spswansonfinal

Hawai‘i: The Voice of Resistance 1

TRANSCULTURATION AND RESISTANCE IN THE POEMS OF CARLO FRATICELLI, AND JAMAICA OSORIO

Ryan Swanson, Languages and Literatures of Europe and the Americas

ABSTRACT:

The process of transculturation, as defined by Fernando Ortiz (1947), has played a vital role in the

evolution of Hawai’i as an example of a culturally diverse society in which both settler and native

identities are contested. In this sense Hawaiʻi can be considered a contact zone. This is a social

space, as Mary Louise Pratt (1991) has defined it, where different cultures collide and struggle

with adaptation and resistance, and where, over time transculturation allows new hybrid forms of

cultural expression and identity to emerge. In such a cultural clash, the strategies to maintain one’s

original cultural identity form a powerful narrative. This paper will analyze the transculturative

character of both twentieth-century and contemporary poetry that has served to voice both settler

and native perspectives of resistance against assimilation in Hawai‘i.


1. Introduction

The arrival of the English and other foreign powers in Hawai‘i quickly fostered

cultural clashes or situations in which a conflictive nature develops as different cultures

attempt to impose, or resist change. However, in this kind of cultural confrontation,

despite the assimilative forces of the dominant culture, lasting native elements that persist

or remain lead to a cultural fusion of both groups out of which new cultural products are

created in the process of transculturation. This paper will focus on the transculturative

elements employed in poetic resistance literature that emerged as a result of the

overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893 and its annexation to the United States in

18981. In analyzing both settler and native perspectives of Hawai‘i through the poetry of

Carlo Fraticelli and Jamaica Osorio, I will identify transculturative elements that are

exploited as strategies of resistance in the struggle to preserve one’s identity within a

contact zone where assimilation is a persistent threat.

2. Transculturation

Hawai‘i has been, and continues to be, a contact zone for many cultures and

ethnicities. The islands epitomize how Mary Louise Pratt defines the contact zone in her

article “Arts of the Contact Zone” (1991), as “social spaces where cultures meet, clash,

and grapple with each other” and history has shown it to be a place of “of highly

asymmetrical relations of power” (p. 34). Throughout the years, the idea of peaceful

assimilation to the values and practices of the dominant group, or the myth of one big

‘ohana (family), has progressively been accepted as fact. However, the reality in Hawai‘i

is that many of its ethnic groups, both native and settler, have struggled in opposition to

the idea of “‘ohana” by foreseeing the potential consequences of losing one’s identity.


The concerns of native Hawaiians in this respect are evident in the makaʻāinana

(commoners) petition to King Kamehameha III in 1845 as cited in Dudoit, 1999):

There is aroused within us love and reluctance to lose the land, with love

for the chiefs, and the children, and everything upon the land. We believe

we will soon end as homeless people. Therefore we kiss the soil of the

land and petition you at the legislature. [...] We think that the land is not

for the foreigner, only for us, the true Hawaiians. [...] Do not give laws

covenanting to give away our own Hawaii. There is the entry [puka; sic]

where the foreigners get into the body [opu; sic] of our own Hawaii. [...]

Perhaps they all will say, “We are true Hawaiians, therefore it is not your

land. [...] We are naturalized Hawaiians, therefore the land is ours, not

yours, because you are brown skinned and we are white! (p. 227)

While the purpose of this prophetic petition was to maintain and preserve Hawai‘i from

assimilation, the very act of it as a written document2 suggests moves towards

assimilation had already had a profound impact on the Hawaiian society. At the same

time the petition provides a clear example of a fusion between Hawaiian and Anglo

cultural practices, a fusion that produced a new and very powerful mode of resistance for

the Hawaiians. This practice of Hawaiian palapala (written documentation) would

further aid in preserving their cultural identity, “[the] palapala [document] has also come

to be wielded in the struggle for liberation to help us [Native Hawaiians] grapple with the

ambivalence of our cultural identity” (Dudoit, 1999, p. 227)


Fernando Ortiz (1947) introduces the term transculturation for this kind of

hybridization, and he exposes it as a process different from acculturation. According to

Ortiz:

[t]ransculturation better expresses the different phases of the process of

transition from one culture to another because this does not consist merely

in acquiring another culture, which is what the English word acculturation

really implies, but the process also necessarily involves the loss or

uprooting of a previous culture…In addition it carries the idea of the

consequent creation of new cultural phenomena3, which could be called

neoculturation. In the end…the result of every union of cultures is similar

to that of the reproductive process between individuals: the offspring

always has something of both parents but is always different from each of

them. (p. 102-3)

Transculturation is thus a continual occurrence due to the daily cultural clashes within a

contact zone. It is because of the daily struggles that new and original cultural elements,

which were formed through such cultural conflicts, can be utilized to resist the

destructive consequences of total assimilation, the potential extinction of one’s identity

and conversation into another.

In the anxiety about the loss or uprooting of one’s culture both settler and native

communities of Hawai‘i have a shared concern. A fear that eventually led to the

challenging of assimilation. The native Hawaiian poet, editor and founder of the Native

Hawaiian Journal ‘Ōiwi, Māhealani Dudoit (1999) in what serves as an exemplary


definition of transculturation, explains that because of such culture clashes, a new Native

Hawaiian was born:

The decade of the 1970s is popularly recognized today as a time when

modern Hawaiians began to come into their own. We had undergone the

pressures of assimilation and somehow remained loyal to our

“Hawaiianness,” as different as we were from our mākua [parents] or

kūpuna [ancestors]. One of those differences did seem to be our

belligerency, our haole contentiousness, our outspokenness. Most of us

had been raised to be ʻoluʻolu (polite, courteous), to show aloha (kindness,

love), to be generous. We had been raised to obey our parents. How could

we therefore be so un-Hawaiian in our Hawaiianness? (p. 226)

Dudoit suggests that it would be these hybrid products of transculturation, such as this

new tendency of outspokenness, which would prove to be essential in the struggle against

assimilating to the “haole.4”

3. Resistance Literature

Transculturation offers a means by which one can oppose the totalizing of the

dominant culture. It is through poetry that both Fraticelli and Osorio partake in the use

and promotion of transculturative elements as a form of resistance. Therefore, both poets

share with Dudoit a literary strategy. Dudoit, being a scholar and editor, is aware of

literature’s potential power in nation building. In her article, “Against Extinction: A

Legacy of Native Hawaiian Resistance Literature” (1999), Dudoit defines and classifies

her strategy as resistance literature for its effectiveness in counterattacking assimilation:


The phrase “resistance literature” was first coined and popularized by

Barbara Harlow to apply to the broad spectrum of narrative, poetic, and

analytical writings produced by resistance and national liberation

movements in their struggles against repressive forms of ideological and

cultural production…Such writings carry the potential to wrest back from

the repressive authorities the control over cultural production. (p. 226)

