Kānaka Maoli Scholars Against Desecration March 25, 2009

Kānaka Maoli Scholars Against Desecration

Second Statement on Naue, March 24, 2009

As Kānaka Maoli scholars we write to follow-up on our statement from
September 13, 2008 publicly condemning the state-sponsored desecration of
a Native Hawaiian burial site at Wainiha, Kaua`i resulting from the
construction of a new home at Naue Point by California real estate
developer Joseph Brescia.  Both the state abuse of power and the
desecration continue unabated and must come to a halt.

In the late 1980s, in response to a massive burial site disturbance at
Honokahua, Maui, Kanaka Maoli came together to challenge the laws that
allowed this type of sacrilege. As a result of this history, five Island
Burial Councils were created and are administratively attached to the
State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) of the Department of Land and
Natural Resources to address concerns relating to Native Hawaiian burial
sites.  By Hawai`i state statute, the composition of each island Burial
Council must consist of a majority of Kānaka Maoli.  The preservation
criteria established by state law favor the “preservation in place” of
burial sites that contain a “concentration of skeletal remains,” or are
“pre-contact” or “historic period” burial sites associated with important
individuals and events.

At Naue, there are 30 known burial remains within less than half of an
acre, with a high likelihood that more remains are present. Naue is a
significant historical site that is frequently acknowledged in hula, oli,
mele, and other Hawaiian knowledge sources.  Accordingly, the Kaua`i-
Ni`ihau Island Burial Council appropriately voted to preserve in place the
burial site on the property claimed by Brescia.

In complete contradiction to both their own state law, and the April 3,
2008 determination adopted by the island Burial Council to preserve the
burials in place, the SHPD improperly approved a “Burial Treatment Plan”
for Brescia without the required consultation with the island Burial
Council.  The Burial Treatment Plan was submitted by Mike Dega, the
archaeologist hired by Joseph Brescia as a consultant in support of his
building a private home atop of the burial site.

The SHPD’s own rules empower the island Burial Council to determine the
disposition of previously known burials.  The island Burial Council’s
decision on this issue is supposed to be binding. Yet, SHPD deputy
administrator Nancy McMahon sanctioned the use of vertical buffers and
concrete caps on the burials to make way for installing the footings of
Brescia’s house.  Her authorization for such an intrusive “preservation”
measure is a fundamental repudiation of the power allocated to all of the
island Burial Councils.

By ignoring the decision of the island Burial Council, her actions
undermine both the very concept of historic preservation and the reason
for the founding of the island Burial Councils.  Tragically, before a
court could intervene, and based on McMahon’s unauthorized agreements,
Brescia’s team managed to install massive house foundations on a portion
of the cemetery.

The Kaua`i Planning Commission’s approval of Brescia’s house plans
included a specific condition issued in a letter dated December 12, 2007
that “No building permit shall be issued until requirements of the State
Historic Preservation Division and the Burial Council have been met.”  The
requirements of the island Burial Council have not been met; the Council
recommended that there be no building upon the cemetery.  SHPD covered up
the island Burial Council’s decision by trying to pretend that vertical
buffers and concrete jackets constitute “preservation”; they do not.

During the consultation required by the preliminary October 2008 court
ruling, on November 6, 2008, the island Burial Council recommended that
the SHPD reject the revised Burial Treatment Proposal submitted by Dega.
Therefore, Brescia still has not met the requirements of the island Burial
Council and thus, the building permit should be revoked.  Because the
Kaua`i Planning Commission’s December 2007 approval was specifically
conditioned on Brescia’s meeting the island Burial Council’s requirements,
there is no real approval of Brescia’s house plans.  The island Burial
Council made clear the proposal to build on the burial site was culturally
unacceptable to its members, which is why the Council rejected the revised
Burial Treatment Plan.  The Kaua`i Planning Commission should be held
accountable to rescind the conditional approval it gave, since its
requirements were not met.

In the midst of this ongoing desecration, last month, on February 4, 2009,
the SHPD wrote a letter to Dega acknowledging his sixth proposed Burial
Treatment Plan.  This is the same Burial Treatment Plan that McMahon
circulated to Native Hawaiian Organizations for consultation as part of a
court order by Judge Watanabe on October 2, 2008.  The outcome of this
consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations was their sweeping
rejection of the proposal.  Without any regard for this rejection, the
SHPD letter to Dega states, “at this time we cannot accept the Burial
Treatment Plan without some revisions which are to be addressed below” and
then outlines seven concerns for him to deal with such as detailing a
landscape plan for burials outside of the house footprint. In other words,
the letter basically instructs Dega to revise the Burial Treatment Plan in
order for SHPD to approve it.  This is unacceptable; if McMahon’s decision
is reaffirmed despite the outcome of the consultation with Native Hawaiian
Organizations that clearly rejected the proposal, it would set a dangerous
precedent and strip the island Burial Councils of any meaningful
authority.

