How To Be Hawaiian





A man from Hawaii who lives in Oregon misses Hawaii dearly because he has for some reason not returned for a dozen years. He believes he is no more than fifteen-percent native Hawaiian, yet that percentage is tugging at his heart. To that I said his home is where his heart is wherever he may be, and if his heart is in Hawaii, then so is he, just as Zion is wherever a Jew might be.

I myself am not descended from the Polynesians who originally inhabited the Sandwich Islands, now called Hawaii, the name of the biggest island, an island I grew to love most of all when I lived there.

There is something about Hawaii, its Aloha or loving spirit, its Ea or rising spirit, constantly chanting for our return wherever we may be. My father said he met people from Hawaii during and after the WWII, and that every one of them longed to return. Some not killed in the war stayed on the Mainland afterwards because they found work there and married, but “they always longed for Hawaii with tears in their eyes,” he said.

If you have had the real Hawaii experience, you can leave Hawaii, but Hawaii will never leave you. Part of you is always Hawaiian whether or not Polynesian blood runs in your veins.

The being of Hawaii is heartfelt although it is not clearly defined. It does need to be clarified because Hawaii, despite its reputation for happy-go-lucky natives strumming ukuleles and tolerant multiculturalism, is troubled by underlying historical issues evident in the current politics of resentment.

Suffice it to say that history is a mistake, for otherwise improvement would be impossible. The people who love Hawaii suffer an identity crisis, a special occasion of the underlying crisis or hypocrisis between actual existence and ideal being. The islands await the return of Lono to reconcile the differences, in Being Hawaiian.

“Don’t ever leave Hawaii,” a tourist at Kealakekua warned me. But I left Kona and the woman I loved and I flew to Manhattan because I thought my life was almost over and that there was something crucial that I was supposed to do on the Mainland. I learned that I was a fool for leaving Hawaii to suffer a new beginning in New York, and I have no regrets for the lessons learned. One day I passed by a temple on West 86th Street, and noticed a sign announcing regular classes: HOW TO BE JEWISH.

Now there should be a regular class starting in Hawaii: HOW TO BE HAWAIIAN. We would find the usual cultural courses, but something besides the regular offerings to tourists, although tourists would be welcome to participate in learning, for example, how to make two hundred leis for the luau, chant a positive affirmation with a hula, grow kalo and make poi, speak some pidgin, deconstruct and reconstruct a heiau, unload frozen tuna at the docks, and learn the real reason why one should not forget to put an `okina in front of the word `okina, and so on.

Yes, something even higher is needed, a ritual that ascends to the spirituality of being Hawaiian, and even to mystical unification with Being-in-itself in a nondenominational, climactic reconciliation of all organic differences.

Needless to say, everyone regardless of race, gender, creed, and national origin would be eligible for Being Hawaiian. Kahunas would provide the requisite courses and issue certificates throughout the world. There would be no Hawaii residency requirement, especially since it would be impossible for all Hawaiians to fit into Hawaii at any one time. Yet one pilgrimage to Hawaii every five years, or such time period that would not result in overcrowding, would be recommended if not required to maintain Being Hawaii status.

Being Hawaiian is a state of mind grounded in our feeling for Hawaii. We shall never forget Hawaii, wherever we may be, because Hawaii is with us, wherever we are.



Ea as sovereign political principle of Hawai`i






What in the world did the Polynesian word “Ea” mean before it was politicized by “native Hawaiians” to mean the sovereignty of their kings? The dictionary definition claims that, first of all, the word means “sovereignty,” in the context of “the (Ea) of the land is perpetuated in righteousness.”

Only after that, may Ea mean “life,” “air,” “breath,” “spirit,” and so on.  Nonetheless, the typical native Hawaiian identity of “life” with their own, racially biased rule of the islands naturally predominates, regardless of the fact that some of the most vigorous proponents of racial independence from “haoles,” a pejorative for white foreigners, are themselves “hapa haoles,” that is, of mixed race, hence are plagued by personal insecurity, which is, of course, naturally blamed on foreigners.

As a result of the prevalent identity crisis, which is by no means unique within a Westernized society besieged by rampant egoism, the assimilated “natives” sorely lack political solidarity and cultural unity, as is evident in perpetual cycles of recrimination and self-denigration within their councils and by malicious gossip on social media such a Facebook.