In fact, literature can be classified as a form of resistance. Both settler and native

poets Carlo Fraticelli and Jamaica Osorio, respectively, offer perspectives that challenge

the notion that the entire population of Hawai‘i happily accepts or desires further

progression of assimilation toward North American norms. These voices of resistance

observe the foreignness of dominant cultures, and foresee assimilation’s potential to

eliminate their original cultural identity by replacing it with another. However, it must be

made clear that in their efforts to maintain their own cultural identity, they themselves

utilize strategies or practices formed out of transculturation and as such, actively

participate in establishing a new hybrid identity. In fact It should be noted that both

Puerto Rico and Hawai‘i became territories of the United States in 1898, however it

seems Carlos Fraticelli does not dwell on the similarities of the political conditions

that Puerto Rico and Hawai’i would have been enduring at that time, which could be

base don his view of the native Hawaiian as an inferior race. Transculturation in

Hawai‘i offers an important example of the processes of cultural struggles⎯in the

contact zone these practices of resistance and adaptations are evident in Fraticelli and

Osorio’s original poetry.


Although the two poets differ greatly in their perspectives of Hawai‘i, they both

accept social changes, in that they both aim to scrupulously appropriate cultural elements

from the dominant culture of the U.S. as transculturative tools of resistance that they can

exploit against the hegemonic forces of assimilation. The elements appropriated from the

hegemonic culture differ in each poets so as to fit their particular strategies of resistance.

Fraticelli’s voice was aimed at a select audience, and stresses the importance of unity

between fellow Puerto Ricans primarily through embrace and later participation in the

electoral process. Whereas Osorio, being both physically and linguistically a product of

Hawai‘i’s transculturation, utilizes many hegemonic cultural elements in her work, such

as the use of English. These elements appear on television programs to provoke

awareness in a contemporary audience of the present-day relevance of prior native

Hawaiian forms of resistance, as well as the remembrance of a [forgotten] people and

culture (Native Hawaiians) in danger of being permanently marginalized or forgotten.

Both settler and native voices seek to thwart assimilation through calls to action

and themes of remembrance. Throughout their poems they employ emblematic forms of

their identity—nostalgic songs, historical events, and native languages.

A deep analysis of the poetry of Fraticelli and Osorio indicates that they are

opposed to a cultural shift towards the hegemonic culture. Pratt (1991) argues that

transculturation is merely a phenomenon of the contact zone. These poets could be seen

as products of “process[es] whereby members of subordinated or marginal groups select

and invent from materials transmitted by a dominant or metropolitan culture” (p. 6).

Their aim is to oppose the concept of total assimilation as they view that their language,

culture, and very identity are in danger of extinction. Therefore, it is because of their


situation in the Hawaiian contact zone, and out of the fear of total assimilation, that they

have employed transculturative tactics to maintain and promote particular cultural

practices that establish clear connections to prior concepts of identity and nationality. At

the same time, perhaps to the extent that they have the freedom to do so, it is because of

this very danger to identity that their voices of resistance must be heard and their words

understood. It is out of fear and righteous anger, a poetic tradition developed in Hawai‘i

as an art form of resistance. This is a tradition that exemplifies Pratt’s (1991) proposed

traits of the literary arts of a contact zone as being, “…autoethnography, transculturation,

critique, collaboration, bilingualism, mediation, parody, denunciation, imaginary

dialogue, vernacular expression,” (p. 37).

3. Oral Tradition

A characteristic of the poetry of Fraticelli and Osorio is the power of the spoken

word. There exists an ancient ‘ōlelo no‘eau [Hawaiian proverb]: I ka ‘ōlelo no ke ola, i ka

‘ōlelo nō ka make; [words possess the will to heal (create life)], and in words death

(destruction) can also be provoked5], an idea which can be taken both literally and

metaphorically⎯for one can literally sentence another to death by their voice. A loose

modern translation for this proverb states, “…in speech we find the life of our race,

without it [the Hawaiian language] we shall perish…” (wehewehe.org). This awareness

of the importance of language is shared by both Fraticelli and Osorio, and is crucial to the

autoethnographic6 element of their poetry. To the Hawaiians, the spectrum of intentions

must be spoken out loud for nature to receive it. To better comprehend the true

significance of Hawaiian oral traditions it is vital to give deep consideration and thought

to this practice (Hind, M. N. (Personal Communication, January 28, 2015) 7. Fraticelli


wrote and voiced his verses entirely in Spanish, illustrating the vital role language plays

in his concept of culture and identity, this technique is also employed by Osorio.

Both the settler and native voices acknowledge the power of the spoken word.

Connie Zitlow, in her review of the book, Brave New Voices: The Youth Speaks Guide to

Teaching Spoken Word Poetry by Jen Weiss and Scott Herndon, defines the spoken word

as:

[a] multilayered art form-as "performance-oriented poetry the best

examples of which begin with a precise and well-written poem (xix). They

note "spoken word poetry was founded on an acceptance of all cultures,

social types, and voices. As an art movement, it continues to value

diversity and inclusion above other features" (2003, p. 109)

4. Settler Voice in Hawai‘i: Carlo Mario Fraticelli

The native Hawaiian population would have a cultural clash with the values of the

Western world that were forced upon them, when presence of a foreign culture quickly

became dominant over their indigenous’ culture. However, a similar cultural clash ensued

within the settler population in Hawai‘i. The settler, who left his home for uncertain

reasons to struggle in a foreign land, in which his cultural identity was a minority,

suffered a similar identity crisis and also feared assimilation. This concern is seen the

poetry of Fraticelli. According to Austin Dias (2000) Fraticelli was from Puerto Rico and

immigrated to Hawai‘i in 1901 at the age of thirty-eight, probably out of a desire for a

better life (although the true desire for his immigration is uncertain). He was a

sophisticated man, who, for a period, studied medicine in Paris, and as Dias’s research

suggests, was from a privileged class. Due to his mastery of poetry, and his education, his


life story echoes through his work as an emotional and loyal Puerto Rican living in a very

foreign Hawai‘i.

