Four layers of confusion obfuscate the issue of land in Gilbert Camp. First, residents ignore the intended representative of their residence rights. Second, they are confused regarding the “right” way to access land. Third, they do not know who the “real landowner” is. Fourth, the land boundary has changed continually since the foundation of Honiara. In this article, I try to clarify the confusing issue of land by looking at it from 3 perspectives: (1) The history of land policy in Solomon Islands reveals a long-standing neglect of the indigenous point of view regarding land; (2) ethnographic approaches illustrate how people react to such a dismissive attitude; and (3) the contemporary preference for patriliny among government officials exemplifies the tendency toward a form of “indigenous essentialism” in which the interests of policymakers and landowners converge. This article demonstrates that the issue of land is a legacy from the past that bears major consequences for the future of Solomon Islands.
By the 1960s, the Hawaiian language was on the verge of extinction, but the language has been revitalized through considerable efforts, beginning in the 1970s, to rebuild Hawaiian culture and identity. Political arguments concerning Hawaiian versus “Local” identity caused me to wonder about Hawaiian language learners’ linguistic, ethnic, and cultural identities. In Hawai‘i’s multicultural, multiethnic, multilingual society, the term “Local” has been used to distinguish Hawai‘i-born and raised people from other residents of Hawai‘i. Locals are often marked as speakers of Pidgin or Hawai‘i Creole. However, “Local” can also refer to opponents of Native Hawaiian identity in the community. Some scholars argue that this term’s use covers ethnic tensions in Hawaiian society (e.g. Okamura, 2008). In this paper, I analyze how Hawaiian language learners with mixed ethnic backgrounds relate to these ethnic identifications discursively through their talk. I conducted semi-structured interviews with three college students who were taking Hawaiian language classes. I apply framing and footing as tools (Goffman, 1974, 1981) to examine how their discursive identities are constructed with the various ethnic and place-based markers. One participant identified himself as both Hawaiian and Local, supporting Okamura’s argument that Hawaiians can have both native Hawaiian and Local identities without conflict (Okamura, 1994). Another participant was born in Hawai‘i, but grew up elsewhere. She did not explicitly identify herself as Local, but did not deny that identity either. The third participant framed himself as a Native American and clearly distinguished that identity from being Hawaiian. Through the participants’ talk, I discovered that racially identified Hawaiians and Locals, who were born and raised in Hawai‘i, can afford special status as Hawaiians or Locals to non-Hawaiians and non-Locals. However, as one participant puts it, it is “fake” to speak with Locals in Pidgin.
Thus, accepting the giving of Local status might be resisted by non-Locals.
Feathered craft is the most conspicuous item that characterizes Hawaiian society. Although feathers were often used for decoration throughout Polynesia, Hawaiian use of feathers for royal regalia is the most intensive.
Among several books about Hawaiian featherwork (Holt, 1985; Kekuewa and Kahalepuaa, 2005), this book offers the most intensive and extensive information concerning this craft.