Reader David Lonborg, who was very active in the lengthy debate over Washington state’s decision to pass legislation banning “Oriental” from public documents, sends along this related story from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin:
According to the writer of ‘Kamehameha,’ starring Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson, the upcoming film production is a train already on the tracks. But at least one Hawaiiana scholar is already working to derail it.
Lilikala Kame’eleihiwa, director of the Gladys K. ‘Ainoa Brandt Center for Hawaiian Studies at the University of Hawaii, met with screenwriter Greg Poirier two weeks ago to discuss the project, and this week emailed him a response that was then distributed over the UH email network.
Poirier contacted Kame’eleihiwa after receiving the email, which read, ‘I must ask that you NOT continue with the project. Please stop writing today,’ wrote Kame’eleihiwa. ‘What you are doing will result in hewa‘ — the Hawaiian word for mistake or error.
‘For Hawaiians it is not acceptable that Hollywood should be allowed to misrepresent the history of our ancestors in any way. Nor do we want Hollywood’s warped sense of “Hawaiiana” portrayed to the world.
‘The story of Kamehameha should wait for a culturally knowledgeable Hawaiian to write the screen play, for a Hawaiian movie company to make the film, and for a Hawaiian descendant of Kamehameha to play the role,’ continued Kame’eleihiwa.
‘We Hawaiians have already had 60 years of cultural misrepresentation, and it is no longer tolerable … The very fact that movie producers, and you as well it seems, think that “the Rock” is appropriate to play Kamehameha, is an indication that you understand nothing of Hawaiian culture, no matter how thorough has been your research in the history of Kamehameha.
‘Please understand that I have nothing against you personally … You have done much research and you can even pronounce Hawaiian names properly,’ wrote Kame’eleihiwa, and then acknowledged that Poirier, a Baldwin High graduate, grew up in Hawaii. [my emphasis – ed]
Even so, continued Kame- ‘eleihiwa, ‘you don’t believe Hawaiians should have the final say over the telling of our history. You think you have the right to make money off of us, off of our culture and those things we hold sacred. You do not have this right. The saga of Kamehameha is Hawaiian intellectual property, guaranteed by the United Nations, and if you have any respect for Hawaiians you will stop your project now.’
Kame’eleihiwa did not respond to attempts to reach her.
Those who believe that if Poirier stops writing the movie will not be made are mistaken, the screenwriter told the Star-Bulletin. There is no copyright on historical fact.
Although Poirier said he can understand Hawaiian concerns, ‘all I can do to assuage them is continue researching and being as faithful as I can be, given the limits of a screenplay,’ said Poirier.
‘I’ve gotten many positive responses from the Hawaiian community as well, by the way. If I leave, I’ll just be replaced by someone who may not care as much about historical accuracy or cultural sensitivity as I am.
‘This movie is being made; that’s the bottom line. If some people don’t agree with certain aspects of it, I respect that and understand their point of view, and they’ll do what they feel they have to do.
‘But thinking that by complaining that Kamehameha’s story won’t be told is unrealistic. If any historical figure is in the public domain, (Kamehameha) is it.’
What is being fought over here (I’m I’ve forever astounded that we’ve reached this point) is “ownership” of a particular historical narrative — with Ms. Kame’eleihiwa claiming that the narrative history of particular culture/ethnicity “belongs” to those who are born into that particular culture/ethnicity, and Mr. Poirier countering that the contested historical facts “belong” to no one in particular.
What I find most remarkable about Ms. Kame’eleihiwa’s claims, though, are that they go beyond the rather uncontroversial assertion that different points of view are likely to produce strikingly different narratives of the same events (anybody remember the “All in the Family” episode about the ‘frig repairman and his knife?) — and so Mr. Poirier’s screenplay might benefit from his paying attention to the history of Kamehameha as seen through the eyes of interested native Islanders — to the far more troublesome assertion that anyone not sharing Kamehameha’s ethnicity has no right to recount his narrative history.