To better understand the historical situation of the era, it must be noted that both

Puerto Rico and Hawai‘i became territories of the United States in 18988, and like many

Puerto Rican immigrant workers such as Fraticelli, the history of Hawai‘i must have

resonated to some degree with aspects of U.S. imperialism and its implementation in

Puerto Rico. At the end of the nineteenth century Puerto Rico had experienced great

changes and natural disasters like the devastating hurricane San Ciriaco of 1899, all of

which most likely played a significant role in Fraticelli’s decision to leave. Iris López

(2005) describes this era and clarifies reasons for Puerto Rican migration to Hawai‘i in

her article, “Borinkis and Chop Suey”:

A series of events unfolded within the expanding context of United States

imperialism that contributed to the migration of [Puerto Rican]

workers…In 1899, Hurricane San Ciriaco devastated more than half of the

island of Puerto Rico. It left thousands of Puerto Ricans, who were

dependent on subsistence farming, destitute and in search of work…and

the annexation of Puerto Rico, Hawai‘i, Guam, and the Philippines by the

United States in 1898 facilitated the transfer of Puerto Ricans from one

U.S. territory (Puerto Rico) to another (Hawai‘i). (p. 44)

Fraticelli immigrated to Hawai‘i during the second Puerto Rican wave of

immigration in 19019. From his home in Lawa‘i, on the island of Kaua‘i, Fraticelli

produced the majority of his work. The poetry of Fraticelli epitomizes the traits of

resistance literature⎯in that it calls for unity among fellow Puerto Ricans residing in


Hawai‘i, challenging them to remain loyal to their homeland and Spanish language⎯and

as spoken word or recitation of poetry, which was commonly practiced by Puerto Rican

jíbaros (laborers from Puerto Rico’s mountain sides), Fraticelli incites in his audience

this remembrance of their national pastime.

Austin Dias, of the department of the Languages and Literatures of Europe and

the Americas at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, who aided in the research of Carlo

Fraticelli which led to the rediscovery, biography, and publishing of Fraticelli’s work,

states in his 2001 article that while in Hawai‘i Fraticelli worked in the sugar plantations

as a luna [boss] on the islands of Kaua‘i and O‘ahu (p. 99). Dias’ research resulted in the

findings of Fraticelli’s unpublished and almost forgotten work, which consists of fifty-six

pieces, fifty-three poems, and three essays. As Dias notes, that not one was written in

English, a linguistic choice that would imply that his works were primarily meant for the

minority Puerto Rican audience10. According to Dias (2001), Fraticelli recited his verses

to fellow Puerto Ricans as an attempt to unite and empower them, often reciting his

verses orally at parties and other social gatherings. Additionally, the poetic use of the

Spanish language in all his works should be perceived as a tool of discouraging

assimilation, and obviously a stratagem⎯a tendency shared by the native voice of Osorio

in her work⎯that would have deliberately restricted his message towards his selective

audience (Puerto Ricans), by excluding non-Hispanic cultures. Furthermore, reciting his

verses reassured that his words would be heard and understood as their collective story,

one of the Puerto Rican immigration experience and the exile-like feelings brought by

such a diaspora. José Luis González (1980) expands more on this Puerto Rican diaspora:

Esa emigración[of the general Puerto Rican]…representa uno de los hitos


capitales de la experiencia nacional puertorriqueña. No hay aspecto de la

vida del pueblo puertorriqueño en este siglo-social, económico, político,

cultural y psicológico que no esté marcado por las vicisitudes de ese éxodo

en masa. (p. 107-111)

This collective story is felt throughout Fraticelli’s poems because he too shares

the sense of displacement that González describes. Dias (2000) elaborates more on this

effect that Fraticelli must have felt; “El señor Fraticelli estaba destinado a compartir el

mismo fin triste de sus compatriotas exiliados” (p. 28). He expresses a deep nostalgia

for his homeland and an abhorrence of Hawaii’s harsh working conditions, which were

possibly a direct result of the Na Haku A Me Na Kauwa11. Dias (2001) adds, “Like many

other leaders that emerge from the upper classes, it is not surprising that Fraticelli was

outraged by the inhuman treatment of his fellow countrymen since he was not

accustomed to being treated abusively” (p. 98). It is easy to comprehend that for Fraticelli

class status plays a vital role in his daily life experience.

Fraticelli presents his Puerto Rican identity nearly entirely, in forty-five poems,

through the poetic form of the décima. Blase Souza and Dias (1997) elaborate on this

form of poetry, which originated out of sixteenth-century Spain. They state that Vicente

Espinel, a poet of the Spanish Siglo de Oro, is recognized as formulating the décima,

which is a poetic form comprising of a stanza of ten eight-syllable lines (Souza & Dias, p.

22). The décima became a popular form that was sung out loud from town to town, and in

the nineteenth century Puerto Rican nationalists adopted the decima as a national symbol

of Puerto Rican identity. In Hawai‘i Fraticelli and many of his fellow jíbaros maintained

this poetic form, which can be seen as a remembrance and show of loyalty to their Puerto


Rican identity. This oral tradition endured on the island of Kaua‘i most likely due to the

segregation of ethnicities in the plantation camps, which plantation village document, that

Fraticelli would have known well. Dias (2001) tells us that it is on the plantations where

he developed friendships with other Puerto Rican immigrants, such as poets Nicolas

Vegas, and Pérez Peña. Dias explains, “The tradition lasted longer on the island of

Kaua‘i, because Fraticelli, Vegas, and Pérez Peña were friends and neighbors for some

twenty years” (p. 99).

Fraticelli accepts his role as the voice of the Puerto Ricans in Hawai‘i, receiving

the title Don Carlo or el maestro. He desperately challenges his fellow jíbaros (Dias,

2000, p. 96) to stand firm in their identity and to resist American and Hawaiian influence.

In his poem “Somos Borincanos” (We are Puerto Ricans), Fraticelli reminds his

audience, that although they may be displaced in Hawai‘i, they must maintain loyalty to

Puerto Rico. In A Puerto Rican Poet on Hawaii’s Sugar Plantation (Souza & Dias,

1997), which contains the publication of sixteen poems by Fraticelli translated into

English, as well as a biography of his life and an overview of his work, this concern of

loyalty is made evident (p. 26):

We have not changed our pastimes, nor our songs; We have not forgotten that beloved land of our old Father whom we protect in our hearts. For this Reason, we are Puerto Ricans.

No hemos cambiado nuestras diversiones, ni nuestras canciones; no hemos olvidado aquel suelo amado de nuestro anciano padre que guardamos en el corazón. Por esta razón, somos borincanos.


