The Hawaiian Renaissance - Stephen F. Austin State University

The Hawaiian Renaissance: Using Participatory Action Research (PAR) to
Document Meanings of a Cultural Live-in Center (CLC) within Kaloko-Honokōhau
National Historical Park
By
Jon J. Jokiel
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
Stephen F. Austin State University
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements
For the Degree of
Master of Science in Resource Interpretation
STEPHEN F. AUSTIN STATE UNIVERSITY
September 2011
The Hawaiian Renaissance: Using Participatory Action Research (PAR) to
Document Meanings of a Cultural Live-in Center (CLC) within KalokoHonokōhau National Historical Park
By
Jon J. Jokiel
APPROVED:
_____________________________________
Dr. Theresa G. Coble, Thesis Director
_____________________________________
Dr. Sheryll Jerez, Committee Member
___________________________________
Dr. Karol Chandler-Ezell, Committee Member
_____________________________
Dr. James O. Standley
Dean of the Graduate School
ABSTRACT
In Kailua-Kona, on the island of Hawai‘i, a Native Hawaiian group (Makani
Hou o Kaloko-Honokōhau) is working in cooperation with the National Park
Service (NPS) to develop a kauhale (a group of Hawaiian houses) as part of a
live-in center (CLC) for education and Hawaiian cultural immersion. The main
focus of the study was to investigate and analyze primary questions asked by the
main participants, such as the best way to develop the educational curriculum,
how to use Hawaiian methods in a western context, and how to work effectively
with a federal agency such as the National Park Service (NPS).
The results of the study showed that Makani Hou and the National Park
Service have worked efficiently together for the last three years to lay the
foundation for a successful replication of an authentic Native Hawaiian live-in
center; and that the Cultural Live In Center will further the progress achieved by
Native Hawaiians. The study also revealed that the Makani Hou participants
perceived the establishment of a CLC as an appropriate method of practicing and
perpetuating Native Hawaiian educational and cultural traditions at KalokoHonokōhau National Historical Park and that they see it as a bridge to the past,
recapturing and reconnecting them to ancient understandings from which they
have been disconnected.
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Most great things come from being surrounded by great people. I have been
lucky enough to have some significant individuals in my life. I would like to thank
Fred Cachola, Isaac Harp and the members of Makani Hou for their willingness
to help me with interviews, video productions and their mana’o (conversation) in
helping me understand the Hawaiian culture. I continue to be impressed by their
significant mana (energy, life force) in their journey towards creating a Cultural
Live in Center. My hope is that I can contribute to the realization of an idea that
was created almost 35 years ago that is beginning to happen today. My intention
with this report is that I have portrayed events accurately and provided for the
participants voices to be heard. I would also like to thank Aric Arakaki,
Superintendent of Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail, who gave me the idea for
this study and contributed to this paper. My father Paul was very helpful
organizing a format for my research. My mother Lucy, a magazine editor, was
instrumental in helping me with the final copy. I have been blessed with two very
talented and supportive parents. I would also like to thank the two Theresa’s who
were essential in supporting me. First, my major professor, Theresa Coble, for
her insight and positive enthusiasm to keep me motivated to get this done; and
my wife, Theresa Jokiel, for her love, support and patience with me on getting my
thesis done and foregoing our couple time together. It truly “takes a village.”
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ..........................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................iii
LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................vii
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1
Research Questions………………………………………………………………..11
LITERATURE REVIEW AND ETHNOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND .......................13
Legislative Intent..............................................................................................19
The CLC- Part of the next Hawaiian Renaissance? ........................................21
Hands-On Learning and Practice ....................................................................26
Rediscovering Hawaiian Knowledge ...............................................................28
Why has it taken 30 years? .............................................................................31
Origin of the CLC’s group name .......................................................................34
Motivations for a New Beginning ......................................................................34
METHODS............................................................................................................38
Action Research Method .................................................................................38
Social Constructs for Group Results ...............................................................46
Description of Participants ..............................................................................48
Justification for Action Research (PAR) ..........................................................49
iii
Role and Position of Researcher ...................................................................... 55
A Model for Future Hawaiian Studies ............................................................... 56
Data Collection & Analysis in Indigenous Cultures ........................................... 58
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................... 64
The CLC at KAHO: The Rediscovery of Hawaiian Knowledge. ........................ 64
The CLC Working Group ................................................................................... 67
Milestone Questionnaire.................................................................................... 70
Where are we now in the CLC process? ........................................................... 72
The Curriculum .................................................................................................. 74
Video Interviews ................................................................................................ 75
The Importance of Place in Traditional Practice ................................................ 76
The CLC at KAHO: Understanding Hawaiian Approaches to
Meetings and Decision-Making:
What understandings can this center foster? ................................................... 78
The CLC at KAHO: Understanding Hawaiian Approaches to
Meetings and Decision-Making:
Can NPS work effectively with Makani Hou? .................................................... 79
The Western vs. Hawaiian Approach ................................................................ 82
The CLC at KAHO: Changing Participant Perspectives:
How can its value be most effectively communicated? .................................... 84
The CLC-Hawaiians Living on the Land ............................................................ 86
Personal Connection ......................................................................................... 87
Study Limitations ............................................................................................... 88
CONCLUSION........................................................................................................ 89
Role of Researcher in the Future.................................................................... 94
iv
RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 95
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 96
APPENDIX A .......................................................................................................... 103
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................. 104
APPENDIX B .......................................................................................................... 105
Hawaiian Words and their meanings ................................................................. 106
APPENDIX C .......................................................................................................... 108
Cultural Live-In Center Strategic Planning Session (SPI) Notes........................ 109
APPENDIX D .......................................................................................................... 126
Introductory Letter to Participants, First Meeting (SPI) ..................................... 127
APPENDIX E .......................................................................................................... 129
Abbreviated Meeting Summaries (June 2008- January 2011) ........................... 130
APPENDIX F .......................................................................................................... 138
Milestone Questionnaire .................................................................................... 139
APPENDIX G.......................................................................................................... 140
Makani Hou o Kaloko-Honokohau By-Laws ...................................................... 141
APPENDIX H .......................................................................................................... 148
Quotes from Participants ................................................................................... 149
APPENDIX I ........................................................................................................... 157
Email Communication ........................................................................................ 158
APPENDIX J........................................................................................................... 159
Makani Hou Brochure ....................................................................................... 160
v
APPENDIX K .......................................................................................................... 161
Poster shown at NAI conference 2009 .............................................................. 162
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Proposed two acre site for CLC near Kaloko Fishpond .......................... 3
Figure 2. Park Map-Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park .......................... 4
Figure 3. CLC Composite Schematic with possible site layout ............................. 5
Figure 4. Sketches of Hawaiian Hale (Houses) at CLC site................................. . 8
Figure 5. Conceptual Drawings (overview) of CLC site, Kaloko Fishpond. .......... . 8
Figure 6. Line Drawings from The Spirit of Kaloko-Honokōhau (1974).................. 13
Figure 7: Front Cover of The Spirit of Kaloko-Honokōhau (1974).......................... 12
vii
INTRODUCTION
Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park (KAHO) is located in Kailua-Kona
on the Big Island of Hawai‘i. It was established in 1978 as a National Historical
Park by Congress because of its national value and historical significance, the
need to protect and preserve its important natural resources, and to perpetuate
the Native Hawaiian educational and cultural heritage for current and future
generations. The park has two fishponds, a fish trap and many archeological
resources, including 450 archeological sites and 859 significant individual
elements, such as Kaloko Fishpond (NPS, 2006).