Quite clearly, this is Said’s Orientalism taken to its most exasperating extreme — to the point where ownership over a particular narrative is not merely asserted on grounds of “authenticity” and proximity to the historical actors, but is argued instead from the perspective of intellectual copyright — with a corresponding appeal to both blood ties and the UN Authority to grant such copyright.
Regular readers of this site will recognize how perverse I find such abuses of language — founded as they are on the very kinds of essentialist appeals we as a society (claim to) wish to rid ourselves of (but which we instead embrace each time we countenance the validity of such absurd arguments).
For those of you interested, I’ve culled from the rather lengthy set of notes I posted earlier on interpretive theory the portion of those notes that speak specifically to this issue of narrative ownership (and the machinery of language that animates such issues), using Toni Morrison’s Beloved and Philip Roth’s Portnoy’s Complaint as the touchstone texts (PDF doc). Familiarity with the primary texts is not crucial, though it certainly wouldn’t hurt.
Further amplification of the ideas worked through in the Morrison/Roth discussion can be found in the earlier portions of the course notes.
I’m sorry, but I have just a little stupid factoid here:
“Kamehameha” also happens to be the most popular “ki” or “power” move that the characters in Dragon Ball Z, a Japanese animation, uses. Also, the hero Gokuu’s old master is named Kamesennin and he lives in the Kame House.
And no, it’s not a co-incidence. =P
I’m surprised Haunani Trask hasn’t jumped onto this one. I suppose if I dig a little, I’ll find she has.
Having lived in Hawaii for 5 years, and having a number of part-Hawaiian relatives, I can certainly grasp how strongly many native Hawaiians feel about this. But I don’t agree that allowing the narrative to originate only from those genetically connected to the group in question. I think this dimishes a given narrative, if anything. And in any event, as you say, historical events aren’t owned, per se.
And as for the actor needing to be a Hawaiian descendant of Kamehameha … what if this descendent doesn’t possess acting ability? Then again, we’re talking about a role slated to be played by The Rock, so this is probably a moot point.
<small><tt>What is being fought over here (I’m I’ve forever astounded that we’ve reached this point) is “ownership” of a particular historical narrative—with Ms. Kame’eleihiwa claiming that the narrative history of particular culture/ethnicity “belongs” to those who are born into that particular culture/ethnicity, and Mr. Poirier countering that historical fact “belongs” to no one in particular.</tt></small>
“Ownership” is one level of abstraction too high, I think. At bottom, what’s being fought over here is a question of power—the question of, With whom does the defining power reside in this matter? Native Hawaiians exclusively, or any serious-minded other who cares to put his hand to the business?
Such a fight in a matter like this is, of course, absurd to begin with, and ought to be accorded the disregard it so richly deserves. That it’s accorded otherwise is a rough measure of the degree of lunacy inherent in academic postmodern thought as it’s been shaped by, and evolved in this country.
ACD
ACD–
Ms. Kame’eleihiwa writes, “The saga of Kamehameha is Hawaiian intellectual property”—a clear claim to ownership, I think. I understand the power dynamic you’re alluding to, but as I say, I think the particular claims being made here go beyond the struggle over control of the narrative (with whom the power to define resides) to a place where the aggrieved seeks redress by appealing to an actual extra-intellectual agency (the UN), citing intellectual copyright laws as the basis for making such an appeal.
I think the claim to intellectual property rights may be related to a similar claim made by another Pacific group (Maoris?) about the names Lego used for some of its Bionicle products. I seem to remember that Lego changed the names fairly quickly, which might encourage other, similar claims. And this certainly would not be the first time Hawaiian activists appealed to the UN as a source of authority for their positions.
The other thing that’s interesting is how you define the group that “owns” this history. There are very few people living today whose ancestry is 100% Hawaiian (and what’s up with using “pure-blooded” in reference to people in 2002?). Many of the activists end up making very strong claims for “blood” as the source of ownership of not only the culture but also lots of nice land, etc. In other words, a haole who marries a Hawaiian will never be Hawaiian no matter how thoroughly he or she tries to assimiliate, but someone of 1/32 Hawaiian ancestry who is born and raised in North Dakota is Hawaiian.