Although Fraticelli yearns for the preservation of Puerto Rican identity, he is also aware

that it is reasonable to learn the language where one resides. This notion is depicted in his

the poem “Déjenme hablar, señores” (Souza, & Dias, 1997, p. 49):

However, in the same poem he also offers a warning and concern if one’s native tongue

and Puerto Rican identity is lost in the process, which he harshly rebukes and condemns

(Souza, & Dias, 1997, p. 48):

The poems of Fraticelli are a call to action and resistance, (yet they differ from the

native voice of resistance found in the poetry of Osorio, where she seems to favor a push

Si emigramos a un país Donde se habla diferente, Aprender es conveniente el modo de hablar allí…

If we emigrate to a country where they speak differently, it is advisable to learn the way they speak there…

El negar donde ha nacido el hombre es una bajeza; el negar su raza expresa que es un mal agradecido. Es un hijo maldecido el que olvida los favores que su madre con rigores le dispensó en su niñez. De lo que este mundo es, déjenme hablar, señores. Debe el hombre conservar el idioma de su raza; y si su cultura es escasa, si no lo quisiere usar, esto equivale a negar a nuestros progenitores, pensar que son inferiores a otra raza cualquiera…

Rejecting where one was born is a vile deed; rejecting one’s race expresses that one is ungrateful. He who forgets the favors that his mother gave him with difficulty in his childhood, is a cursed son. Of what this world is, let me speak, ladies and gentlemen. One should maintain the language of his race; and if his culture is limited, if he does not want to use it (language), this is equivalent to rejecting our ancestors, to thinking that they are inferior to any other race…


for native education and remembrance of the Hawaiian monarchy). Although Fraticelli,

as far as we know, never produced work in another language, he does employ the

promotion of a powerful tranculturative tool that was not then permitted to the Native

Hawaiians12. He seems to have a strong desire and hope to empower his audience to

make their presence known through the electoral process of local elections, in which

participation was granted to Puerto Ricans who were residing outside of Puerto Rico in

the continental United States. Fraticelli wants to preserve his Puerto Rican traditions, but

he embraces the vote by right of his U.S. citizenship. In acceptance of this practice of the

dominant culture, Fraticelli, thus is creating a hybrid Puerto Rican identity; one that is

Puerto Rican in most ways, but also participates as a U.S. citizen.

Fraticelli, a very proud Puerto Rican, yet aware of his situation, not only engages

in the political practices of a dominant culture, but also calls his audience to take action

to better their working and living conditions by the power of the vote. For Puerto Ricans

in Hawai‘i, elements that maintained and preserved the Puerto Rican identity were

utilized and successful, one only has to drive around O‘ahu to see their lasting

impact⎯in the sale of pasteles13. Iris López (2005) elaborates more on this Hawaiian

exchange granted by the process of transculturation:

In Hawai‘i there are two types of cultural exchange: cultural syncretism

and cultural synthesis. Cultural syncretism is a form of mixing where

original characteristics are not lost in the process of transculturation.

Cultural synthesis, on the other hand, is a blend of many cultural elements

that creates something new. In Hawai‘i, syncretism and synthesis coexist,

whereas in the mainland there is less tolerance for syncretism. (p. 53)


For Fraticelli, and many other Puerto Ricans the power to vote was an influential

transculturative tool in creating a unique Puerto Rican identity in Hawai‘i. In his poem,

“La hora suprema” (The Supreme Hour), in Souza and Dias (1997, p. 37) he

demonstrates this objective:

Another prevalent theme throughout his works is nostalgia. The sentimental and

idealized images of his homeland are often in conflict with his view of Hawai‘i. In the

book Latinos: A Biography of the People, Earl Shorris expands more on this recurring

theme of nostalgia, as cited in Dias (2001):

There was no comfort for them but the past. Nostalgia became the

dominant factor in the Puerto Rican character. The island achieved

mythical status…for immigration is a form of exile, the civilized society’s

sentence of death…Puerto Ricans suffer most because they have endured

conquest without respite since the end of the fifteenth century. (p. 103)

In Fraticelli’s quest to halt assimilation, Hawai‘i, for him, is perceived negatively, and

almost as a prison far away from his Caribbean island. As if sentenced to death, never to

return to his patria (Fatherland), he writes “Himno a Puerto Rico” (Hymn to Puerto

without grief or compassion, we live in indignation, like Ill-fated people. To relieve our Suffering: Puerto Ricans, let’s Unite.

sin pena ni compasión, vivimos la indignación como seres muy fatales. Para aliviar nuestros males: Borincanos a la unión.

La campaña electoral puerta abierta nos presenta para arreglarle la cuenta al que nos trató tan mal. En un estado fatal,

The electoral campaign presents Us an open door to settle the Score with those who have treated us so badly. In a disastrous state,


Rico). In these verses he compares Hawai’i and Puerto Rico in a way that an inmate

might compare his jail cell to the outside world. And like an inmate looking out from his

cell window, perhaps Fraticelli sat before the vast Pacific and wrote (Souza, & Dias,

1997, p. 67):

“Himno a Puerto Rico” is an exemplary poem that conveys his deep longing for

the Puerto Rico he left. Fraticelli’s emotions are of a heavy heart consumed in a

great nostalgia for his patria, aware that he will remain in Hawai‘i as if a prisoner

in exile to never return home. Despite this intense melancholy, this poem serves

as a reminder to never forget, remaining loyal to Puerto Rico.

5. Language in Hawaiian National Identity

The voice of resistance and struggle against assimilation is not exclusive to the

immigrant situation of the settler, as it also belongs to native Hawaiians. The Hawaiian

people have lost much of their identity, customs, and land over the years through it being

a contact zone. In particular, ‘Ōlelo Hawai‘i [Hawaiian language] nearly vanished as

English became the dominate language in Hawai‘i. Therefore, it is necessary to

understand the significant role language contributes in cultural and national identities.

My heart is mortally Wounded, wishing to see You, my beloved corner (of the world). In this prison I will spend my life, always immersed in sad wailing. I say farewell To you, my beloved fatherland.

Tengo el corazón herido de muerte, deseando verte amado rincón. En esta prisión pasaré mi vida, siempre sumergida en triste gemido. De ti me despido, mi patria querida


Language and its literature are fundamental in the act of nation building or

nationalism (Gupta, 1998). Therefore, it is apparent that the lost of language also holds

the potential to extinguish both cultural and national identities; as was the case in

Hawai‘i, where such a linguistic shift from Hawaiian to English⎯two languages of

unequal status ⎯helped facilitate the eventual overthrow of its monarchy and a total loss

of sovereignty. Prasenjit Gupta (1998) expands on this process as a product of linguistic

inequalities of colonial translation, suggesting that it is based on the “…subconscious

notion translators have had in the past that other literatures, like other cultures, are less or

more ‘advanced than their own…” (p. 171). According to Dudoit (1999), “…words were

subsequently used by foreigners to trick and rob Native Hawaiians of their land and

political power” (p. 226). However, Dudoit does not take into consideration the immense

foreign pressure and their military capabilities as a major factor. Contrary to her

argument, I would suggest that this linguistic shift was much more subtle, and directly

rooted in Hawai‘i’s desire for global recognition as a cultured nation; which in itself is

based on Western values, or is being valued by the West.

Other ‘Western values’ touching on this linguistic shift have also had an impacted

on Hawai‘i. A clear observation of such practices can be seen in the use of palapala

(Western concept of documentation). Around the year 1825, King Kamehameha III

(Kauikeaouli), at the young age of ten, proclaimed to the maka‘āinana (commoners), “O

ko‘u aupuni, he aupuni palapala ko‘u” (My kingdom shall be a kingdom of literacy)14.