KAHO has earned a well-known reputation as a place for visitors to
experience and enjoy the park’s diverse attractions, scenic and natural beauty
and cultural practices symbolic of the lifestyle of ancient Hawaiians. The park’s
founding legislation in 1978 designated the creation of a Cultural Live-in Center
(CLC) complex, offering educational opportunities for those seeking to participate
in such Hawaiian cultural practices, as pa’a kai (salt-making), lauhala (weaving
with the pandanus plant), fishing and studying petroglyphs. The NPS designation
validates the park's status as a special place for Native Hawaiians to discover,
experience, and authentically recreate their ancestors' culture and lifestyle. This
will be accomplished in part with the restoration of an ancient fishpond that is
nearing completion, cultural and educational offerings, community events and
1
special projects such as scientific studies, which will increase the value of the
park to the community.
In the document, The Spirit of Kaloko-Honokōhau, a site near Kaloko
Fishpond is marked as an area designed to accommodate a facility/facilities that
“realistically embodies the lifestyle that once existed in countless communities
throughout the Hawaiian Islands” (NPS, 1974, p.21). During ancient times, this
area offered an unprecedented Hawaiian way of life, which is now being
recreated at the site for current and future generations to experience. Although
not a permanent site for habitation, it will be used primarily for overnight stays
that focus on Hawaiian educational learning and cultural immersion.
An important segment of the CLC program will include a facility and
settlement designed primarily for Native Hawaiians and removed from any major
public use area, where the dignity and integrity of the culture would be
maintained. “It would offer an intimate personal experience extending over a
period of one to three days, rather than being part of an exhibit open to regular
park visitor” (NPS, 1974, p.21). This settlement within KAHO will include more
than just a few token archeological representations of the Hawaiian culture.
Participants will gain a history of the entire community that existed within the
boundaries of an ancient ahupua’a (Hawaiian type of land division). The
archaeology and geographical features of the site have also been tied to similar
structures in adjacent communities that exhibited evidence of ancient Hawaiian
lifestyles. “Is this a stage upon which the Hawaiian way of life was first performed
2
centuries ago?” (NPS, 1974).
This study discusses possible techniques for establishing and sustaining a
traditionally built Hawaiian complex using along with modern methods, as a
place-based learning facility, which will offer an educational curriculum based on
traditional Hawaiian values and cultural practices. Additionally, this study reveals
the relationships between the key people and organizations involved, and the
meaningfulness of this project to them in their lives. The study also discusses the
challenges and progress that has been achieved by the participants in the last
three years. Hopefully, their experience will serve as a guide or model for the
development of other potential educational and cultural live-in centers at other
parks and sites throughout the country.
For reference and orientation, an aerial view of the proposed location of the
CLC below (Figure 1) shows the two acre site (outlined in red). Kaloko Fishpond
appears at the top of the photo. (Figure 2) is the park’s visitor map with the CLC
location marked just below Kaloko Fishpond. (Figure 3) is a schematic drawing
of the possible locations of various Hawaiian structures and other related sites
within the area that could be built. The construction and placement of these
structures at the CLC site will follow traditional Hawaiian protocol where possible.
The CLC complex will consist of clusters of interrelated and interconnected
elements, including a halau, or longhouse for canoes; and work, meeting,
educational, living and ceremonial areas to be used for Hawaiian cultural
education and traditional practices. Traditionally, ancient Hawaiian houses were
3
Figure 1. Proposed two acre site for Cultural Live-in Center (CLC) near Kaloko
Fishpond Source: NPS files
4
Figure 2. Park Map Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park, Kailua-Kona,
Hawaii. Note CLC site near Kaloko Fishpond. Source: NPS files
5
Figure 3. CLC Composite schematic with possible house site layout
Source: NPS files
constructed by function and were dictated by religious and spiritual use.
The complex may also include traditional Hawaiian structures common to
their ancient housing complexes, such as the hale mua (men’s house), hale
kuku (craft house), hale noa (family house), hale moe (dormitory or sleeping
house), hale kapi'o (lean-to shelter) and hale ‘aina (women’s eating/general
purpose building) (Johnson, 2009) (see figure 4 and 5 below).
6
Figure 4. Sketches of Hawaiian Hale (Houses) at CLC site.
Source: Nainoa Perry
Figure 5. Conceptual Drawings (overview) of CLC site, Kaloko Fishpond.
Source: Nainoa Perry
7
The site will be developed for short-term live-in accommodations of one to
three days, and all structures will be authentically Hawaiian in design and
construction, i.e. built from native hardwoods and thatched from traditional plants
grown in the area. The complex will offer a culturally appropriate setting and
curriculum for the study and perpetuation of Hawaiian traditions in the areas of
music, art, language, dance, religion and crafts. Hawaiians can also use the CLC
to teach others, enhance their personal growth and practice their customs and
traditions. Currently, there is no facility in the State of Hawai‘i or in other national
parks that has been set aside solely for the purpose of perpetuating Hawaiian
culture and arts and managed by Native Hawaiians (NPS, 1974). In the more
than thirty years since the parks founding document was written (The Spirit of
Kaloko-Honokōhau), many cultural facilities have been developed for Hawaiian
cultural learning; but few offer an immersion type experience such as proposed
to be created at KAHO.
The CLC will accommodate those who want to practice Hawaiian ceremonial
gatherings on special occasions such as the Makahiki Festival, which celebrates
the abundant harvest and the return of the Hawaiian god Lono. It will also offer
ancient crafts, including canoe building, net fishing, hula, lauhala (weaving of
leaves from a native plant), wood carving, feather work, the making of musical
instruments and fishing materials (such as nets, hooks, ropes, lines and sinkers)
8
and the growing of agricultural crops in stone planters (Johnson, 2009).
Specific activities will emphasize the Hawaiian use of land and sea and the
traditional use of native plants. Outside the complex, ancient activities such as
tending fishponds, shoreline fishing and subsistence horticulture will take place.
This use of the park's exceptional cultural sites and such features as the stone
planters in the area will become an integral part of the CLC at KAHO (NPS,
2006). As the NPS interprets its mission for the 21st century and beyond, it is
discovering that meaningful cultural sites can be important venues to help
indigenous people reconnect to their ancestor's cultural and spiritual values. A
2001 National Advisory Board report for the NPS states, “Parks should become
sanctuaries for expressing and reclaiming ancient feelings of place, and efforts
should be made to connect these people with parks and other areas of special
significance to strengthen their living cultures” (National Park Service Advisory
Board, 2001, p.21).
