealing things to the eye. The vivid imagery really set the tone going in the sequence of a rollercoaster. It began with descriptions of the ocean and landscape and suddenly boom, arriving in a new place was what followed. Then it takes the reader back to tranquility. Some recurring phrases were that of hummingbirds and butterflies which led me to realize this poem is about the overthrow and the annexation of Hawaii. She also mentions how some animals are analogous to each other in relation to those who live in Hawaii. Although some are Natives and other were raised there but come from different backgrounds, they are still part of Hawaii. There was a lot of mentioning of animals as well as humans and how both species aspire to be free. Later on in the poem, the government and trade and commerce was mentioned all things that relate to modernity. The reason I enjoyed this poem the most because I felt it was very realistic and although there were some metaphors I felt I understood the message right off the bat. I was particular interested in the way Spahr tired in nature with golbalization, they are two contrasting things and she united them beautifully in her poem

Lecture Notes through Gajelonia

Updated lecture notes are here

Dole Street

            In looking at the “Dole Street” chapter from Juliana Spahr’s Well then there now I think it’s clear that Spahr is highlighting the mockery that American influence seems to make of Hawaiian culture. Starting with the fact that the street is named after Sanford B. Dole the President of the highly controversial “provisional government” which was established by the United States. Dole was also the first Governor of Hawaii after it officially became a U.S territory. The notion that a street can exist in this highly populated area of Hawaii named after a man who tried to strip Hawaiian’s of their right to vote is a complete mockery and absolutely ludicrous.

            Spahr goes on to describe some of the stickers that she sees on the back of cars lining that street and how so many of them “sell Hawaii as they sell surfing gear and accessories (35).”  The stickers display over exaggerated misogynistic pictures of cartoon girls in short grass skirts with large breasts. This is the image of Hawaii that an American company like Roxy tries to sell.

            Spahr also talks about the ABC stores in Hawaii and how every single one of them sells the little dashboard hula dancers. To me I just read this description of Dole Street as a metaphor for the Americanization of Hawaii in general. America tries so hard to sell this image of Hawaii from the leis given out at the airport to the “Hawaiian” shirts that are sold at every corner store, and all of it is just completely unauthentic and must appear ridiculous to both the native and local Hawaiians.

            I also thought the description of the University of Hawaii and its place at the top of Dole Street was very interesting. Spahr mentions the sculpture “gate of hope” that sits at the front of the school and how it appears to be giving the middle finger to all of Waikiki. Do you think that the negative light that some of the locals hold the university in is due to the fact that the university brings in so many outsiders to Hawaii or that the students contribute to an overall arrogant American attitude amongst the Islands?  

Rob Wilson's "White Surfer Dude"

Rob's poem "The White Surfer Dude", based on local Santa Cruz iconography at Steamer Lane

Mongoose in Hawaii

So there is no more confusion! "The 1800's were a huge century for sugar cane and plantations shot up on many tropical islands including Hawai'i and Jamaica. With sugar cane came rats, attracted to the sweet plant, which ended up causing quite a bit of crop destruction and loss. In 1872 a gentleman by the name of W. B. Espeut, in an attempt to control the rising rat populations introduced Indian Mongoose from Calcutta to the island of Jamaica. A subsequent paper published by Espeut, that praised the results intrigued local Hawaiian plantation owners who, in 1883, brought 72 mongooses from Jamaica to the Hamakua Coast here on the Big Island. These were raised and their offspring were shipped to plantations on other islands. Currently, only the islands of Lana'i and Kaua'i are (thought to be) free of mongoose. There are two conflicting stories of why Kaua'i was spared. The first is that the residents of Kaua'i were opposed to having the animals on the island and when the ship carrying the offspring reached Kaua'i, the animals were thrown overboard and drown. A second story tells that upon arriving to Kaua'i one of the mongooses bit a dockworker who, in a fit of anger, threw the caged animals into the harbor to drown. So just what is the problem with mongooses?  Well, for one, they are active mostly during the day, whereas the rat is active at night - so while they did eat some rats, they had very little impact on the overall rat population. More importantly, however, was the fact that the mongoose have a taste for birds and especially bird eggs. While the rat was already endangering native populations of ground nesting birds, bringing the mongoose only added to the problem. The normal diet of a mongoose is largely made up of insects, but also includes small cats, snakes (endangering snakes eventually), frogs, rodents, seeds, nuts, fruit and, of course, the delicious egg. To top it off, male mongooses can father offspring in as little as 4 months after birth - with the female producing a normal litter of 2 to 5 pups per year. Though cute and playful, these pups will soon be parenting more and more mongoose. Additionally, both rats and mongooses carry leptospirosis which their droppings transfer to our streams and water supplies, so not only are these creatures destroying native birds, they also threaten human habitats (and is one good reason not to swim in Hawai'i streams and ponds)." Unlike India, the natural home to these creatures, Hawai'i has no natural predators to the mongoose. Mongoose control must be done by humans, usually by trapping. Also interesting... "Polynesion immigrants later brought pigs. Horses, goats, sheep, European pigs and cattle were brought by European settlers. Many of these animals, especially the European pig, have caused extensive problem endangering many plant and animal species." -Kaeliann Hulett