Fortunately for the rest of us in Hawaii, most Hawaiians (however defined) do not subscribe to the extreme positions of some of the would-be Hawaiian leaders. In general, race tends to be a non-issue in Hawaii, which is why I get so worked up about race-baiting attempts to change that.
Dave–<br>I think that was the point Jeff was trying to raise with his comments about essentialism. Unfortunately a large number of well-meaning (I think) but not-very-intelligent people have spent a good deal of time over the past few decades undercutting the basis for anti-racism (that there are no important “racial” distinctions) in a misguided attempt to “empower” its victims.
Matthew,
Not disagreeing at all, just trying to expand a little bit. I sent the article to Jeff in the first place because I thought it was such a good example of some of what he’s been talking about. I’d argue that some of the more extreme Hawaiian activists are a lot more intelligent than they are well-meaning, but I think their arguments are interesting because they end up having to take such exteme positions about what ethnicity means. If you need such radical premises to make your conclusions work, there’s probably something seriously wrong with the conclusions.
<b>Jeff:</b> I didn’t mean to quibble with distinction of definitions. I was simply trying to point out that the sort of thing Whats-her-face is attempting goes beyond the mere question of property rights (i.e., “ownership”). All such attempts, no matter what their surface appearance, are, at bottom, attempts at securing moral and political power—that’s to say, attempts to wrest power from the presently powerful, and secure it for those making the attempt. In the instant case, that business of “intellectual property rights” is merely the “cover,” so to speak.
ACD
I agree with you for the most part—though I think some of these wrongheaded impulses have less to do with the pragmatics of power (for some) as they do with a true-believer’s appeal to essentialism. It may sound severe, but I truly believe there’s a degree of racism inherent in claims such as the ones we’re beginning to see (the Spike Lee conditions for “racism” notwithstanding)
True Believers and essentialism indeed. And what is that invariably about if not at bottom an attempt at securing power—or more correctly put, wresting it from the presently powerful. In the case of True Believers especially, it’s also a means to buttress their belief (i.e., the more who accept, or are made to accept, The Way, the more The Faith is the One True Faith).
Such attempts are almost never about what they up-front say they’re about, that being merely the cover. And, yes, I agree with you that there’s a tacit, subterranean strain of racism involved in many of these attempts that appear on the surface to be absent any such motivation.
ACD
I don’t know, I read the story and all I could think of was: did she get <i>her</i> screenplay rejected? Petty, I know. But is it pettier than saying that historical figures of a certain ethnic group can only be talked about/written about by members of that same ethnic group, and no other? If that were so, then how would we ever have learned anything? What happened to ( this would be a good time to put the Mamas and the Papas, or maybe the New Seekers on the turntable) everyone getting together and learning about one another? What’s next—declaring even <i>knowledge</i> of any other ethnic group than one’s own off-limits to those not of that ethnic group? (If one is even sure what ethnic group one belongs to, or if one is even of one “race”—and what are mutts like many Americans supposed to do?) Just more incredibly stupid, not-completely-thought-through-because-we-are-too-intent-on-carving-out-our-little-portion-of-turf, circle-pissing territory marking from the halls of academia. I just wish so much of it didn’t spill into the rest of society; it could be our downfall. We’ll let ourselves be destroyed from within and without by barbarians who are against everything we stand for, but by Judeo-Christian White Male Patriarchal Deity, we’ll be true to our ideals.
I find the following statement mindboggling:
“The saga of Kamehameha is Hawaiian intellectual property, guaranteed by the United Nations, and if you have any respect for Hawaiians …”
United Nations? Am I mistaken in interpreting this as an American citizen invoking the United Nations to support ethnic distinctions? Is Hawaii stil part of the US or did I miss something.
Some of the more extreme Hawaiian activists do not believe that Hawaii ever legally became part of the United States. They appeal to international law, including UN decolonization principles, as authority for Hawaiian independence or at least some sort of a Hawaiian analogue to Indian reservations.
Ida know. After seeing the fine, accurate treatment Hollywood has recently given other events in Hawaiian history (Pearl Harbor), I’d almost agree with her.