On October 21-22, 2008, a workshop was convened by the NPS
Conservation Study Institute. The workshop was called “The Future of Working
Cultural Landscapes: Parks, Partners, and Local Products. The goal of the
workshop was to bring together national parks and local communities “to work
together in new ways to conserve working cultural landscapes” (Conservation
9
Study Institute, 2008). The emergence of the concept of ‘cultural landscapes’ is
an intriguing and relevant idea that focuses on the role of people and cultural
traditions in creating and sustaining working landscapes. The idea is that people
should be engaged in the landscape in places such as national parks. The
findings of the workshop showed the urgency for conservation, and to make use
of opportunities and promising trends including the cooperation among the NPS,
partners, and communities. It also identified key negative impacts that park lands
and other areas could help to renew in the future.
Key Findings (NPS Conservation Study Institute, 2008):
•
Urgency for conservation of working cultural landscapes
•
Loss of regional identity, distinctiveness, and character
•
Fragmented landscapes
•
Unraveling of traditional social/economic relationships to the land
and loss of special products of place
•
Loss of biological diversity
•
Loss of context for stories linking people to the land and an
estrangement from the landscapes that sustain us
10
Research Questions
The objective of this thesis was to address and answer several critical
questions focusing on the discovery of meanings for the participants in the
process of the creation of the first CLC at KAHO and establishing a process to
bring people back to reconnect with the land. The use of the results and
documentation from the last 3 years will hopefully provide future opportunities for
further study and discussion.
Key questions:
•
Will the CLC help to further the progress of the Hawaiian
Renaissance movement and will NPS and the group Makani
Hou o Kaloko-Honokohau work together efficiently?
•
Do the participants view the establishment of the CLC as the
most effective method to create a bridge of cultural revival and
perpetuation?
•
What actions have been taken by the group and NPS to further
this idea and serve as a model for others?
•
Why has it taken more than three decades for this project to
begin? What specific actions have been taken during this
study—and what further actions are needed—by Makani Hou
participants (CLC Group) and the NPS to ensure that the CLC
becomes a reality and a model for other parks within the NPS?
11
Figure 6: Line Drawings from The Spirit of Kaloko-Honokōhau (1974)
Source: NPS files
12
LITERATURE REVIEW AND ETHNOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND
Perhaps the spirit of Kaloko-Honokōhau has withered because the
spirit of the Hawaiian people has withered, slowly eroded by
powerful Western forces introduced almost 200 years ago by profitseeking merchants and over-zealous missionaries; forces that
devastated the Hawaiian population through epidemics, breaking
down the kapu system that had provided the basic foundation of the
Hawaiian culture and replaced the Hawaiian system of land tenure
with one so totally foreign to the Hawaiians that within a matter of
50 years they found themselves practically landless in their own
land. (NPS, 1974, p. 20)
The Spirit of Kaloko-Honokōhau evaluates the feasibility of designating
the KAHO area as a national park. It continues to serve as a guiding vision for
the future and a philosophy used to understand the significance of the area.
The land and culture would live again. As Hawaiians walked across
Kaloko-Honokōhau, they could experience the presence of the
spirit flowing through all of nature. They could stand upon the
graves and offer silent worship to their ‘aumakua (personal gods),
and their kūpuna (elders), who cultivated the spirit; and they, too,
will have life again (NPS, 1974, p. 21).
Published by a Native Hawaiian Commission in the 1970’s, The Spirit of
Kaloko-Honokōhau studied the feasibility of protecting the area because of its
significant resources, specifically threats to resources at Kaloko Fishpond by a
Japanese corporation. Today, development continues to threaten the resources
in the park on all of its boundaries.
The CLC study calls for the use of the traditional Hawaiian ahupua’a concept
of land use (An ancient system using the resources available from the mountains
13
to the sea).
In the decades since it was published, much has changed.
Adjacent urban development, housing and a proposed boat harbor
expansion have increased highway capacity and threatened park
resources. Pressure on potable water systems has increased, and
the water quality of brackish pools in the park has been affected.
(NPS, 2005, p.13)
The document, The Spirit of Kaloko-Honokōhau remains an important
visionary publication that National Park Service managers (and others) refer to
today for inspiration and guidance to manage the park and realize its purpose.
The cover of the 1974 publication (Figure 7, below) shows an elder with a kukui
nut lei, a young warrior with a torch, and a heiau, a sacred rock structure used for
worship. These images represent the people of the area--both young and old--in
search of higher knowledge (represented by light) for future generations.
Sketches by Herb Kane, a well-known local artist, illustrate the pages of this
significant document (Figure 6).
A large volume of literature exists related to the disintegration of Hawaiian
culture and values after the arrival of Europeans as well as the Hawaiian
resurgence (The Hawaiian Renaissance) that began in the 1970’s. The purpose
of this review is not to survey all of this literature, but to give a brief
understanding of the context in which the CLC participants and others worked;
and to support the idea of many in the group that the Hawaiian cultural traditions
and lifestyles of long ago are valuable and should be recreated today to whatever
extent possible.
14
“Malama i ka ‘aina, a malama ka ‘aina ia ‘oe!” (Care for the land, and the land
will care for you!) is a saying that exhibits the relationship of Hawaiians to the
land they once lived on (Pukui, 1983, p.145). Hawaiians have developed a strong
relationship with the forces of nature and the physical land (‘aina). Many continue
to maintain an intimate and lifelong personal connection with a specific area.
“Much Hawaiian thinking concentrates on two subjects: land and family,
considered the two major influences in an individual’s character” (Charlot, 2005,
p.66). A respondent remarked in a written questionnaire in March 2009,
“Participants will come to appreciate the fact that the ancestors of this place were
Figure 7: Front cover of The Spirit of Kaloko-Honokōhau (1974)
Source: NPS files
15
a part of this ahupua’a ecosystem. The take away message will be Malama ‘aina
- you take care of the land and the land will take care of you”.
Hawaiians developed a land-based belief system based on the interaction of
gods and their powers, which were seen to be the workings behind all events in
the universe. “Exploring the Hawaiian relationship to the land reveals a service
relationship; not the land serving people, but people serving the land” (Gon,
2006).
An ‘olelo no’eau (Hawaiian proverb) states: “He ali‘i no ka ‘aina, ke kauwa
wale ke kanaka.” (trans., “The land is the chief, the people merely servants.”)
(Pukui, 1983, p.62).
There exists a broad range of literature related to indigenous
people and the cultural ties they maintain with their ancestral
lands, but there are not many success stories in the literature
about them living and practicing culture on their own land
today. (Shaver, 1985, p.1)
Many Native Americans believe they must “reconnect by physically returning
temporarily, if not permanently, to their land” (NPS, 1990, p. 6). Native Americans
were once forced onto reservations, and there is a long history of “assimilation
and the replacement of their religion, worldviews, values and behavior by
Western and European-based white society” (NPS, 1990, p.15). A similar story
occurred with Native Hawaiians on their lands. A new challenge has emerged for
NPS managers: how to preserve the land and its resources while allowing
resource harvesting and usage that will in turn preserve the cultural values of the
people using the land (Shaver, 1985).