By the 1860’s Hawai‘i had the highest literacy rate of any nation, with more than 100

Hawaiian-language newspapers (Berger, 2004). Thus, translation of foreign languages

and concepts into Hawaiian newspapers were made for a native audience. In her


article, “Dis/Placing Territories of Identity in Translation,” Lucía Aranda (2010) explains

the potentially dangerous by-product of translation. She clarifies that “translations have

the capacity of creating and displacing meaning and place”; and furthermore, “…splinters

the existing territorial identities and destabilizes notions of physical space (I mean to

argue along side with Dudoit suggestion that the role of translation in the Hawaiian

language was vital in the eventual loss of the Hawaiian nation)…” (p.16-17). Although

this abundance in translations of foreign works like the popular ka‘ao (tales) of Arabian

Knights (Bacchilega & Arista. 2007) added to Hawaiian literature, and over time might

have aided in a new creation of a national identity15, it also would have begun a

modification of “Hawaiianess” towards that of the “haole.”

In the very act of nation building, the art and difficulty of maintaining one’s rich

culture requires both a deep responsibility and skill. Pua‘ala‘okalani Aiu speaks of the

power of language as resistance in his article, “Language as an Indicator of Hawaiian

Resistance and Power” (2010), where he argues, “…[the] choice not to translate

strengthens the position of the Hawaiian language. Since you cannot understand

Hawaiian without understanding a worldview, perceptions about land and culture are

forced to change…” (p. 105). Fraticelli’s tactic of a linguistic choice of only using

Spanish in his work exemplifies the above proposal of Aiu (2010), while on the other

hand, Osorio takes advantage of her bilingual background of both English and Hawaiian

in her poetry.

6. The Native Voices of Resistance

In 2009, Jamaica Osorio and Ittai Wong, using both English and Hawaiian,

presented their poetry in the Brave New Voices Festival on the television network HBO,


where their poem was broadcasted nationwide. The festival is devoted to young poets in

hopes of bettering the skills of slam poetry or spoken word, while providing an outlet in

which a public audience can be increased⎯ an opportunity not applicable to Fraticelli in

his era. Connie Zitlow, in her article, “Talking Literature” (2003), explains how Brave

New Voices’s participants,

…use spoken word poetry as a way to explore the connection between…

written and vocal worlds. They present this poetry as a modern-day

literary form rooted in many oral traditions: African griots, the blues,

Baptist preaching, and storytelling. It is an art form with connections to

the free-association methods of the surrealists and to protest songs and

poems. (p. 109)

Contemporary poet Jamaica Heolimeleikalani Osorio, the daughter of Hawaiian

activist, scholar, and musician Jonathan Osorio, has written many poems criticizing the

effects of assimilation in Hawai‘i. Osorio, a native Hawaiian who is fluent in 'Ōlelo

Hawai‘i, discusses her creative process as a product of pain, “…in my heart, I have

known these words for far longer; this protest, this ‘eha [pain]. This pain is something we

Hawaiians carry in our koko [blood]” (2009, p. 300). Osorio’s work alludes to her desire

to encourage her readers to become educated. Similar to Fraticelli, Osorio uses nostalgia

to provoke remembrance, which is commonly practiced in Hawaiian traditions. For

example the ‘ōlelo no‘eau [Hawaiian proverb] states, “I ka wā mamua, ka wā ma hope”

[the future is in the past] (wehewehe.org), Osorio encounters her motif as a cry for

resistance in acts of protest. She states:


As long as we keep singing, fighting, marching, chanting, Lili‘uokalani16

will live with every word she carried in her mana. I write to keep my

queen alive, I write to keep my father alive. I write because I have been

told so many times that I cannot, that my writing will not change the

past…but in honoring our past we are looking forward, we are changing

the world, one poem at a time…I stand…[with] a fight in my heart that

will not and cannot die. (Osorio, 2009, p. 300)

In the native Hawaiian literary journal 'Ōiwi (2009), Osorio reminisces about the

history since the annexation of Hawai‘i in her poem entitled, “Kaulana nā Pua a o

Hawai‘i.” It is named after the song also known as Meleʻ Ai Pōhaku (Stone-Eating song),

which was written by Wright Prendergast in protest of the overthrow of Queen

Lili‘uokalani in 189317. The poem is primarily a work of resistance, in which themes of

remembrance, solitude, and hope are emphasized. Osorio commences the poem by

reminding the reader of the forced overthrow of the monarchy and of the kingdom.

Osorio relates the overthrow of 1883 to the annexation by the U.S. in 1898, “The word

annexation rings throughout a newly slaughtered country” (p. 301). Osorio recalls to her

audience the songs of the tearful protest of 1883 and 1898. In uniting the two tragic

historical events she summons the voices of the past so that they can be heard in the

present. Throughout the poem, questions such as, “Today I wonder is anyone still

listening [?]” (p. 301), are presented in a way that provokes the audience to wonder

alongside the author. Throughout this poem Osorio includes her audience with a

collective “we” (p.301). By employing this tactic both Osorio and Fraticelli share the

belief that preserving one’s cultural identity is also the responsibility of the audience


Furthermore, the poem offers a descriptive ‘war’ between two cultures much in the same

way Fraticelli’s poems do, although he calls for participatation in the electoral process as

citizens within the hegemonic culture of the U.S. In this war, Osorio makes the audience

well aware that her alliance rests with the Hawaiian Kingdom. With little remorse, she

clarifies this position in her opinion of statehood, “Hawai‘i officially becomes the 50th

state of this god-forsaken country” (p. 301).

As the poem arrives at the present situation of Hawai‘i, Osorio begins to examine

the effects of tremendous change by painting a picture of the deplorable state of today’s

Hawai‘i: “We watched as Hawaiians forgot to fight/one by one ice pipes began to ignite/

Waikīkī’s face transformed from brown to white” (p. 300). In an introduction to her

poem, “Kaulana nā Pua a o Hawai‘i” (2009), Osorio explains that she is determined to

fight by educating the public that the Kingdom of Hawai‘i is alive, and traditions such as

hula (narrative dance) and oli (chants) are vital to empower unity and awareness.

Through this poem, Osorio offers her experience of this struggle of cultural inequality

that has been created as a byproduct of statehood. Explaining her battles, she pens

powerful images:

…the force-fed colonialist dictionaries did all they could to choke me.