Wherefore Ea, interpreted as the struggle for independence from others, rather than aloha, the spirit of love for others, wins out, even among mutual admiration groups engaged in the worship of their “beautiful genealogies.”  And the spirits of aloha as well as Ea, those words being Hawaiian, are naturally considered as the private property of anyone with native blood as well as would-be natives.

The phrase “the (Ea) of the land is perpetuated in righteousness” became the motto of the English-style monarchy which self-righteous missionaries helped the original Hawaiian aristocracy fashion as the missionaries helped themselves to the land and impoverished the ordinary natives who would be decimated time and again by foreign diseases and habits because, according to the missionary charters back East, missionaries wanted to save ignorant “savages” or “heathen” from material and spiritual poverty. The motto was retained by the American territorial republic after Ea was “stolen” from the original Hawaiians by “thieving whites,” and is presently the motto of the American State of Hawaii.

The United States became more than willing to assist with that task, with easy access to sugar and the strategic value of Pearl Harbor in mind. The British were interested, but given the unprofitable venture in the American colony and the complete loss of sovereignty to the revolution there, they were not willing to invest in sovereignty over the Sandwich Islands. When a renegade English captain by the name of Paulet seized the sovereignty of the king, England handed it back with an apology, and the king of Hawaii said, according to the interpretation of today’s sovereignty activists, “The (EA) of the land is perpetuated in righteousness.”

Sovereignty activists who harken back to the defunct kingdom tend to overlook the fact that the chiefs and paramount chief of the biggest island, after which the Sandwich Islands are now named, being fearful for the maintenance of their rule, once gave their sovereignty over the island to Britain; upon which sailors planted the British flag on shore as the chiefs chanted Hail Britannia. Nor do they fain recall that King Kamehameha the Great, having all the islands under his sway after waging brutal warfare and pushing opposed troops off a cliff to pacify them, wrote a letter to King George of England subjecting Hawaiians to British sovereignty.

Think again. England was not about to protect Hawaii from other nations without substantial rewards for doing so in the form of taxes, trade, and conquest, and the chiefs certainly would not appreciate British rule.

Time does not stand still. Things change. What was then was then, and what is now is now. We would forgive our fathers for their wrongs and celebrate their righteousness even though progress is somewhat impeded by the fact that the son is the father of the man, and that, regardless of liberal political theories, fathers rule families hence to some degree chiefs rule tribes and clans, kings countries, governors states, presidents corporations, dictators soviet unions, so on and so forth. In other words, humankind naturally organizes itself hierarchically from simple to complex; fathers, paters are the foundation of patriotism.

Hawaii is now a state, so get used to it, for it is the best of all possible states notwithstanding silent racism and internal bickering. If the interpretation of the motto is true, that sovereignty over a land by the ultimate landlord depends on the righteousness of the sovereign, then the fact that the United States has power over Hawaii is right until its leaders are by revolution overthrown for abuses of power; and then the successors can keep the same motto to assert their own form of righteousness.

Native Hawaiians, who may call themselves kanaka maoli, real men, meaning native people, sometimes politically defined as those people who have a certain quota of blood of the people who lived on the islands before the arrival of Captain Cook, and who lived there for some time thereafter, are divided among themselves as to what to do about the fact that their king’s kingdom along with the land they worked, the very basis of their wealth in common, was taken from them with the help of kings who helped themselves.

A few pure-blooded kanakas remain. The hapas or “half” breeds are many; but the hapas may not be “half,” anymore; they are perhaps from the stock of several “races” or cultures. They are exceedingly beautiful, but they have been discriminated against, and they discriminate among themselves. Still, elements of the Hawaiian culture survive, so they are not yet hopelessly mixed up. Many of them are patriotic citizens and are relatively happy with the way things are now, as if being Hawaiian in the State of Hawaii were the optimal state at the moment. Others are catching up with the haoles (foreigners, whites) but are not so happy. They are in two camps.

We have natives who want at least parity in terms of the benefits received by the original people on the mainland, the Native Americans or American Indians; that would be the self-government or sovereignty, of a so-called nation-within-a-nation status, with land reserved for their exclusive use. They believe they deserve something “extra” as compensation for the suffering of their ancestors, a certain percentage of whose blood flows in their veins according to genealogical studies, at the hands of the whites, whose culture the old chiefs admired and adopted for their own uses because its power appeared to be superior to their own at the time.