16
Though parallels can be drawn with other projects in the state of Hawai‘i, the
development of a CLC has no significant examples that exhibit cultural learning
and respect for the ‘aina, in an immersion-type experience, while actually living
on the land. An indirect example is the Polynesian Cultural Center (PCC) located
in Lāi‘e on the island of O‘ahu. Although the PCC is not a live-in center, it exhibits
some elements of Hawaiian culture (and other Polynesian cultures), boosts
tourism and demonstrates successful marketing of the host culture. Many feel it
is representative of the misaligned tourist economy in Hawaii and does not
resemble authentic Hawaiian culture and values.
Owned by the Mormon Church, the center resembles a human zoo.
For a hefty admission fee, visitors can view ‘real’ Polynesians
(Mormon Church College students) enacting traditional activities in
native dress and authentic settings. The church understood that
there was money in the marketing of culture in Hawai‘i. (Linnekin,
1982, p.11)
A possible successful example is located away from the tourist routes in the
village of Ke‘anae on the Windward Coast of Maui. Remote by local standards,
Ke‘anae is one of the few remaining places where Hawaiians still grow taro on
land inherited from their ancestors. The village was designated "the most
Hawaiian community in the Islands" in 1975.
A local woman sometimes chats with tourists at the overlook. She
describes the Ke‘anae life in terms of fish and poi, the traditional
staples. Although villagers see themselves as having chosen a
traditional lifestyle, today's country-dwellers are wage laborers who
grow and market taro to supplement their salaries. Villagers may
praise the idea of aloha and wax sentimental over the simple life,
but in reality no one lives solely on fish and poi. (Linnekin, 1982,
p.12)
17
In the Hawaiian cultural context, subsistence was the traditional way of life,
reflected in the shared relationship between nature and the kānaka (people).
Subsistence is multi-faceted and includes an intimate knowledge of the natural
resources (from the mountains to the ocean depths), spiritual attributes, personal
responsibility and a physical relationship (Maly, 2003, p.30). Unfortunately, this
way of living is uncommon in Hawai‘i today, and many of these relationships
have been lost (Dustin, McAvoy, & Rankin, 1991).
A participant in a “Live-in Cultural Center Workshop” on September
10, 2004 remarked:
The last 20 years or so we’ve been looking toward the American
Indians and Native Alaskans to provide us with information on
cultural practices, and for Pacific Islanders and polynesians there
might be some immersion places where people actually live. But I
haven’t seen any in the America’s and the closest thing that has
touched me culturally has been in the Pacific. We have looked at
our cousins, the Maori, to help us bring back the olelo (stories) and
some times we forget that we were Pacific Islanders before we
were Native Americans. I just wanted to remind us that we need to
get closer to that part of who we are as we look at the physical, the
program, and cultural planning parts.
Several examples of cultural centers developed for indigenous peoples and
Native Americans exist throughout the country. Many of these cultural centers
serve their community by contributing to the cultural learning and perpetuation of
Native cultures and indigenous peoples, but they do not follow the model of a
‘live-in’ center. The Alaska Native Heritage Center in Anchorage, Alaska offers
both local residents and visitors an opportunity to experience Alaska’s many
18
diverse Native cultures in one location. The site has a Welcome House which is
a celebration of contemporary Alaska Native cultures. The Heritage center
maintains several outdoor sites providing for the exploration of ancient tradition
and the presentation of stories from the past (retrieved June 15, 2011 from
http://www.alaskanative.net/en/main_nav/about_js/us/ ).
A few national park units have incorporated cultural learning centers into their
visitor centers, such as the Southeast Alaska Indian Cultural Center, located in
the visitor center of Sitka National Historical Park. This cultural center, which has
been in existence for 42 years, recently did not have their contract renewed with
NPS and its’ future remains uncertain. At Jean Lafitte National Historical Park in
Louisiana there is the Acadian Cultural Centers. The centers share the stories
and customs of the Acadians who came to Louisiana and became the Cajuns
(retrieved June 15, 2011 from http://www.nps.gov/jela/historyculture/fromacadian-to-cajun.htm). Near Zion National Park is the Utah Trails Village of Many
Nations, a non-profit Native American Cultural Center. Visitors can stay in a
Navajo Hogan or Paiute Tipi and “take a walking tour at the Indian Village
Cultural Center and see life-size, picturesque Indian Villages” (retrieved June 15,
2011 from http://www.utahtrailsresort.com/).
Legislative Intent
All National Parks follow guidelines, called “enabling legislation” before they
19
are established. A park’s purpose identifies why the area was designated as part
of the National Park System. It is usually defined in, or derived from the park’s
enabling legislation and other legal documents that provide for its establishment.
The purpose statements represent the federal government’s commitment to
the public regarding how an area will be managed for the public's benefit. They
provide the foundation for everything that management and staff do in a park
(National Park Service Strategic Plan, 2005, p.5).
Honokōhau Settlement was designated a national historic landmark in 1962,
and KAHO was authorized in 1978 by Public Law 95-625 (National Parks and
Recreation Act of 1978). Congressional authorization of the park was primarily
“…to provide a center for the preservation, interpretation and perpetuation of
traditional Native Hawaiian activities and culture; and to demonstrate historic land
use patterns as well as provide needed resources for the education, enjoyment
and appreciation of such traditional Native Hawaiian activities and culture by
local residents and visitors…and be administered with provisions of the law
generally applicable to the National Park System, including the acts approved
August 25, 1916 and August 21, 1935” (National Park Service Strategic Plan,
2005, pp.5-6).
Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park’s purpose and legislative intent is
to (NPS, 2005):
•
Provide a place where Native Hawaiians can practice historic and
cultural traditions, thereby perpetuating an evolving culture.
20
•
Provide educational programs that instill an appreciation of
traditional Native Hawaiian activities and traditional land use
patterns.
•
Emphasize the land-sea ethic, a dominant force in Hawaiian
attitudes and feelings, which is demonstrated in traditional land use
patterns.
•
Protect and interpret archeological features and their cultural
significance.
•
Protect marine resources and habitat for threatened sea turtles and
other species.
•
Protect Fishponds and habitat for endangered Native Hawaiian
water birds.
The CLC—Part of the Next Hawaiian Renaissance?
Over 40 years ago, the resurgence of a distinct Hawaiian cultural identity
marked a significant turning point for Native Hawaiians, who call themselves
kānaka, ‘ōiwi, kānaka maoli or Hawai‘i maoli. Kānaka maoli culture and heritage
is the foundation for a living culture in Hawai‘i.
We must ensure that the kānaka maoli people are supported, and
that culture is perpetuated. The success of this endeavor will
ensure the way of the kānaka and guide our actions and behaviors
in the years ahead. (Parker, 1989, p.35)
The Hawaiian Renaissance (also often called the Hawaiian Cultural
Renaissance) was the resurgence of a distinct cultural identity that draws upon
traditional Hawaiian culture, which is significantly different than the tourism-based
"culture" which Hawai‘i was previously known for worldwide. It is generally
21
considered to have started in 1970, and drew from similar cultural movements
from the late 60s and early 70s.
It marked a time of cultural and political awakening for the Hawaiian people,
who sought a reconnection to their culture, language and way of life, which had
slowly been destroyed by the influence of Western Missionaries and American
colonialism.