Source

London Promotes Western Influence

  This is a bit delayed, but I have been thinking about it for a while...  

   After reading London's account of surfing, and going over lecture notes, I felt I needed to do a bit more research as to why London was really in Hawaii to begin with. London's writing was great account of how learning to surf is difficult for a Haole, however, he seemed to be promoting something further than the experience of surfing itself. Here is a passage on Jack London that I found very useful in helping me clarify London's intentions.

“Ford had a restless, driving energy, and such people can, sometimes, be insufferable,” noted his major biographer Valerie Noble. “He must certainly have taken Jack London and his wife, Charmian, by surprise on the evening of Wednesday, May 29. The Londons were sitting in a cool corner of the… [Moana Hotel], when a bearded young man stepped briskly up to them with ‘You’re Jack London, aren’t you?My name is Ford.’ London acknowledged the greeting and said that he had heard that Ford was in Honolulu and had wanted to see him. He’d read much of Ford’s writings. Quickly introduced to Charmian, Ford rushed on in quick conversation with Jack. In an undertone, he told London that he had a lot of good material for stories, but there was no use for him to try, as his fiction was rot. He could write travel articles, but admitted that it took no artist to do that. Ford then offered to jot down and give them to London. London suggested that he join them for dinner, during which Ford talked steadily.”

Although both men shared the common interests of writing and traveling, it was Ford’s interest in the ancient Hawaiian sport of surfing that really caught London’s attention. Ford promised to give London “whacking good material – for stories.”

Charmain recalled of that evening: “At present he (Ford) is interested in reviving the old Hawaiian sport of surf-boarding on the breakers. When he left, we were able to draw the first long breath in two hours… One had the sense of being speeded up; but his generous good nature was worth it.”

Ford’s primary biographer Valerie Noble wrote that Ford’s “enthusiasm for surfing was boundless.”

Jack London was so taken with Ford’s description of wave riding that he promised to join Ford on a “surfing excursion.”Charmian noted that her husband “finds the man most stimulating in an unselfish enthusiasm to revive neglected customs of elder island days, for the benefit of Hawaii and her advertisement to the outside world.” She considered Ford a “genius” at “pioneering and promoting” who “swears he is going to make this island’s pastime (surfing) one of the most popular in the world.”

The following Saturday, June 1, “True to his promise, Ford appeared… with an enormous surfboard, and made fun of the small one that had been lent to the Londons.”

Imagine a beginning surfer trying to teach someone who has never done it. Ford would have been in a predicament had it not been for George Freeth, once again. Freeth was surfing off Waikiki that day, further out. When London saw how well and easily Freeth rode the outside breakers, he – like Ford – was encouraged in his own efforts to ride.

“Out there in the midst of such a succession of big smoky ones,” later wrote the beginning surfer, hard drinker and chain-smoker Jack London, “a third man was added to our party, one Freeth. Shaking the water from my eyes as I emerged from one wave and peered ahead to see what the next one looked like, I saw him tearing in on the back of it, standing upright with his board, carelessly poised, a young god bronzed with sunburn. We went through the wave on the back of which he rode. Ford called to him. He turned an air spring from his wave, rescued his board from its maw, paddled over to us, and joined Ford in showing me things...”

Although London later suffered from severe sunburn and a bump on the head from a loose board, he wrote enthusiastically about his first surfing session. “Ah, delicious moment when I first felt that breaker grip and fling me. On I dashed, a hundred and fifty feet, and subsided with the breaker on the sand. From that moment I was lost.”Writing further he acknowledged, “I tackled surf-riding, and now that I have tackled it, more than ever do I hold it to be a royal sport.”