On the other hand we have locals including whites who desire absolute sovereignty. They want the kingdom back, or rather they have formed an ideal Kingdom of Hawaii on paper; it appears to have established sovereignty over a website named after the old name of Kauai, Atooi; the island that voluntarily submitted to King Kamehameha the Great after he conquered Oahu. The virtual Kingdom of Hawaii has detailed plans for its monarchy.

At issue, of course, for all those concerned, is what sort of government would in reality be constituted if its proponents have their way. Would it be government be one, a few, or many? Would it be an absolute or a limited monarchy, or a representative republic, or a democracy, or a mixed government?

The last monarch was Liliuokalani, who became queen when her brother, King Kalakaua, died. He was a member of aristocracy, elected king after King William Lunalilo died without an heir and without naming a successor, and was considered by nobility to be of lower caste than his predecessors.  The royal government was basically managed by white foreigners. King Kalakaua was coerced into approving a change from absolute to limited monarchy. Queen Liliuokalani proposed to restore the form of the old regime and therefore sovereignty to the native elite; wherefore, even though she desisted with that plan, thirteen whites associated with the cane sugar business boom, with troops standing conveniently by, with plans to cede the islands to the United States, got her to resign her sovereignty in trust to the United States, and she never got it back despite the sympathy of President Grover Cleveland.

Members of the sovereignty movement will not submit to any status subordinate to the United States, and so have been a stumbling block for those who want “extra” rights under the wing of Uncle Sam; that is, benefits not had by other citizens of the United States. Those others may love the Hawaiian culture very much, but they have their culture too, and do not believe they should be trumped by the principle of seniority.

I asked several leaders of the sovereignty movement what unique quality of spirit the native Hawaiian culture has to contribute to the world, and what the meaning of Ea was before or besides sovereignty.  I thought the Aloha Spirit, the Hawaiian version of Love, might be their contribution, but I was greeted with utter silence.

The camp struggling for an entity to be recognized by the United States as a self-governing nation within the American nation greeted me with “Aloha” and “Mahalo” for asking. Wherefore it occurred to me that the divide between the camps may be between arrogance and humility, between would-be kings and nobles, and ordinary people destined to suffer the leaders they suffer.

But then a leading member of the nativity camp, who is of mixed descent, grew weary of my several polite questions about the historical basis of her circles’ version of culture and the form of government it desired for its “self-governed” nation within the United States, whereupon she publicly denounced me, declaring that I was a “flippant and insulting” person, and withdrew her version of aloha because she doubted that I would contribute anything to her cause.

As for the future of a Hawaiian monarchy, it is highly improbable short of a nuclear apocalypse that there will ever be a Kingdom of Hawaii reigning over the Hawaiian Islands. What good is a paper kingdom or a website kingdom?

Well, an ideal or spiritual kingdom as opposed to a real and material kingdom may come to rule minds and thus have an impact on the behavior of bodies. Sovereignty itself implies the rule of mind over body.

A beautiful woman, by the way, has posed in a national publication to celebrate personal “Ea” as a most powerful word to be enjoyed by all. She is sovereign over her body, and let no man think he owns it. Groups or corporations including nations considered as persons have their Ea as well.

Ea considered as sovereignty asserts independence. Alas for egoism that independence depends on the cooperation of other independents, and that bodies are subject to mechanical laws; and minds as well if bodies and minds are really one. Free will, if there be such a thing, is a limited monarchy. Nothing and only Nothing is absolutely free from something.

The “I” and the “We” are inseparable. No individual or group is entirely independent. Sovereignty is slipping away from interdependent nations to a globalism without a definite sovereign, despite regressions along the spiral such as that we are now seeing, for example, in England, and in the United States, which has fallen into the twenties on the scale of democracy.

Despite the clash between native nationalism and cosmopolitan modernity, the postmodern devolution into tribalism, international corporations rule the globe, and their internal rule is not democratic. National borders are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Sovereignty depends on information, and the information business rules minds.  As it is on the World Wide Web, so it is on Earth.

So the virtual Kingdom of Hawaii may somehow wash brains and establish sovereignty over minds in Hawaii with real effects, but their vision of those effects seems to be influenced by the status quo and appears in images to be somewhat like business as usual under a change of the guard. I shall inquire further into their propaganda and make further attempts to break through the wall of silence raised against “dumb haoles” who do not know what is going on.