Many significant events occurred throughout the islands that helped
Hawaiians regain pride in their culture. Hawaiian arts and culture
began a new era of enormous interest. “Young Native Hawaiians
were inspired by the civil rights movement of the 1960s and the
worldwide struggles of indigenous peoples brought about by the
tourism-propelled development boom of the 1960s and '70s. (Tsai,
2009, p.A2)
The so-called second Hawaiian Renaissance in the 1970’s refers to
an earlier re-examination of Hawaiian arts and culture under King
David Kalakaua. It was led by musicians, including the Sons of
Hawai'i, Gabby Pahinui and Hui 'Ohana; scholars such as Mary
Kawena Pukui, Kumu Hula George Na'ope (founder of the Merrie
Monarch Festival), navigator Nainoa Thompson and others seeking
to perpetuate and advance traditional Hawaiian knowledge and
culture. (Tsai, 2009, p.A2)
A resurrection of the Hawaiian language began in the 1980’s as Hawaiian
immersion schools taught the Hawaiian language. New Hawaiian-literate
scholars shared new knowledge about their culture with newly discovered texts.
Hula Halau (Hula groups) were established throughout the islands for the
perpetuation of this ancient dance, and many ancient Hulas were revived to tell
the history and culture of Hawai‘i. The Merrie Monarch Festival began in Hilo in
1964 to celebrate the memory of King David Kalakaua, a Hawaiian monarch who
22
loved the hula and restored many of the nearly extinct cultural traditions of the
Hawaiians (retrieved March 20, 2011 from http://www.merriemonarch.com).
The Hawaiian sailing canoe Hokule’a, became a significant icon for the
Hawaiian people after it navigated the ancient sailing routes of the early
Polynesians in the 1970’s. The voyages proved that ancient navigation skills
were highly advanced and accurate. This exploration continues today with
additional voyages and crews traveling all over the world. The knowledge and
tradition of sailing continues to be passed on to a new generation that adds
creative and innovative approaches.
Other cultural programs for cultural immersion exist as well. A program
called “Navigating Change,” an education and outreach partnership was created
in 2001 with the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, the State of
Hawai’i, The Polynesian Voyaging Society (PVS) and the Bishop Museum
(Jokiel, 2011, p.10).
Perhaps most importantly was a reestablished pride in being Hawaiian.
Speaking of the excitement and celebration of the Hawaiian Renaissance in
1979, George Kanahele remarked: “If anything is worth celebrating, it is that we
are still alive, that our culture has survived the onslaughts of change during the
past 200 years. Indeed, not only has it survived, it is now thriving.”
Look at the thousands of young men dancing the hula; or the overflow
Hawaiian language classes at the university; or the revived Hawaiian
music industry; or the astounding productivity of Hawaiian craftsmen and
artists. Consider such unprecedented events as the voyage of the
Hokule'a, the occupation of Kaho'olawe, and passage of the Hawaiian
23
package at the Constitutional Convention. (Speech by G. Kanahele in May
1979 at the Polynesian Voyaging Society)
This period of rebirth for the Hawaiian people has continued to influence the
growth of cultural knowledge, traditional practices, Hawaiian art forms, political
movement, and Hawaiian language to this day.
Like a dormant volcano coming to life again, the Hawaiians are
erupting with all the pent-up energy and frustrations of people on
the make. This great happening has been called a psychological
renewal, a reaffirmation, a revival or resurgence and a renaissance.
No matter what you call it, it is the most significant chapter in 20th
century Hawaiian history. (Speech by G. Kanahele in May 1979 at
the Polynesian Voyaging Society)
This spirit of reclaiming cultural knowledge and pride remains strong for many
Native Hawaiians interested in perpetuating their culture. Efforts to create the
CLC for Hawaiians to experience cultural immersion is in the early stages of
planning and development at KAHO, an exceptional national park with unique
legislation that has reclaimed and perpetuated cultural identity and values as part
of its mission.
KAHO’s historical, cultural and natural resources, as well as its
many recreational opportunities, make the park an interesting and
enjoyable destination for national park visitors who live outside
Hawai‘i. One of the key reasons the park was established,
however, was for the use of the Native Hawaiian population. The
land was set aside for Native Hawaiians to experience their culture
and “…personally and directly experience their ancestor’s finest
hour.” (National Park Service, 1974, p. 21)
KAHO is one of few parks in the NPS with legislation specifically directed at
reestablishing a living relationship within the host culture and encouraging this
indigenous culture to fully explore the meanings and lifestyles of their ancestors
24
(NPS, 1974, p.21).
The development of a CLC within a national park has the full support of
federal legislation. This natural and spiritual environment, including access to
significant cultural and archeological features, remains a significant part of the
meaning and connection to the culture for many of the Hawaiian participants
included in this project.
Native Hawaiians need a place where we can practice and
preserve our culture, a culture that was very unique to this area. At
that time, even to today, there is no place set-aside especially for
the purpose for Hawaiians to tell their story, to learn about this story
and share and tell it in their own way. We felt this was the perfect
place for Hawaiians to do that. (Video Interview with Respondent 2
at Kaloko fishpond on February 19, 2011)
The intent of the park and the participant’s involved is to recreate many of the
cultural skills, the physical Hawaiian structures and things such as growing
appropriate native plant materials where possible. In a real sense, the purpose is
to provide Native Hawaiians with the opportunity to reacquire the knowledge and
relationships that their ancestors once had with this land.
A main learning component for the development of this center is that
participants will “learn by doing.” With the construction of traditional structures,
the weaving of mats from Native plants and the religious and spiritual protocols
required; contributions will be made to new learning discoveries by participants
involved in these activities. The building of the CLC will “drive the curriculum,” a
theme often mentioned, as the “...group members will bring in experts in
traditional Hawaiian craft, hold cultural workshops, and then incorporate this
25
learning into the next phase of constructing the center,” stated Fred Cachola,
executive chairman of Makani Hou at a board meeting in Kona, on March 21,
2009.
This self-taught learning component is a strong motivator that brings groups
together. Research shows that most people learn more effectively by doing
instead of being instructed about a task. When people learn by participating in a
“real experience,” they remember 90 percent of what they say and do after
completing the task (Dale, 1969).
Hands-On Learning and Practice
In the Hawaiian view, according to M. Dougherty in To Steal A Kingdom
(2000), "Education came by observing in tasks, rather than by studying a subject
and asking questions about it at very young age" (p.17).
Unearthed artifacts and oral records translated from ancient chants
have left us with a picture of the Hawaiians as a well-organized,
highly skilled, self-sustaining group. The method of learning from
doing in old Hawai‘i gave its people the ability to mastermind the
complicated skills of the craftsmen upon demand, as well as to
assimilate the knowledge left by their ancestors. (Dougherty, 2000,
p.19)
In June 2008, the newly established Makani Hou o Kaloko-Honokohau (CLC
Group) participated in a Strategic Planning Initiative Workshop facilitated by a
moderator (see notes in Appendix C). From this two-day retreat, the group
developed a mission statement and clearly defined its goals. This provided a
26
structure for planning and accomplishing tasks. This two day workshop enabled
the group to become cohesive and rally together after 30 years of unproductive
discussions and meetings, and to finally begin focused planning of the center.