Covered my grandmother’s tongue with tattooed Christian scriptures, they

silenced me. Slapped me when I tried to speak like my family, told me I

had no history before the European missionaries…Diluting sacred blood

with TB. Leaving the measles and their bibles to transcend through

generations causing over 600,000 casualties…so we converted but we kept

dying, and we’ve been praying but we haven’t been surviving. (p. 300)


Although Osorio has described personal losses, both cultural and linguistic, her

poetic voice urges the audience to remember that not all has been lost (p. 300):

But mana cannot be created or destroyed by man

So that must mean we still stand a chance

But we need to honor what’s been left

After Christ said we couldn’t dance, couldn’t chant

We need to use what’s been left to fight back…

In resisting assimilation, Osorio emphasizes her native right to do so by declaring her

native genealogy. She shares her mo‘okū‘auhau18 [genealogy] as validation of her native

Hawaiian roots (p. 300):

But I’ll show you my pride

Tattoo my mo‘okū‘auhau to my tongue to

Never forget where my voice came from

Who my loyalty is tied to

And what nation my heart sings to

I’ll sing to you

I’ll chant continuously to show you that I

am Hawaiian

I have the scars and tattoos to show my alliance.

Osorio, while versing, “Screaming this song,” is aware of her and the Hawaiian

cultures marginalization. She states, “no one is listening…holding the hands of ancestors

trying to find voices…no one is listening” (p. 300). Her verses indicate an assurance that

she will fight while waiting for people to join her, “when you feel like joining me, I will


be here, waiting, but not idly, I will be singing” (p. 301). Similarly, Fraticelli may have

also viewed himself as a solitary leader, and his title of Don or Maestro suggests that

others did, as it is a marker of respect and class. In her conclusion, Osorio asks of the

audience to take a stance on the problematic socio-political context in Hawai‘i. The use

of her native tongue at this point effectively divides her audience in the hope that they

become aware of their alignment with the center margin or on the linguistic divisions of

the population. She declares her position once again, but in a way that is clear-cut for

speakers of Hawaiian, “Ma hope mākou o Lili‘ulani, [We are behind Liliʻuokalani]” (p.

301).

Osorio’s poem “Kaulana nā Pua a o Hawai‘i, shares similar strategies of

resistance with another poem titled “Kaona” (Hidden Meaning) (2008) by Osorio and

Ittai Wong. However, kaona offers a cultural linguistic tradition that hides other

meanings beneath the phrases that might be seemingly straightforward. “Kaona” was

presented as slam poetry on HBO’s special Brave New Voices in 2008 to a live audience

in Washington D.C. The poem conveys a beautiful historical story of resistance during

the years of Queen Liliʻuokalani’s imprisonment following the overthrow of the

monarchy19. Osorio and Wong shift between Hawaiian and English as a linguistic tactic

granted by transculturation. This tactic would allow a non-Hawaiian speaker to

understand some of the material, however the shift is coded in kaona, and thus is made to

express the importance of language and knowledge of culture in one’s identity. Out of the

necessity of secrecy in the new provisional government, kaona20 was utilized to converse

between Queen Liliʻuokalani and her citizens. According to the Online Hawaiian

Dictionary Nā Puke Wehewehe ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi, Kaona means hidden meaning. However,


Eleanor Nordyke and Martha Noyes, present a better understanding of its value in their

article, “Kaulana Na Pua: A Voice for Sovereignty,”

Kaona is a special ingredient of Hawaiian chants that offers hidden

meaning. Through the clever manipulation of the figurative language, the

composer can give a double entendre that is understood only by persons

familiar with the circumstances of the writing. (p. 32)

To Osorio and Wong, identity as a group can only be maintained by the

persistence of its language, because the ability to identify oneself as Hawaiian rests in the

knowledge of both Hawaiian language and culture. Therefore, in the poem “Kaona” the

plight is made much more evident because one can know and speak fluent Hawaiian, yet

if they lack knowledge of the culture, the use of kaona will deter them from the exact

meaning of what is being said. The poem is versed in dual narrative, containing both

English and Hawaiian verses read out loud simultaneously (Teter & Takehiro, 2010,

229):

…and with every word lost E ho mai ka ‘ike mai

we lose a piece of ourselves luna mai e

with every story forgot, O na mea

we lose a piece of our history huna no‘eau

na mele

E ho mai…

The lyrics in Hawaiian are borrowed from the chant “E ho mai” by Edith

Kanaka‘ole21. The use of her chant references the nostalgia of a past Hawai‘i. The chant

is typically repeated three times, and Kanaka‘ole translates it as “Grant us the knowledge


from above, [t]he knowledge hidden in the chants, [g]rant us these things.” The use of

this chant indicates that there exists a hidden knowledge in words that are spoken, in nā

mele [the chants]. Through their verses Osorio and Wong are remembering and retelling,

through kaona (Hawai‘i’s first form of poetry) much can be learned by the knowledge

and teaching of the Hawaiian language and culture, and by doing so their Hawaiian

identity will never be forgotten. However, the poem “Kaona” illustrates the practice of

its very name. An encrypted meaning is hidden beneath the literal meaning, further

isolating Osorio and Wong from an unaware public, be it either a monolingual speaker or

even a Hawaiian speaker. In English the children are translated in Hawaiian as nā keiki

but in kaona the phrase nā pua can be used, however it literally means the flowers.

Therefore, those in the audience that are not from Hawai‘i are not expected to

know the culture and language in order to comprehend all of its implications. This covert

linguistic tactic correlates directly to the situation of Hawai‘i in 1893. And as was the

case with the mele, “Kaulana Nā Pua a‘o Hawai‘i” (1893), where, “Defenders of the

queen could sing this protest song with inner pleasure, content with the knowledge that

the outwardly benign words and gay tune masked the stronger feelings that the casual

listener did not comprehend” (Nordyke, Noyes, 1993, p. 32-33), Osorio and Wong’s

audience becomes divided because of a lack of knowledge of either the historical event,

the Hawaiian culture, the Hawaiian language, or perhaps even, a forgotten Hawaiian

understanding of kaona in Hawaiian tradition (Teter, & Takehiro 2010, 227-229):

Ua ola ka olelo mai ka paiku ana o na pua

Our language survived through the passing of flowers…

…You had to understand the history and culture


to decrypt this language. Had to dig deeper than dictionaries

beneath oesophagus

and vocal cords

to grasp the root of the words our people would chant

just to understand their messages…

…through flowers Ua ola ka olelo mai ka paiku ana o na pua

E hiki na pua e ola mai ka paiku ana o ka olelo

so our children can survive, through the passage of language.

The words nā pua reappear throughout the poem, which literally translate as the

flowers, however it can also represent children. Through this game of kaona, Osorio and

Wong interchange the two meanings so that the verses become united with the same

purpose at hand, a message of hope that can only be found within our language and

culture if it is passed on to the generation, ia nā pua (to the children). Fraticelli, like

Osorio, shares in this hope. In his poem “Déjenme hablar, señores” (Let me speak, ladies

and gentlemen) Fraticelli is disappointed when he sees Puerto Rican, Portuguese, and

Spanish families speaking English in the house, and praises the Japanese who make their

children speak Japanese in their homes (Souza & Dias, 1997, p.49).