To date, 5th Circuit Judge Kathleen Watanabe has denied requests for a
temporary restraining order and has even refused to grant a temporary
injunction to stop further construction until the full civil suit is
adjudicated by the state court.   The civil suit — Joseph Brescia v.
Ka`iulani Huff, et al. — currently in progress is a travesty.  Brescia is
suing at least 17 individuals—almost all of whom are Kānaka Maoli
—implicated in protecting the burial site from his construction work.
Beside trespass, Brescia has accused them of five other counts: private
nuisance and harassment, tortious interference with contract, civil
conspiracy described as “terroristic threatening”, intentional
interference, ejectment, and slander of title.  We stand in solidarity
with the defendants.  Brescia has no one else to blame but himself; he
knowingly took the chance of building his house over a grave site when the
essence of the island Burial Council’s action was to preserve all burials
remains in place.

We must remind the state agencies that their own law, Hawai`i revised
statute 711-1107 on Desecration, specifically states that no one may
commit the offense of desecrating “a place of worship or burial,” and the
statute defines “desecrate” as “defacing, damaging, polluting, or
otherwise physically mistreating in a way that the defendant knows will
outrage the sensibilities of persons likely to observe or discover the
defendant’s action.”

We call on all people of conscience to join in our condemnation of the
desecration of the ancestral remains by:

• holding the Kaua`i Planning Commission accountable for upholding their
own condition by finding Brescia in violation of it by starting to build;

• demanding that the SHPD honor the Kaua`i-Ni`ihau Island Burial Council’s
original decision to preserve the burial site without any construction;

• insisting that the SHPD respect the outcome of the court-ordered
consultation process and reject the Burial Treatment Plan;

• supporting an end to the illegal construction supported by the state; and

• protesting Brescia’s lawsuit targeted at those who have served to
prevent the further degradation of the bones of our kūpuna.

Signed,

Hokulani Aikau, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Political Science, University
of Hawai`i at Mānoa

Carlos Andrade, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Kamakakūokalani Center for
Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa

Maile Arvin, M.A. candidate, Department of Ethnic Studies, University of
California San Diego

J. Leilani Basham, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Hawaiian Studies,
University of Hawai`i at West O`ahu

Kamanamaikalani Beamer, Ph.D., Mellon-Hawai`i Postdoctoral Fellow, Kohala
Center, Hawai`i

Kealani Robinson Cook, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of History, University
of Michigan

Lani Cupchoy, Ph.D. Candidate, History, University of California, Irvine

Lisa Kahaleole Hall, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Women’s Studies, Wells
College

Sydney Lehua Iaukea, Ph.D., Mellon-Hawai`i Postdoctoral Fellow, Kohala
Center, Hawai`i

Lilikalā Kame`eleihiwa, Ph.D., Professor, Kamakakūokalani Center for
Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa

J. Kēhaulani Kauanui, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Anthropology and
American Studies, Wesleyan University

Kanani K. M. Lee, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Geology & Geophysics, Yale
University

Jon Kamakawiwo`ole Osorio, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Kamakakūokalani
Center for Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa

Lessa Kanani`opua Pelayo, M.L.I.S. Candidate, B.A., University of
California, Los Angeles

Kekailoa Perry, J.D. Assistant Professor, Kamakakūokalani Center for
Hawaiian Studies, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa

Keanu Sai, Ph.D., Lecturer Kapiolani Community College

Noenoe K. Silva, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Political Science, University
of Hawai`i at Mānoa

Stephanie Nohelani Teves, Ph.D. Candidate, Program in American Culture,
University of Michigan

Ty Kāwika Tengan, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Anthropology and Ethnic
Studies, University of Hawai`i at Mānoa

Haunani-Kay Trask, Ph.D., Professor, Kamakakūokalani Center for Hawaiian
Studies, University of Hawai`i, Mānoa

Liza Keanuenueokalani Williams, Ph.D. student, New York University

Erin Kahunawaika`ala Wright, Ph.D. Director of Native Hawaiian Student
Services, Hawai’inuiākea School of Hawaiian Knowledge

——-
Contact: J. Kehaulani Kauanui
Ph: 860-638-1264
Email: jkauanui@wesleyan.edu
——–

TAKE ACTION

Please cc: all letters and emails to:  J. Kehaulani Kauanui, Center for
the Americas, Wesleyan University, 255 High Street, Middletown, CT 06459.
Email: jkauanui@wesleyan.edu

Write the Kaua`i Planning Commission, State Historic Preservation Division
Officials, Governor Linda Lingle, Joseph Brecia, and the Mayor of Kaua`i.