On the other hand, anyone that could watch something that crappy (just a guess based on TheRock’s last little historical vehicle) and buy into it being “the way it happened” will be absolutely satisfied sitting down to an ‘authentic Hawaiian luau’ on Waikiki, and paying through the nose for the privilege. So whats her beef?
There’s lots of things she could have argued. If she’d argued that this is very likely to be a crappy movie, I’d be fine with that. If she’d argued that films that purport to be historical ought to be accurate, OK. But instead, the argument is that any film about Kamehameha should be made exclusively by people who had at least one ancestor in these islands before Captain Cook arrived, because they are the exclusive owners of Hawaiian history and have the right to determine how “their” stories are told.
She probably ain’t too keen on those luaus, either. It’s oppressive to hijack other people’s cultures, you see, even though cultures have been blending together and borrowing from each other in Hawaii for the past 200 years or so.
Oops – the borrowing from other cultures line reminds me of “Hawaiian Sweet Bread.” Which was originally Portuguese. Then there’s the ukelele, which was developed from a Portuguese tenor guitar. Sorry, Hawaiians, you’ve been busted, ya gotta give all that stuff back. And the muu-muu was introduced by missionaries. That’s right, strip down.
It also reminds me of the flap over “Miss Saigon” some years back, when the producers got grief because a Eurasian character was played by a Caucasian. Hmmmm – I thought acting was about pretending to be somebody you weren’t. But perhaps these folks think Anthony Hopkins really is a serial killing cannibal.
But so far my favorite tale of the cross cultural battleground was ten or so years ago. A white artist across the Sound from Seattle liked to use American Indian techniques in his work. He never claimed the works were authentic, he was up front about who he was and what he was trying to accomplish. Some naive folks, such as myself, might even have thought it a compliment. Another artist, American Indian, was infuriated that the first one was “stealing” from his culture, so he assaulted him.
By ramming his pickup truck into the first guy’s car.
Ah, the traditional Indian Pickup Truck Coup Ritual. I’d be willing to bet the Indian artist wore Levi’s as well. And this being the Northwest, flannel shirts. So much for maintaining cultural purity. Or was the word apartheid?
It does bear emphasizing that Lilikala Kame’eleihiwa and her ilk are speaking for themselves, not for Hawaiians generally. The activists try to stir up trouble by convincing people that they’re entitled to land and money and that they need to provide political support to the activists in order to get it. Fortunately, most Hawaiians aren’t too into that, possibly because the Evil Outsiders tend to be their relatives, friends, and neighbors.
I think it’s more important that they do a good job and make a good movie. Braveheart was about as historically inaccurate as you could get without changing the names, and it was still a good movie.
Hell, I’d love an inaccurate movie that was as fun, entertaining and rousing as Braveheart.
Kal
YES!!! Kalroy scores!
He’s right – it’s a freakin’ movie. Entertainment. Like, for fun? Can we enjoy it?
One of the most inaccurate movies of all time, Top Gun, is still a cool, fun flick. Maybe it got some kids to sign up with the Navy to be dishwasher operators in Great Lakes, but it was still entertainment.
So is this upcoming Kamehameha thing.
Incidentally, there was a nuclear submarine named Kamehameha. No cultural connection there at all, the Navy simply named the first few classes of ballistic missile submarines after people significant to American history. Thus there was also a Tecumseh and a Lafayette and a Pulaski. Then came the Trident system and those boats got state names (including, Hawaii). Where’s the outrage? First we oppress them, then we name instruments of destruction after them! Ooooh, I’m so upset I’m going to have to eat a whole pint of Ben & Jerries!
Hmm…I was directed here by Jeff as a more appropriate place for a political debate. Seems pretty boring to me, but I’ll be nice and won’t make the assumption that he’s trying to cover his ass and shy away from a debate with one too many damn smartass longhairs.