7. Conclusion

In conclusion, Hawai‘i is a contact zone, in which many ethnicities, cultures and

ideologies clash. Through such conflicts in Hawai‘i transculturation prompted a new and

hybrid Hawai‘i-based cultural development. The dominant culture of the United States

efforts for total assimilation and by doing so caused the suffering of racial and living

discrimination between the minority cultures. In the case of Hawai‘i, assimilation


amounted to a linguistic and cultural genocide, which ultimately led to the overthrow of

the Hawaiian kingdom. However, total assimilation was futile and does not reflect what

actually occurred, rather it would be by transculturation and its products that a new

means of resistance to assimilation became possible. Through the appropriation of

different cultural practices and norms, national and cultural identity can be preserved and

thus resist total assimilation.

By using literature as a form of resistance, both settler and native communities

have offered voices of opposition. The Puerto Rican immigrant Carlo Fraticelli, in his

poetry and oral tradition aimed to provoke fellow Puerto Ricans to unite and empower

themselves, calling them in remembrance and to action in the electoral process for the

hopes of a better Puerto Rican Hawaiian future. His poems express a deep nostalgia for

his home country, and he desperately challenged his fellow jíbaros to stand firm in their

identity and not forget their loyalty to Puerto Rico or their culture in an American-

dominated Hawai‘i. Thus, in doing so his work illustrates resistance to assimilation. In

contrast, the Native Hawaiian poet Jamaica Osorio, who is fluent in the Hawaiian

language, uses English, the language of hegemonic power. She has written and expressed

her resistance through slam poetry, offering a contemporary relevance to past Hawaiian

events, and calls of remembrance in order to push for Hawaiian education and awareness.

In their resistance literature both Fraticelli and Osorio incorporate tactics that

discriminate, and divide. However, they also encourage, and spur their audience to

action. Fraticelli’s work was done only in Spanish, and Osorio’s use of English, Hawaiian

and kaona, are both clear examples of these strategies. For these poets, the power of

perseverance and resistance rests in the orality of their literature. For them, the spoken


word is essential. For their identity, their native languages and culture are grounded

within the power of their voices. Together, through ink, pain, and the spoken word they

form voices of resistance in Hawai‘i to cultural identity.

END NOTES:

1 For literature regarding the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom and its annexation to the United States of America see, “The Political Instability of Reciprocal Trade and the Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom” (1997) by Sumner J. La Croix and Christopher Grandy. 2 The Latin alphabet was introduced in Hawai‘i during the1820s with the arrival of Christian missionaries. The standardization of the Hawaiian alphabet and its orthography were done in the year 1826. In 1840, the Hawaiian Kingdom, under the rule of King Kamehameha III, enacted a written constitution.

3 The underlining is my own. 4 White person, American, Englishman, Caucasian. Wehewehe.org

5 My translation. 6 Autoethnography as defined by Pratt (1991): “…a text [poetry] in which people undertake to describe themselves in ways that engage with representations others have made of them…they involve a selective collaboration with and appropriation of idioms of the metropolis or the conqueror” (p.35) 7 This relationship was discussed in a lecture given by Mehana Hind at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa on 1/28/15. 8 The Spanish-American War of 1898 gave U.S. control over Spanish territories in the Caribbean and Pacific. 9 5,000 Puerto Ricans were recruited to work the sugar plantations in Hawai‘i (Souza & Dias 1997). 10 Puerto Ricans were a minority among plantation workers such as the Japanese, Chinese, etc. However, Puerto Ricans became U.S. citizens in 1917. 11 The Masters and Servants Act of 1850 greatly decreased the rights of workers proclaimed by Kamehameha III. 12 Puerto Ricans were granted U.S citizenship in 1917, and could partake in the electoral process while residing in the continental U.S. (López 2005: 45) 13 Pasteles are of Puerto Rican origin and can often be seen as street food in Hawai‘i. 14 Both original Hawaiian and English translation were quoted from the Kahua A‘o foundation, which utilizes the archives of Hawaiian newspaper articles. 15 An example of such an issue arose during a personal interview with Kumu Kainoa Wong of the University of Hawaii at Mānoa, Kumu Wong, in which explains how it is said that on July 31, 1843 King Kamehameha III spoke the words that later became Hawai‘i’s state motto, Ua mau ke ea o ka ‘āina i ka pono (The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness) after the restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s sovereignty by British Admiral, Richard Darton Thomas. However, Kumu Wong states that the translation above is controversial and a deeper investigation must be undertaken. Kumu Kainoa Wong explains that, "The sovereignty of the land is still intact, continual, or remains due to what is pono (just)", because the "‘Ua’ in this case states that a state of being has been achieved [of the ea; or sovereignty].” Kumu Wong argues that it actually translates to “The sovereignty of the land is preserved in Justice.” Therefore the saying as a State motto of the United States of America is in itself a contradiction. The issue rests in the translation of the Hawaiian word ea, which he translates as sovereignty, and therefore argues that its true meaning should be, “The sovereignty of the land is preserved in Justice” (M.K. Kainoa, personal communication, December 6, 2013). If that were the case, the phrase carries a problematic connotation by revealing the motto’s contradictory stance and thus complicating the very notion of a state motto where the sovereignty of Hawai‘i rests with the United States. This revised translation of the state motto reminds Hawai‘i residents of the historical (I HAVE STATED REMAINING BECAUSE I DO NOT FIND THIS TO BE HISTORICAL, RATHER THAT