What many people are naturally interested in is ground to stand on, that is, real estate for the virtual or ideal state we imagine. That is, land usage.

Original Hawaiians were commonly accustomed to communal land usage, managed by extended families, in which the king, nobles, and commoners had a mutual interest under a sort of feudal arrangement. They once petitioned their king not to relinquish to whites the sovereignty over the land entrusted to real Hawaiians by the gods. If the land were divided up, they believed, with quitclaims given to the chiefs, and foreigners as well as natives were allowed to own plots as private property, sovereignty would be lost to everyone concerned save the whites who had infiltrated the islands and government. Private ownership would allow foreigners to take advantage of many “pukas” or points of entry, and grab everything for themselves. There were indeed hundreds of pukas; the deeds were done; and thus we have today government by mixed races over a system of private property dominated largely by who got there first and capitalized on the opportunities.

The whites with money and Christianity wound up with most of the land. The king and nobles liked the religion and the civilizing effect of money. But the supervisors and commoners had difficulty getting their minds around the concept of private land ownership. Only a few “tenants” filed their claims in time for their portions and had them proven in time under misunderstood rules. Some had no money to pay the commission for the deeds. Others associated to obtain common interest in parcels where they carried on traditional agricultural pursuits such as kalo (taro) farming in remote areas, that is, places not overrun by enterprising whites.

Is all that the work of Ea? Has Ea always meant sovereignty, and, if so, over what by whom? What did Ea mean when the Polynesians had sole possession of the islands?

I shall take up that subject in a future essay, after asking a few more “dumb haole,” purportedly “flippant and insulting” questions. Being ignorant, after all, is precedent to getting really smart, and perhaps worming one’s way into the group of those who know it all. As things stand now, what Hiram Bingham said of the natives may well be said of me, in which case I may be reincarnated to appear as the white god Lono once I am enlightened about my Origin.

“But great as was the darkness of their minds, and pitiable as was the confusion or grossness of their ideas of the divine attributes, still, every one of them was created with conscience and freedom of thought and will, which made them accountable to their Creator and Moral Governor.”


DIaCrItiCal ReMaRkS by Kawika “Dumb” Haole


DIaCrItiCal ReMaRkS


Kawika “Dumb” Haole

Aloha people of Hawaii, this is Kawika Haole here on the Mainland, dumber than ever for leaving Hawaii nei.

I was thinking about diacritical marks before I got up this morning, and want to remark on them, but first I have a two or three criticals about who really owns the Hawaii motto, which the haoles say means “The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness of the people.”

What people? Who is right? Am I dumb or what? Okay, I admit it. I am dumber than dumb to ask these questions. I hope native Hawaiians will not be offended and will forgive me because I am so dumb.

The motto is on the seal of the State of Hawaii, but the saying has been around before Hawaii became a state, before Hawaii was annexed, and even before haoles overthrew the Kingdom of Hawaii and ran it as a temporary republic pending annexation in 1898. So what’s up with that?

The sacred Hawaiian motto was adopted by the Kingdom 1843 and appears on his coat of arms. It was spoken by King Kamehameha III in an address celebrating the return of the Kingdom of Hawaii to its people after a British captain named Lord George Paulet took it upon himself to cede it to Great Britain because British citizens were complaining they were being abused. The king surrendered under protest and complained to London, and Admiral Richard Darton Thomas sailed in and gave sovereignty back to the king, mentioning that he would, nevertheless, protect British citizens whenever necessary.

Queen Liliuokalani likewise surrendered sovereignty in protest, in 1893, to a so-called Committee of Safety, thirteen whites representing major property interests, especially the sugar industry, who claimed that American lives and property were threatened by the Queen’s intention to promulgate a new constitution taking power away from the House of Nobles controlled by the whites. Her brother King Kalakaua had that control taken away when he signed the Bayonet Constitution under coercion.

The U.S. foreign minister, John L. Stevens, without prior authorization from Washington, took it upon himself to recognize the revolutionaries as the government in fact. Marines had been landed from the U.S.S. Boston; whether that was a gun to the head of the Queen is still debatable. She expected she would get the sovereignty back, and President Cleveland figured that should be done, but he had to hand off the issue to Congress, where conflicting stories were told, and the outbreak of the Spanish-American conflict made complete control over Hawaii, where the U.S. had possession of Pearl Harbor thanks to a reciprocity treaty made with King David Kalakaua, Liliuokalani’s brother, that was convenient to imperialist aims.