The initial meetings created the motivation to set goals designed to accomplish
results, which fostered the positive attitude of a shared mission.
This two-day strategic planning session was based on Participatory Action
Research (PAR), a process that requires group input (explained in a later
section). For example, when the group was asked what success looked like to
them, they came up with strategies to accomplish their vision. They were also
asked what factors could make the project fail and what factors would be needed
to make it a success. This action–oriented process made them full partners in a
larger goal shared by all members; creating their own road map to reach that
goal.
Many events, including off-site work parties to learn about Hawaiian plants,
field trips to historical sites to study building platforms and guided studies of
Hawaiian literature have produced a strong work ethic and heightened interest in
the project. Consulting experts in ancient construction techniques have enabled
the group to envision and plan what will be constructed and what could be
accomplished at the site.
This study provided a method for the CLC group to (1) discover their own
personal meanings and interpretations and then (2) contribute their ideas as part
of the Hawaiian Renaissance, a movement of cultural renewal and discovery.
27
The momentum gained could serve as a basis for developing an educational
curriculum for teaching Hawaiian studies at the CLC, as well as providing data for
further research including ethnographic studies. The group is interested in
recreating past culture today- while also involving the present community,
including children and elders.
Many Hawaiians have little knowledge of the past and familiar only with the
Western culture in which they live. Many have lost or never experienced the
knowledge of their ancient cultural heritage. Having a place in the community to
explore Hawaiian culture could help many of them gain lost cultural
understandings. The CLC is expected to motivate many participants to be more
involved as a result of gaining a deeper level of understanding.
Rediscovering Ancient Hawaiian Knowledge
According to Fred Cachola, a respected Native Hawaiian historian and
Makani Hou executive chairman, Kamehameha Schools built a canoe for its
Hawaiian studies program in the 1970’s. The canoe builders needed to fashion
the gunwales (upper edge of the sides) of this canoe, but had no knowledge of
how this was to be accomplished. No written information was available, and no
one had the necessary knowledge to finish this vital part of the canoe’s
construction. Someone had heard that the wood of the ulu (breadfruit tree) may
have been used, but there were no experts who could instruct the group on how
28
to cut the tree for use on the canoe.
Undaunted, the group salvaged a large tree that had blown down in a
windstorm on the island of Maui and fitted it for the canoe. The builders
discovered that as they carved the tree, sap oozed out, creating a natural
caulking that sealed the canoe’s seams. The experience was a revelation for the
builders, who had organically learned an ancient Hawaiian construction
technique. They had discovered a method used by their ancestors to construct a
canoe, uncovering ancient knowledge that eventually became an accepted
method of canoe building.
In ancient times, the Hawaiians had no written Hawaiian language.
Genealogy, sharing personal stories and traditional knowledge was passed down
to them orally by previous generations. Tasked with the important role of
remembering significant events, certain high-ranking educators in Hawaiian
society transmitted this knowledge to the next generation.
Today, often due to simple oversight or inconvenience, events and
information are not recorded despite the availability of video cameras and
recording devices. In most cases, this loss of knowledge by omission cannot be
recreated. Some of the significant events and milestones anticipated in the
group’s process are yet to occur, thus the documenting of these and events by
the CLC group remains critical to preserving the historical record of this
organization. It also offers future opportunities to generate new understandings
and explorations.
29
With the initial documenting of the CLC group process via the production of
videos, the CLC is seeking grants to expand videotaping capabilities to film
current cultural practices. This will involve documenting ongoing cultural
discoveries of the group, which will strengthen intergenerational relationships that
facilitate new learning. This would likely help the elders connect to forgotten
information. When participants and others view and reflect on the videos, new
pathways are uncovered to view modern cultural changes, since the Hawaiian
culture will inevitably continue to change.
A successful research study must consider (1) how the impact of well-done
research can lead to positive changes that benefit the CLC site, and (2) “[The
importance of using the] abilities of all those involved to actually make positive
changes at this site, as they [are] motivated to do so because they are engaged
in service through their research” (Parsons and McRae, 2007, p.6).
The data collection is interactive and participatory, usually emerging
organically. This is an appropriate method of study for participants in the early
stages of an exploration process for developing the CLC.
This study looked at the motivations of mostly Hawaiian participants in
creating a CLC and investigating if building a CLC based on ancient structures is
the most effective method to be used in developing a cultural educational area
(called kauhale or group of structures or homes) at KAHO. The 3-year record of
Makani Hou, consisted of comments and motivations discussed by 15
respondents and NPS staff, recorded primarily through monthly meeting notes,
30
video documentaries and videos produced by the group. These were analyzed,
resulting in a summary of conclusions.
Why has it taken 30 years?
Why has it taken more than 30 years for the CLC to get off the ground?
Many meetings and workshops were held over many years related to organizing
an effort to get a CLC started. The national park, as part of its legislation, had a
federal advisory commission (Na Hoa Pili o Kaloko-Honokohau) established to
help with various projects and to help the park in an advisory role, including the
developing of a Cultural Live-in Center.
It’s more than just talking about where to put buildings. It’s going to
be about how we are actually going to manage the center. Part of
this commission’s job is to foster or incur this entity. If this
commission ends in two years and we don’t have this entity
established, and the federal government doesn’t re-establish this
commission, than there is going to be a big hole (Dale Fergestrom,
Hoapili commission meeting, Sept. 10, 2004).
Before the current group came together, there was some doubt about the
CLC actually being an overnight ‘live-in’ center:
The idea of a live-in center is almost 30 years old. The park wasn’t
developed; we didn’t have visitors, and the idea of having a place
that’s secluded where Hawaiians could go to was a good thing.
And now, 30 years later, we have a park with over 75,000 visitors a
year. Times have changed -- maybe a day center is a good thing
(participant at meeting, September 10, 2004).
31
"There are many factors but one is because Ala Kahakai got involved," says,
Aric Arakaki NPS superintendent for the NPS Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail.
Arakaki has over 25 years of government and private sector experience,
including 12 years of ahupua‘a community planning and management with the
state Department of Hawaiian Homelands beneficiaries and other communities
statewide.
He envisions the development of a 175-mile well-maintained historic trail
system, using a balanced approach to cultural and environmental preservation.
"We had numerous discussions about the mission and designation of the park
with you [the researcher] and [experts like] Richard Boston.”
We started the ball rolling, by coming up with this plan for
organizing the community and the descendants for establishing the
live-in center. Part of the Ala Kahakai Trail's mission is to [work
with] the communities and connect families who have ancestral
connections to places along the shoreline to support that
connection—the kuleana, or that family ancestral connection to a
place in order to steward it…and to be a part of it. (Aric Arakaki,
personal communication, April 1, 2011).