London not only appreciated surfing, but also the younger Freeth’s skill and demeanor. “Where but the moment before was only the wide desolation and invincible roar, is now a man, erect, full-statured, not struggling frantically in that wild movement, not buried and crushed and buffeted by those mighty monsters, but standing above them all, calm and superb, poised on the giddy summit, his feet buried in the churning foam, the salt smoke rising to his knees, and all the rest of him in the free air and flashing sunlight, and he is flying through the air, flying forward, flying fast as the surge on which he stands. He is a Mercury – a brown Mercury. His heels are winged, and in them is the swiftness of the sea.”

The same day Jack London surfed with Ford and Freeth, Charmain watched from the beach and wrote of what she saw: “The thick board, somewhat coffin-shaped, with rounded ends, should be over six feet long. This plank is floated out to the breaking water, which can be done either wading alongside or lying face-downward paddling; and there you wait for the right wave. When you see it coming, stand ready to launch the board on the gathering slope, spring upon it, and - keep going if you can. Lie flat on your chest, hands grasping the sides of the large end of the heavy timber, and steer with your feet. The expert, having gauged the right speed, rises cautiously to his knees, to full stature, and then, erect with feet in the churning foam, he makes straight for the beach.”

As for London himself, he was determined to be able to stand and ride his borrowed surfboard: “But tomorrow, ah tomorrow. I shall be out in that wonderful water, and I shall come in standing up. And if I fail tomorrow, I shall do it the next day, or the next. Upon one thing I am resolved: the Snark [his sailboat] shall not sail from Honolulu until I, too, wing my heels with the swiftness of the sea, and become a sunburned, skin-peeling Mercury.” London was also stoked to see Ford surf. “What a sport he is,” London exclaimed, “and what a sport for white men, too.”

-Malcolm Gault-Williams

      After reading this detailed explanation of London's reasoning behind learning how to surf, I became much more convinced that surfing has been completely turned around from what it was originally meant to stand for and represent. Here surfing is clearly used as a way in promoting tourism, and a means of income for the President. Ford was turning surfing into a political subject to gain wealth, and promote the occupation of Hawaii by Westerners. The early accounts of surf-riding had to do with the connection the Hawaiian people had with the ocean, and the way they flawlessly moved on their boards. Learning to surf was not for sport, as we read in the beginning of Pacific Passage, it was the Hawaiians way of connecting to the ocean, and their land, the land which they believe they were made from and are biologically a part of. The entire meaning of surf-riding has been completely lost by the time we get to Jack London's account, and even before then. The Western civilization had started to come to Hawaii and adapt itself to their customs. However, they did not only adapt; they changed their customs and made them their own. While doing so, the Hawaiians were losing their religious connection to their land, it more ways than just surf-riding, but also the amount of tourism and culture change it would bring with it. Surf-riding was immensely effected by the western civilization, and it is a great example as to how the annexation, and population, of Hawaii has greatly effected it's culture, religion, and over all meaning of existence. Hawaii is no longer the land of it's people, and it's meaning of existence is no longer to provide for it's people and connect to them, but it is now a spot of tourism, a spot of surfing, the land of “Blue Hawaii”.

-Kaeliann Hulett

Corporatations in Hawaii

In "Thirteen Ways of Looking at the The Bus," the poem "All business" shares the perspective of a local Hawaiian that is fed up with corporations. This person says that stores like Macy's and Nordstrom's should go back to the main land because locals don't need "any more big corporations lidat." This sentiment is somewhat refuted by the last few lines of the poem: "I mean, if I like buy one cheap aloha shirt, I can just cross the street to Ke'eaumoku and go Wal-mart." Though this last line carries a sarcastic undertone, the issue it raises is one that pits locals against not just foreign influence, but capitalism as well. Hawaii has become a major tourist attraction for people around the world. Without the large corporations that Hawaii accomodates, I do not believe that it would be able to sustain its tourist economy. Major hotel chains, supermarkets, film studios, etc, all hold a stake in Hawaii. Though capitalism and foreign influence seem to go hand in hand, I do not feel that the corporations can be avoided as key contributors to the Hawaiian tourist economy. I'm curious as to what everyone has to say about this issue.