Poor Queen Liliuokalani did not get sovereignty back. There was a sincere but feeble counter-revolution. Some guns were found buried in her garden. She was arrested and confined, then put on probation, and, when the coast was clear, her civil rights as a private citizen of the new Republic were bestowed upon her after she signed an abdication of no effect, because she signed it as a private person with her married name, and then she left to Washington to protest annexation, there being a petition of protest signed by over half her native Hawaiian people.  Nice try, she was one smart lady; forget about it: that was, and what is is is, at least according to President Clinton, right?

So what does “The life of the land is perpetuated in the righteousness of the people” mean to this dumb haole? Well, excuse me for being so dumb, which is the fault of Western libraries, but I think it means that whatever group of people can get possession of the land by any means whatsoever including force governs it as long as the people on it do not revolt and overthrow that government.  The principle is, sad to say, might makes right.

But try wait! Something is strange about “life of the land.” Since when does the thing we call the “land” actually “live,” as if it were animated? How superstitious can we be? Madam Pele is alive, of course, but not her creation, not unless we are pantheists who wish to burn in the forever volcano.  The missionaries like to say, while they scoop up property, that all is vanity because the world passes, but it looks like we pass and the real estate stays. What’s up with that, anyway?

I think what the King meant when he pronounced the motto in Hawaiian was that the life of his people as an identifiable people was rooted in the land, that the land was their birthright, and therefore their kingdom, or whatever form of government they prefer, is their right in the island lands perpetuated for all time.

Surely he spoke in the context of how it was seized by the British captain, but was given back to the right people, the Hawaiians, and surely that is exactly what Queen Liliuokalani expected to happen again. But history will not repeat itself here, that is, unless there is some apocalypse resulting in the restoration of the Kingdom of Hawaii to its natives having some blood from back then.

Okay then, until then, the people of Hawaii of all races can mix and make love and babies and money together, but make sure all the time that the virtues of the traditional Hawaiian culture are cultivated in homes and schools and maintained, right? And make sure all people with native blood receive a guaranteed minimum income for life, amounting to a proportion of 150% of the local poverty level, that portion to be determined according to the percentage of native blood running in their veins, from the time that they learn to speak Hawaiian fluently.

Okay, I wanted to say something dumb, as far as native Hawaiians are concerned, about diacritical marks, with apologies here that I have not used them for Hawaiian words written phonetically because I definitely have technical issues. I suppose that one can be certified in diacritalism somewhere if he has the latest word processing program and guidebook.

The state seal that I have a picture of needs to be updated because the motto it bears, “Ua Mau ke Ea o ka Aina i ka Pono,” does not have diacritical marks! All such seals need to be somehow destroyed and replaced with the right ones, eh? The absence of diacritical marks goes to show just how dumb if not disrespectful haoles are, so what they say should be ignored.

For instance, I came across a review of a novel, entitled The Last Aloha, about the “mercenaries” who overthrew the monarchs of Kingdom of Hawaii. Celeste Noelani, who has native Hawaiian blood, said she took it out from the library, read some of it, thought the author was pretty accomplished, but put it down and would not buy a copy, although she usually loves everything about Hawaii, because the author, Gaellen Quinn, did not use proper diacritical markings. How critical is that?

“The detail that made me return this book to the library rather than renew it or purchase it to add to my collection was the absence of two critical parts of Olelo Hawaii (Hawaiian language). The kahako (macron) is placed above vowels to lengthen the sound of the vowel, which can completely change the meaning of a word. The okina is a Hawaiian language consonant that looks like a backwards apostrophe (sort of) and indicates a glottal stop. This also completely changed the pronunciation, and there the meaning, of a word.” (kahakos and okinas omitted)

Forgive me for being so critical, like the insecure haole that I am, but “diacritical” is not a Hawaiian word; it is the English version, using the Roman alphabet introduced by Christian missionaries, of the Greek word “diacritikos,” meaning “to separate one thing from another,” derived from “diskrinein,” meaning “to judge.” The Greeks, of course, use the Greek alphabet, which comes from the Phoenician alphabet the Greeks adopted in the 8th century before the missionaries’ Christ.