Is the selected location the most appropriate place for the CLC? (It's been
mentioned that the Hawaiians thought that the sea area was their garden and the
CLC does not have a view of the sea.) "In my opinion, the entire 1,500 acres of
the park was designated as a live-in center," says Arakaki, "To relegate it to a
smaller impacted area doesn’t make sense; the whole park was designated as a
live-in center." People are an intimate part of the ecosystem, according to
Arakaki. "When we take people out of it, the ecosystem is affected. To restore
32
the ecosystem and manage it properly, we need to be able to reconnect the
families who have that [ancestral connection].” That requires the use of traditional
or indigenous science and Western science, he adds. "Working together,
complementing each other is the way we want to proceed. The key thing is that
the people are part of the ecosystem. Any removal or disconnection of the people
is an impairment”. All of the [needed] resources [already] in the park were built
by the kūpuna, and many are now part of Makani Hou, says Arakaki. "It would
make total sense if they could have access to these sites to restore them, that’s
the live-in, that’s the cultural perpetuation component of this whole thing," he
adds.
We have the fishponds being restored, and there are other features
in the park that compliment the fishponds and could be restored.
There may be some preservation or archaeological laws that we
may need to look at, but I think again the live-in center has already
been created; we just need to put the thatching back on [the
structures] and make them functional again, using the right
protocols, permissions and data recovery by archeologists. That's
your live-in center. (Aric Arakaki, personal communication, April 1,
2011).
There are many reasons the CLC project languished for 30 years, including
funding issues, an insufficient amount of staff to accomplish all the required tasks
and personal conflicts between the participants involved. Looking back over the
years, possibly the main reason that no significant progress occurred is that there
was never a group entirely focused on the planning of the Cultural Live-In
Center- until very recently.
33
Origin of the CLC Group’s Name
The origin of the name Makani Hou o Kaloko-Honokōhau was the result of an
unexpected event (ho‘olu) that occurred during a dinner meeting discussion
among members of the CLC group on June 22. A strong wind suddenly blew into
the room from outside. Makani Hou o Kaloko-Honokōhau was chosen, which
means the “New Wind” of Kaloko-Honokohau, this “new direction” represents a
refreshing, cleansing and renewal. The participants all realized the significance of
Makani Hou, which is symbolic of the group's desire "…to be part of the Hawaiian
cultural renaissance, involving the restoration, perpetuation and renewal of the
culture, making it come alive,” said Respondent 2.
Motivations for a New Beginning
In the early stages of the group meetings, questions arose about the goals
and intent of my study. Why was I participating with this group? How would my
research be helpful? I too had many questions as to what I would be truly
accomplishing with this project. Relationships among many of the participants
were still forming, even though several participants had long histories of working
with each other on boards and committees with the national parks and other
organizations. Overall, it was still a new beginning. The history of 30 years of
‘no-action’ and the many attempts to create the center were a source of
34
frustration for them. In my research I was looking to them for the questions and
how the process would proceed by which these questions could be answered. At
this time they did not have any of the answers. Additionally, other questions were
being asked by myself and others. How will the structures be built? How will the
educational curriculum be developed? Who will be responsible for what? What
will be the time frame that all this happens?
Besides being an NPS employee whose main duties were not directly related
to the planning of the CLC, I had to explain my motives for being involved. My
primary role in the beginning was as a student pursuing my master’s degree.
Many were hesitant of being studied as they had previously participated in
“Mainland” research studies in which a researcher observed them, asked
questions, and then wrote the report and didn’t share the results.
The problem inherent in this type of research is that there is not
enough input from participants to foster a connection between the
researchers' concepts and the concerns and experiences of the
people who are actually involved. (Heron, 2001, p.179)
Few researchers who had worked with them asked what they wanted to know
or what they were all about. “[Researchers] take the knowledge and go back to
the mainland or publish a book and take the credit,” stated Ruby McDonald, a
board member of Makani Hou in a personal conversation in December of 2008.
In contrast, Jeremy Spoon, an Associate Professor of Anthropology at
Portland State University outlined a successful process he discovered working
with indigenous peoples in Nepal and in southern Nevada called, Collaborative
Applied Methods (Speech at National Association of Interpretation Conference,
35
Las Vegas, NV, November 17, 2010). This method outlines key factors for a
successful research project with Native peoples:
•
Allow the participants that are being interpreted to set the
parameters for the project.
•
Make the questions relevant to their own needs.
•
Integrate a variety of perspectives.
•
Co-conduct ethnographic research- have the family there to
participate, everyone from the children to the grandchildren.
•
Allow for intergenerational knowledge transmission.
•
Create opportunities to get more Native people back on the land;
it’s important to have more folks involved in these projects. There
has been a disenfranchisement among public lands in the United
States and native peoples.
•
Ensure the project goes beyond information gathering to
stewardship. This creates win-win opportunities for land managers.
He also believes that Informed consent is an important aspect of any research
project. Inform the participants on where the information you’re collecting will be
and where it won’t be. This transparency develops trust. Share all research
materials from the study and allow them to take ownership of it, as ownership
creates trust as well. “It’s about creating relationships and those relationships
will put a beating heart behind the interpretation and work that you do” (Spoon,
2010). In this country the exchanges have not always been equal, and those
exchanges have often exploited Native peoples. Currently, Jeremy Spoon is
working with the Nuwuvi people of southern Nevada. His emphasis of his study is
to focus on creating ethnographic stories and protecting tribal lands. This project
36
partners the National Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service and
established native tribes in Nevada. The success behind the project shows that
federal agencies can work successfully with Native peoples.
37
METHODS
The Qualitative Research for this study involved collecting and analyzing data
that is:
•
Field-based and site-specific
•
Participant-driven
•
Involves multiple sources of data for analysis
•
Uses a depth of inquiry
•
The Researcher is a participant and relied on personal
relationships with the group members
•
Based on the use of Participatory Action Research (PAR)
The Action Research Method
Individuals refer to Participatory Action Research (PAR) by different names
such as Community-Based Inquiry (Stringer, 2007), Collaborative Action
Research, Participatory Research or Critical Action Research (Mills, 2000).
Participatory Action Research involves participation and action as the name
suggests. This method of research, “brings together a group of people who are
affected by some problem or issue and then decide to get together to work out
how they want to tackle the problem, and then do something about it” (SavinBaden and Wimpenny, 2007, p. 331). The primary goal of Action Research is to
“provide the means for people to engage in systematic inquiry and investigation
38
to ‘design’ an appropriate way of accomplishing a desired goal and to evaluate its
effectiveness” (Stringer, 2007, p.6).
Many studies looked at using this approach in schools, which is where it was
first developed by organizational leaders in the 1940s and 1950s as they looked
at how schools functioned and [ways] to change. “These leaders were interested
in developing a new culture that valued evaluation and a culture of self-renewal”
(Calhoun, 1994, p.4).
The main theory behind PAR is that people are active participants in the
research process, and some practical result comes about from working together.
From the outset, a PAR process should be collaborative, and it is important that
participants have some level of investment in the study and a desire to bring
about meaningful social change at a local level (Cockburn & Trentham, 2002).
Kidd and Kral (2005) point out the importance of creating early opportunities
between participants to initiate dialogue and share a preliminary understanding of
issues. Pursuing the research process with PAR allows for the inclusion of
practical, common sense information, as everyone has a stake, and they “own
the findings.”
It differs from basic and applied social science research in
terms of people’s involvement in the research process,
integration of action with research, and the practice-based
nature of the knowledge that is entailed (Park, 2001, p.30).
The influence of PAR is worldwide, especially in professional contexts.