Scripto Ergo Sum

Even though this is a little ahead of assigned readings, I loved this topic--

            I found Rob Wilson’s article “From the Sublime to the Devious: Writing the Experimental/Local Pacific” a very connective piece of work, acting almost as a freeway interchange between many of the readings we have been assigned, as well as with many of the important themes found in Pacific Literature as a whole. Because of this, I almost feel overloaded with topics and tangents I could discuss regarding this reading, something I think Wilson does with a purpose. His article enlightens the reader to all of the different pathways of Hawaiian Avant-Garde poetics, Asian-American-Hawaiian ‘local’ literature, and of course American tourist literature. He attempts to show just how complicated and web-like life is for those living in the Pacific by constantly diverting the reader down another path.

            At the same time however, Rob’s content is telling the reader that there is some kind of post-postmodernist writing style being borne within the Pacific, in order to portray their land and identity struggles within post-postcolonial Hawai’i. This brings me back to his smallest paragraph, and the title of this writing—“scripto ergo sum.” Wilson describes this motto as “language-centered” at a moment of “writerly adventure and lyric oblivion.” The motto translates to “I write therefore I am” a clear play on the phrase “cogito ergo sum” which means “I think therefore I am,” a notion familiar in American lifestyles—the classic picking one’s self up from their boot straps and making it in the larger scheme of things. The importance of the emphasis on writing (scripto) is Rob’s claim that the Hawaiians are re-creating their native culture, not by returning to their roots, but by repressing their cultural oppressors—rather than conforming to Euro-American literary styles, the local writers are creating their own. Wilson argues that you can pick out a real local writer, by their use of post-postmodernist form, which basically means no form at all. This then becomes the Pacific’s mode of pulling up their bootstraps; their literary forms will release them from any colonial restraints.

Power of Multilingual Literature for Avant-Garde Pacific Movements

“Maori loan words although most have

Ceased italicizing them

To give a sense of inclusion

In one context” –Robert Sullivan (Spahr 94)

            Spahr begins her essay by explaining her history with the Pacific, through her job opportunity at the University of Hawai’i in order to depict what she has learned of her own thinking by “reading works that are rooted in anticolonial identity and resistance,” (Spahr 80) something that she argues comes through most prominently in poems or plays, since “both genres have ties to oral traditions” (80)—this shows the intense, “conjunction” between literature and Hawaiian sovereignty struggles.

            Spahr argues that Pacific literature is also the meeting place of two postmodernisms: one which includes “writerly expectations” and “textual play” and one with the concerns that of a specific “model of identity, affiliated voice, sentiments of nationhood, and (post)colonial heritage” (Spahr 79). To me, this means that literature of the Pacific Islands is a meeting place of not only postcolonial structure and forms but also postcolonial content and sentiments of a search for sovereignty through their outward literature. Spahr focuses on the orally-represented genres, (plays and poetry) for they come straight from the folklore of the Native and local peoples. By the use of HCE or pidgin, as well as the Native Hawaiian language embedded within an English-based literature, Spahr argues that local Hawaiian literature can break through the restraints of American colonialism in their own Avant-Garde way, as described above.

            Spahr argues that the use of multiple languages in literature forces not only the reader but the writer as well (for she is one!) to highlight the “intercultural, weblike nature of all knowledge systems…[the reader and writer alike are] forced to form new communities of reading” (82).  These communities of reading form a linguistically-based group of locals based in keeping “the local in the global” or portraying their anticolonial stand through their specific plights in their own word form. In using their HCE next to, yet against the English, the Hawaiians take their stand with their own conjunction of language in their post-colonial literature.

Tourism in Spahr

Blog Post #4

     Juliana Spahr's Well Then There Now is very focused on place, this idea is viewed through the lense of tourism. In "Sonnets," Spahr compares tourism to an invasive species coming into a foreign and and changing it simply because of their entry into it. According to Spahr, "We arrived by air by 747 and DC101 and L1011...We arrived and then walked into this green" (19). But just through the act of arriving to this new place, the land and the place are changed. Spahr claims, "We tried not to notice but as we arrived we became a part of arriving and making different" (19). This idea that tourism will inevitably alter the place being traveled to is very interesting to me. It reflects on many themes in the course. It reflects back on Trasks' issues with settlers becoming locals and changing the culture and landscape of Hawaii. It also reflects back on the writings of explorers and missionaries in Pacific Passages, who altered the cultural landscape of the islands just by arriving.