Nevertheless, I have to say, I’ve seen better conversation topics. Let me say, first of all, that I’m a third generation hippie. We’re a rare species. I love chai tea and beaded hair. I think gay couples are cute. That said, I think Kame’eleihiwa is a freakin moron. OF COURSE historical fact is everyone’s property. The day after film was invented, someone made a crappy movie, and it probably belittled someone else. SO WHAT? Well, I could argue against you guys, but I think my argument would be drowned in a gale of sneers, particularly because I would only be doing a half-assed job.
Therefore, in the interests of intelligent conversation, witty debate, and getting my mack on, I will attempt to take the argument elsewhere. If you don’t like it, just ignore me…I probably won’t be able to post again for a few days anyway, as I’m in the middle of a vacation, so you can probably even cuss me out and I won’t fight back.
THAT said, here’s my topic suggestion. The University of Illinois has had spats for a while with a series of representatives of Plains Indian culture over their mascot, Chief Illini (Illinai? something like that) who, incedentally, never existed, and if his costume came from anywhere, it would be…guess where…the center of Plains Indian culture, the Great Plains.
The argument here, and the one I present, is that this is unfair to these people, not because the fans are thinking, “ha, that’s a dumb injun, and I like to watch him dance,” but because, whether the fans think so or not, it belittles their culture. Those that come from a strong Plains background see the Chief, and watch their tattered, half-destroyed, half-forgotten culture made light of. They see a huge headdress, which they’ve only seen elsewhere on the heads of very wise, important people, on the head of some gymnastic white moron strutting around grinning and bowing.
I personally think it’s a travesty, but what’s YOUR opinion?
See? And here I was being nice to you, Frederico. Then you have to go and insult me like that. With meanspirited, unprovoked, ungracious, and ungratefully snide remarks. Why would you do such a thing?
Actually, I sent people over here for the reasons I mention in the post (which post attaches to another post, whose 100 or so responses are hardly boring). Topics that deal with legislating language happen to interest me. If it bores you, I’m sure there’s a bong somewhere that needs retending.
But please, don’t think you’re doing me a favor by quipping at me. Frankly, I’m weary from it.
Some people get off on arriving in a conversation space, pissing all over it, and doing the Superior Dance on their way out. It’s annoying but probably unavoidable.
Some light on Kamehameha.
I know a hawaiian in germany who wrote an email to The Rock’s uncle. 6 weeks later, Dwayne arrives in Hawaii and announces he is going to play Kamehameha.
The Hawaiian gets nothing financially for it, but not bitter. He added sugar and got something intangible, motivation.
Speed up time . . . Dwayne is not being universally accepted by some to fill the role. The hawaiian has since then wrote several books and 7+ screenplays. . . . with a ton of ideas in his head. What a little motivation can do for someone.
The hawaiian wants to help Dwayne and of course, himself. The hawaiian needs money if he is going back to the islands to buy a piece of the rock. He has his house in germany. He wants more. A place in italy, california, england and hawaii. He is not greedy. He just dreams. Fighting over his parents property in Hawaii is no fun.
The hawaiian would like to see Dwayne play Kamehameha. A story brews in this hawaiian’s head. He comes up with a Hawaii fantasy story book which takes place in Kauai around the time of Kamehameha.
The book, actually a novel, is called: Sarah Ann Taylor: The Wave Walker and the Spirit of Malama. Something in the Harry Potter genre. Keep an eye out for it.
If the book is good and hopefully goes to film, he would like Dwayne to take the small role as Kamehameha as a stepping stone to the big role of Kamehameha in a follow up film. The hawaiian wants to be entertained, not educated.
Kamehameha . . . the movie is for entertaining. Hey, directors and writers and who ever has the finger on the title of the film . . . Change it back to Kamehameha. What is wrong with you guys???? Battle or Something in paradise . . . pleeez . . .
Switching gears . . .
The truth behind Kame Kame Ha and Ki . . .There’s no Ki.
Hint: Seaflite, Kalakaua, Kuhio, Kamehameha . . . A jetfoil in full flight.
I have been behind one in Honolulu Harbor. There is your, Kame Kame Ha.
The hawaiian is me.
That’s the rest of the story.