The ancient Greeks, by the way, did not need punctuation, sentences and paragraphs, and wrote in one case:


“Celeste,” by the way, which is derived from the Latin caelestis, meaning “heavenly,” is also not a Hawaiian word. The French version is “Celeste,” with a diacritical mark over the “e” i.e. Céleste. The diacritical marks indicate how words are pronounced, other than according to the manner of pronunciation of the normal Latin alphabet. I am pretty dumb, and I do not want to offend Italians, but I think the Italians have a different way or pronouncing “Celeste” than the English and French, but diacritical marks are not used.

The Hawaiian language was traditionally oral, and was not written down until Protestant missionaries, most of them from New England, arrived, shortly after Kamehameha the Great died, and used the Latin alphabet to transcribe the language.

Excuse me for being judgmental, but Celeste, who thinks of herself as a kanaka maoli, or proud, indigenous Polynesian, is, like so many of us including moi, having identity issues. Like, who am I anyway? Am not part of you and you part of me? Did we not start out in Africa? Did not some get to the Caucasus and go on from there to Asia and then to the Pacific Islands? Don’t worry, be happy. Celeste was moved to Seattle, which is understandably depressing given the weather and the number of annual suicides, so, like many writers, she writes to belay the gloom, and wishes she was that little hula girl back in Hawaii. I recommend she visit Rosario Resort on Orcas Island. As for me, I wish I was a dumb haole back in Hawaii.

By the way, Celeste does not provide a diacritical mark over the first “a” in “kanaka.” What’s up with that? Isn’t it supposed to have one there?

“I am Kanaka Maoli and grew up in Hawaii. I learned a lot about the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy and some of my family members are active in the Sovereignty movement. What I am trying to say is that I wanted so much to love this book and am disappointed that I did not.” (sic)

No problem.  People identify with their languages, and when they speak the same language, they are jealous of their regional pronunciations and inflections.

Hawaiian natives, of course, just like haoles, know how a word is pronounced to have the meaning within the context in which it appears. Like some English words, a Hawaiian word with the same Roman spelling may have different meanings depending on context. Those words, called homographs, may be pronounced differently although they are spelled the same way. They are really different words when spoken, and native Hawaiians, unlike the English, may like to indicate that with diacritical marks, which in effect produces a different spelling. After all, the haoles at one time banished their language from schools, so for many natives it lost its second nature, and these diacritical marks are more than helpful, and only two are used, but who really owns them?

Celeste said she “rolled” with laughter yet also impatiently “rolled” her eyeballs because the author of The Last Aloha gave the protagonist the name Malolo without using a diacritical mark, which can have the meaning “flying fish,” or maybe a “low tide” or a dirty person who does not take baths, and so on. I always thought it meant “crazy mama” who smoked to much pakalolo. I recall some such distinctions with my favorite word in Hawaii, “pau.”

Okay, Celeste, I am not rolling my eyeballs at you, really, because I know what you mean. Like some words in the Hawaiian language, you have a hidden meaning that only you can know, so Aloha to you. The blacks in my New York City neighborhood called me “gray boy,” and said I could never fully understand anything they said because I am not black.

Anyway, since my word processor does not have a backwards (“sort of”) apostrophe, I sometimes use a regular apostrophe simply make the spelling of words with double vowels easier for me, although that way of indicating glottal stops is not recommended by the University of Hawaii at Manoa.

I practically lived on the UH campus for a few years while I resided in a neighborhood on its edge called Moiliili. My eyes are bad. That is too many small “i”s for this Big I to easily distinguish, and writing it as Mo’ili’ili, meaning “lizard,” which is the shape of the mountain I looked at every day, made the writing and pronunciation much easier. Yet, using that apostrophe proved to the kanaka maoli people that I was just a dumb haole.

Now I am sure that the kanaka maoli are wondering where all this is going to lead since it is going over like a lead balloon because I am a dumb haole, meaning a foreigner who is ignorant of their culture. They may believe I am so dumb that I do not know the difference between flour and a flower. If they are homophonic, they may pray that I do not prey on them like my ancestors from Scotland. That is okay, because if I were a smart okole, they would hate me.

Now I do not mean to be too diacritical, but there is one thing I do know: Hawaii and Hawai’i are two different places if you put the right okina in Hawaii.


The Mainland 2016