Fujikane in Agreement with Ho‘omanawanui (October 29, 2008)
I also agree with the substance of [Ho‘omanawanui] arguments about what Dennis is doing. As well-intentioned as Dennis is, he does insert his settler family history into the genealogy of Hawaiian land, and he does claim a position of authority for himself on Hawaiian mo'olelo. When she writes, "if we assume that anyone has kuleana over Hawaiian culture, history, and the (re)telling of it through our mo'olelo, then it isn't difficult to understand why most haole and Asian settlers in Hawai'I argue there is no difference between themselves and indigenous Kanaka Maoli, despite the vast differences in kuleana that do exist" (144). I think this is the heart of her argument, and as Eiko points out in her essay, "We must understand the depth of our immigrant indoctrination and hence the implications of our ideological education that structures our worldview in terms of settler interests." That's the conflict that comes up in Dennis' work--the conflict between his desire to tell the story of his family and to tell the stories of the land: the two become conflated in ways that make settler claims.