BY LAW IT IS REMAINING OR STILL A MONARCHY) sovereignty of Hawai‘i, which was removed via a U.S. joint resolution that permitted the illegal annexation of Hawai‘i on the 12th of August 1898 (Kekua & Alapa`i, 2012). It is through this loss of their nation, a lengthy ban of their language, and numerous other consequences of transculturation, that Hawaiian voices of resistance grew. A similar confusion in translation and identity displacement can be found in the fiasco of the Waitangi Treaty of New Zealand with the Maori understanding of sovereignty, and word choice of kāwanatanga (governance), which was later changed to mana (supernatural or divine power) (Fenton & Moon, 2002). 16 After the death of King Kalākāua his sister, Queen Lydia Lili‘ukalani ascended the throne of Hawai‘i in January 1891. Although Queen Lili‘ukalani attempted to restore much authority to the monarchy that was lost in the infamous Bayonet Constitution of 1887, her reign was quickly deposed in 1893 by those who illegally created a provisionary government or the Republic for Hawai‘i. Queen Lili‘ukalani was the last reigning monarch of the Hawaiian Kingdom after being forced to temporarily remove herself from the throne. It should be noted that in the forced removal of the Monarchy, Queen Lili‘ukalani never writes of ceding Hawai‘i to another foreign power. She writes instead, yet this is often overlooked or forgotten by the oppressor/U.S., “…impelled by said forces, yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon the facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representative and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands” (Queen Lydia Lili‘ukalani, 1893) 17 “Kaulana Nā Pua (literally, "Famous are the flowers") is a Hawaiian patriotic song written by Eleanor Kekoaohiwaikalani Wright Prendergast (April 12, 1865 – December 5, 1902) in 1893 for members of the Royal Hawaiian Band who protested the violent overthrow of Queen Liliʻuokalani and the Hawaiian Kingdom."(Nordyke, Noyes: 1993: 27) 18 In Hawaiian tradition children by the age of eight are to completely memorize their Mo‘okūauhau (geneology), so as to respect their kupuna, know their family’s origin, and also show social status (however, this practice is revered because mana can be acquired by killing another with powerful mana. 19 Queen Lili ‘uokalani was held prisoner in ‘Iolani Palace from 1893 until her release in 1896. 20 Kaona By Jamaica Osorio and Ittai Wong can be viewed online, http://jamaicaosorio.wordpress.com/poetry-publications/kaona/ 21 Edith Kanaka‘ole Foundation states of her, “Edith Kanaka’ole was a Hawaiian practitioner, kumu hula (master hula teacher), chanter, composer, Nā Hōkū Hanohano award winning recording artist, and instructor of Hawaiian Studies at the Hawai’i Community College and the University of Hawai’i-Hilo.”


References

Aiu, P. D. (2010). Language as an Indicator of Hawaiian Resistance and Power. In

Translation, Resistance, Activism, edited by Tymoczko, M, 87-107.

Aranda, L. (2010). Dis/Placing Territories of Identity in Translation. Entreculturas, 15-

22.

Berger J. (2004). Spirit of Hawaii Edgy Lee's new film on the native Hawaiian legacy

will be shown at the Smithsonian Institution. Star-Bulletin. Retrieved from

http://archives.starbulletin.com/2004/09/21/features/index.html

Dudoit, D. M. (1999). Against Extinction: A Legacy of Native Hawaiian Resistance

Literarture. In The Ethnic Studies Story: Political and Social Movements in Hawai'i.

Ibrahim G. Aoudé, editor. 39, 226-248.

Dias, A. (2001). Carlo Mario Fraticelli: A Puerto Rican Poet on the Sugar Plantations of

Hawai`i. Centro Journal 8.1 96-109.

Dias, A. (2000). Cien años de Borinquen en Hawai‘i: 1900-2000 Ida y vuelta de un

trovador boricua. American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese, 1-38.

Fenton, S., & Moon, P. (2002). The Translation of the Treaty of Waitangi: A Case of

Disempowerment. In Tymoczko, M. Gentzler, E. (eds.): Translation and Power, 25-

44.

González, J. (1980). El país de cuatro pisos y otros ensayos. Río Piedras, Puerto Rico:

Ediciones Huracán. Print.

Gupta, P. (1998). Post- or Neo-Colonial Translation? Linguistic Inequality and

Translator's Resistance. Translation and Literature, 7(2), 170-93.


Hart, Stephen, Richard A. Young; Pons, M. (2014). 6 Cultural myths and Chicana

literature: a field in dispute. In Contemporary Latin American Cultural Studies, 91–

105.

Hawaiian Encyclopedia: First Polynesians, First Hawaiians. (n.d.). Retrieved February 6,

2015, from http://www.hawaiianencyclopedia.com/first-polynesians-first-hawaii.asp

Kahua A‘o. (n.d.). Retrieved February 6, 2015, from

http://manoa.hawaii.edu/kahuaao/hawaiian_language.html

Kamehameha III. (1850). Na Haku A Me Na Kauwa. Retrieved May 21, 2014, Retrieved

from http://www.hawaii.edu/uhwo/clear/home/NaHakuamekaKauwa.html

Kanaka‘ole, E. (2013). E Ho Mai_pule Ai. Retrieved April 4, 2014, from

http://www.hawaii.edu/hawaiicc/hawaiian/KHaili/e_ho_mai_pule_ai.htm

Kekua, K., & ‘Aikāne, A. (2012). Cultural Impact Assessment Native Hawaiian

Traditions, Customary Practices and Perspectives of Kamalomalo‘o and Anahola

Ahupuaà Moku O Kawaihau, Kauaì Island. Kauaì. Anahola Solar Project.

Retrieved from

http://oeqc.doh.hawaii.gov/Shared%20Documents/EA_and_EIS_Online_Library/Kau

ai/2010s/2013-10-08-KA-5E-FEA-Anahola-Solar-Project.pdf

Kopper, D., & Kalama, C. (2011). Native Sovereignty Encompasses ‘Āina, People,

Ways. Star Advertiser. Retrieved from

http://www.staradvertiser.com/editorials/20110703_Native_sovereignty_encompasses

_aina_people_ways.html

López, Iris (2005). Borinkis and Chop Suey: Puerto Rican Identity in Hawai‘i. The

Puerto Rican Diaspora, 44-53.


Nā Puke Wehewehe ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi. (n.d.). . Retrieved April 3, 2014,

from http://wehewehe.org/

Nordyke, E., & Noyes, M. (1993). Kaulana Na Pua: A Voice for Sovereignty. Hawaiian

Journal of History, 27, 27-42.

Ortiz, F., & Onis, H. (1947). Cuban counterpoint; tobacco and sugar, (First American

ed.). Translated by Harriet de Onís. New York.

Osorio, J. H. (2009). Kaulana Nā Pua a O Hawai‘i. 'Ōiwi: A Native Hawaiian Journal, 4,

300-303.

Pratt, M. (1991). Arts of the Contact Zone. Modern Language Association,

33-40.

Perkins M. (2004). Mana/‘Ike: Maori and Native Hawaiian Education and Self-

Determination. Fulbright-Hays Seminars Abroad Program New Zealand 2004.

Pukui., Elbert., & Mookini. (2009). Nā Puke Wehewehe ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi. Retrieved from

http://wehewehe.org.

Souza, B. C., & Dias, A. (1997). A Puerto Rican poet on Hawaiʻi's sugar plantation.

Honolulu, 5-91.

Souza, B., & Souza, A. (1985). De Borinquen a Hawaii nuestra historia: From Puerto

Rico to Hawaii. Honolulu, Hawaii: Puerto Rican Heritage Society of Hawaii.

Teter , B., & Takehiro, S. U. (2010). Hāpai nā leo, 227-229.

Zitlow, C. (2003). Talking Literature. The English Journal, 93 (1), 109-110

spswansonfinal

Documents

transculturation hawaii

voice of resistance

native perspectives

evolution of hawaii

sense hawaii

contact zone

strategies of resistance

cultural clashes