See addresses below:

Ian Costa
Director of Planning
County of Kaua`i
4444 Rice Street, Suite 473
Lihue, HI 96766
(no email available)

Laura Thielan, Chairperson
State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources
State Historic Preservation Division
601 Kamokila Blvd., Room 555
Kapolei, HI 96707
dlnr@hawaii.gov

Pua Aiu, Administrator
State Historic Preservation Division
601 Kamokila Blvd., Room 555
Kapolei, HI 96707
pua.aiu@hawaii.gov

Nancy McMahon, Deputy Administrator
State Historic Preservation Division
601 Kamokila Blvd., Room 555
Kapolei, HI 96707
Nancy.A.McMahon@hawaii.gov

Governor Linda Lingle
State of Hawai`i
Executive Chambers
State Capitol
Honolulu, Hawai`i  96813
governor.lingle@hawaii.gov

Joseph Brescia, President
Architectural Glass & Aluminum
1151 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 101
Alameda, CA 94501
jbrescia@aga-ca.com

Bernard P. Carvalho, Jr.
Mayor, County of Kauai
4444 Rice St., Suite 235
Lihue, HI 96766
mayor@kauai.gov

American Aloha October 9, 2008

So last night I watched the PBS special, American Aloha, which focuses on Hula in California following three halaus: Sissy Kaio’s Hula Halau ‘o Lilinoe in Carson, Mark Hoʻomalu’s Na Mele Hula ‘Ohana (which was disbanded in 2002.  In 2003, he opened the Halau, Acadamy of the Hawaiian Arts) in Oakland, and Patrick Makuakane’s Nå Lei Hulu I Ka Wekiu in San Francisco.

It was pretty short, only 55 minutes, but it was really interesting, espeically seeing the different styles between the three halaus.  It was also kind of fun seeing all the place I go in Carson on film.  I felt like Aunty Sissyʻs halau was the more traditional one, Mark Hoʻomaluʻs halau was in the middle – controversial and more modern, but not so different that youʻre unsure of what theyʻre doing, and Patrick Makuakaneʻs halau was to the far, far left.  Maybe itʻs because Iʻm a bit of a traditionalist (whatever that means in hula since we donʻt have too many records prior to the 1900s since hula was banned by missionaries in the 1800s and had to be kept alive underground), but I was floored by Na Lei Hulu I Ka Wekiu and wasn’t sure if I could open my mind that much to that kind of new interpretation of hula.

I also thought it was interesting that there was a large focus on kane hula, instead of wahine hula.  At first, I wasn’t sure why – the kane were the one’s shown dancing mostly throughout the documentary, in practice and in competition/performance, but after talking to my husband I understood – they were trying to unravel the stereotypes of hula as being female and flowy, like it is in 50s hollywood movies, which they would show periodically throughout the video as mock.  In that Kauanui article I posted the other day, she also addresses this feminization of hula and its context in the continental US:

On the one hand, within Hawaiian communities, hula practice/performance has been a site of great decolonizing possibilities and forms of agency regarding sensuality and spiritual practice.  While on the other hand, there is a demand, on the part of the non-Hawaiian dominant culture, for hula performance and/or an expectation that all Hawaiian woman are knowledgeable about hula.  As Trinh T. Minh-ha writes in another context: “we no longer wish to erase difference, we demand, on the contrary, that you remember and assert it” (Trinh 1989, p. 89).  The specific stereotyping of Hawaiian women may deter them from engaging in these cultural forms.  In turn, their participation, or the lack of it, will affect the way they are perceived in the diasporic communities – are they “Hawaiian enough”?  Such images follow Hawaiian women on their “return home,” whether these returns are for visits or in terms of actual relocation to Hawai’i (690-691).

I found this section of the article really spoke to me, as I only began hula a little over a year ago, and have gone through two na kumu since then, trying to find the most “authentic” one who will make me “hawaiian enough” in the eyes of the rest of the Hawaiian community not only here on the mainland but also back home.  When I was younger, I did hula for a little bit, but quit, because I didn’t want to practice.  The older I became and realized there was some kind of expectation of my being Hawaiian and knowing how to hula in high school dance class, I began to shy away from it even more, not understanding why there was this expectation of me.  That was also around the same time that I stopped eating Pineapple – another expectation of Hawaiians and began embracing western culture as much as I could.  I still donʻt eat pineapple to this day.  Occassionally Iʻll have pineapple juice of some kind, but I also refuse to buy Dole products – thatʻs another post.  My junior and senior undergraduate years at UCLA were when I really began exploring my Hawaiianness and what it means to be a mainland Hawaiian, after my first trip (where I was old enough to not be in a car seat) to Hawai’i.  It opened my eyes to the culture I had somewhat been trying to repress and made me want to break all those stereotypes.  Now, when people ask if I do hula (and do that weird hand gesture that they’ve seen in the movies), I say yes, I do hula and belong to a Halau.  i do not do hula through parks and rec, and our hula is different than what you saw in Elvis’ movies.  it speaks of our past and our future and where we are right now in our western surroundings.  Well, I don’t really say all that, but I hope I convey at least a part of it when discussing the halau.

But back to the movie.  I also saw a statistic that I had never seen before – that at the time of the movie, there were still 8,000 pure-blooded Hawaiians left, and by 2024, it is estimated that there will be none.  It’s understandable and not surprising, since Hawaiians have the highest rate of interracial marriage of most racial and ethnic groups, but it was still a little disturbing and saddening to hear, if only for the fact that it will be really difficult to hit that 50% blood quantum for Hawaiian homestead land for future generations.  I wonder also, if we are still considered to be in the Hawaiian Renaissance which began in the 1970s.  The movie focused a lot on the revival of Hawaiian culture, and it was cool that they showed Kane Kahiko Merrie Monarch clips from the 80s.  In terms of the Hawaiian Renaissance, it said that that was a primary explanation for the big boom of Hawaiian culture on the mainland, since there were already so many off-island Hawaiians on the continent sharing their culture in their homes.  What the Hawaiian Renaissance did was bring the culture outside of the home and into the community, in the forms of Hawaiian Civic Clubs, Na Halau, and events like Ho’olaule’a in Alondra Park (which they did show in the movie too and was kind of exciting).

Overall, I give the movie two thumbs up and recommend it.

Reading of the Day… October 8, 2008

Kauanui, J. Kēhaulani. 1998. Off-Island Hawaiians “Making” ourselves at “Home”: A [gendered] contradiction in terms?. Women’s Studies International Forum 21(6): 681-693.

Annotation: The article centers around the issue of Hawaiian sovereignty but discusses it in terms of gender and the diasporic Hawaiian community.  In terms of gender issues, the author claims that women play a large role in maintaining ʻohana (quoting Trask) and inherently are the leaders of the sovereignty movement, as evidenced by the leaders of groups such as Ka Lāhui Hawaiʻi.  Briefly, the author delves into gender stereotypes surrounding hula, which might “deter them from engaging in these cultural forms” (691).  In terms of Hawaiians away from home, the author focuses on the controversy and conflicts between mainland Hawaiians and on-island Hawaiians in terms of the definition of what a Hawaiian is.  The author gives several definitions of Hawaiian and native Hawaiian, addressing the fact that since so many people consider it different things, it is difficult to determine membership for mainland Hawaiians.  Particularly when mainland Hawaiians cannot vote and have little voice in organizations like OHA and Ka Lāhui, although according to the author, as of 1998, Ka Lāhui was becoming more open to mainland Hawaiian participation.  The author also goes through the ways mainland Hawaiians maintain and preserve their culture, giving examples of organizations and na halau, such as Hui Hawaiʻi o San Diego and canoe clubs as well as hoʻolauleʻa, ʻukulele festivals, hula festivals, classes and workshops.  The author also evaluates Akaka’s article in the OHA newsletter, “Hawaiians Come Home, Your Nation Needs You” in terms of how mainland Hawaiians came to be and calls into question the attack on mainland Hawaiians concerning their “Hawaiianess”.  Ultimately, the author implies that mainland Hawaiians are just as capable of maintaining and supporting the Sovereignty movement as on-island Hawaiians and that it is important to understand how the Hawaiian diasporic community came to be and is being maintained.