Academics in higher education view it as a “…useful way of working in
39
professional education, particularly teacher education” (McNiff, 2002 p.5).
In this particular study, the value of PAR is that it created a dynamic way of
looking at myself -and those around me- to develop research methods, to form
relationships and use the input from the group to solve important problems. This
unique method is democratic in nature and strives to value the ideas and
cohesion of a group. This includes showing respect, negotiating, listening and
responding to participants and working within a framework that can be broadly
applied (Savin-Baden and Wimpenny, 2007). Participatory Action Research
offers a valuable framework to explore research aims whilst offering the potential
for individual expression and participation (Stringer, 2007). From the onset, a
PAR process should strive to be collaborative in nature as it is vital that
participants have some level of investment in the study in order to bring about
any meaningful social change at a local level.
The main idea of Participatory Action Research is that people are active
participants in the research process and that there is some practical result that
comes from them working together. From the outset, a PAR process should be
collaborative and it is important that participants have some level of investment in
the study to bring about meaningful social change at a local level. Cockburn and
Trentham (2002) and Lewin’s (1946) early work also expressed this idea that
people are more likely to be involved in new practices when they are involved in
formulating strategies. They also discussed the sharing of power of participants
in terms of the responsibility for the research process.
40
Pursuing the research process with Action Research allows for practical
information as everyone involved will have a stake and “own the findings.” It
differs from basic and applied social science research in terms of “people’s
involvement in the research process, integration of action with research, and the
practice-based nature of the knowledge that is entailed” (Park, 2001). There also
remains a difference in the role that non-experts play. Ordinary people become
“researchers” in order to solve real problems.
The participatory nature of this project will “provide the means for people to
engage in systematic inquiry and investigation to ‘design’ an appropriate way to
accomplishing a desired goal and to evaluate its effectiveness.” (Stringer, 2007,
p. 6) The Action Research group members are actively being included in a
process of inquiry “grounded in a qualitative research paradigm whose purpose
is to gain greater clarity and understanding of a question, problem, or issue
(Stringer, 2007) relying on continual participant involvement.
The ongoing and cyclical nature of Action Research, where participants look,
act, and think (Creswell, 1999) provide a mechanism for participants to find a
problem, discuss it and then take action. One of the benefits of PAR is practical
information: participants will gain practical knowledge that is useful to the
community and will then “own the findings” as they will be asking many of the
questions and solving them (Wali, 2006).
As discussed by Stringer (1999), PAR is cyclical and involves a continual
process of looking, acting and thinking. This research approach collected (and
41
will continue to collect and analyze data) most relevant to the participants, then
interpret and suggest further action. Action Research of this type is “an
emancipator, in that it helps unshackle people from the constraints of irrational
structures” (Creswell, 2008, p. 603).
Stringer’s Action Research Interacting Spiral
Source: Stringer, E. (1999) Action Research, p.19
At the start of a project, the process of Action Research does not begin with a
stated hypothesis or pre-determined, fixed outcome. Rather, questions to be
answered will emerge and be open-ended. Participation will allow elaboration
into areas of discovery not yet known. The data will be emergent with a collection
of interviews, a variety of field research, and case studies of similar projects and
will rely on momentum from successes.
For Action Research to be successful, a project will generate additional ideas,
enthusiasm and direction for the next step in the process. It will offer solutions to
problems that could not have been envisioned in the beginning. In PAR,
42
researchers also investigate their own lives. Action research is an inquiry
conducted by the self into the self. When producing a research report, PAR
documents how the researcher has carried out a systematic investigation into
his/her behavior and the reasons for that behavior. The report shows the process
the researcher has gone through in order to achieve a better understanding of
his/her actions.
PAR is an open-ended process. It begins with an idea developed by the
researcher. The research process involves following the progress of an initial
idea and continually checking whether it is in line with the goal of the researcher.
Seen in this way, action research is a form of self-evaluation, which is used
widely in professional contexts such as appraisal, mentoring and selfassessment (Savin-Baden and Wimpenny, 2007).
Over the years, various models and different interpretations of PAR
have appeared. There is no one 'correct’ way to conduct PAR. The
researcher must decide what is right for him/her and develop their
own views through action research. The meaning it has for the
researcher emerges along with the research. (McNiff, 2002, p.5)
Core Elements in Action Research: Source: Levin and Greenwood (2001)
•
Action Research is context-bound and addresses real-life
problems.
•
Action Research is inquiry where participants and researchers cogenerate knowledge through collaborative communicative
processes in which all participants’ contributions are taken
seriously.
•
Action Research treats the diversity of experience and capacities
within the local group as an opportunity for the enrichment of the
research/action process.
43
•
The meanings constructed in the inquiry process lead to social
action or these reflections on action lead to the construction of new
meanings.
•
The credibility/validity of Action Research knowledge is measured
according to whether actions that arise from it to solve problems
(workability) and increase participants’ control over their own
situation.
The primary method used in this study was a qualitative approach, using the
knowledge claims of participants and various methods of data collection and
analysis. Inquiry strategies included narratives of participant’s attitudes relevant
to their own experience during the process and discovering stories about the
ancient Hawaiians who once lived in the area. Qualitative research
characteristics include data collection that takes place in a natural setting,
methods that are interactive and humanistic, a research synopsis that is holistic,
strategies of inquiry that establish a procedural guide, relatively little use of
standardized instrumentation, small samples of people set within their context,
results that are emergent rather than prefigured and data analysis that is
fundamentally interpretive—using words not numbers (Babbie 2001; Diamond
1999; Miles and Huberman, 1994).
The choice of a traditional research approach, as well as the choice of specific
methods of data collection and analysis, should be selected in relation to the
particular aims of the study and in order to answer specific research questions
(Corney, 1996, p.78). The qualitative approach is appropriate in this study
because it allowed the researcher to work with the participants using emerging
44
data as it was collected, with no predetermined outcomes prescribed. The
qualitative data analysis relied upon an interpretive analytical framework.
The PAR method is democratic in nature and strives to value the ideas and
cohesion of a group. These characteristics mirror aspects of successful groups
and can be a successful way to work with indigenous cultures. PAR offers a
valuable framework to explore research aims whilst offering the potential for
individual expression and participation (Stringer, 2007).
In Hawaii, some projects have used the PAR method successfully. The PAR
process, built on trust and shared goals, has proved useful in local situations,
such as the development of the NPS's Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail on the
island of Hawai‘i. Participants living along the trail are considered the primary
stakeholders, in part because they are full partners as the trail has personal
meanings for them. It is something they can take full ownership of. Their
personal knowledge, family history, and interests about the area are included in
the research and identification of desired outcomes. This method provides active
feedback and authentic results that the group can believe in.
I have discovered that by the use of the PAR method that I am not “an expert
who does research but that of a resource person,” (Stringer, 2007, p.24) by
helping the group move towards effective solutions to problems. As a researcher
as well as an NPS employee interested in the Hawaiian culture, I find myself as a
participant who desires to be part of a team that is focused on completing and
documenting an important cultural renewal project. The data presented is
45
qualitative and evolved, drawing on the experiences and commentary provided
by participants. Building the nation’s first CLC will continue to involve trial and
error experiences that will be helpful in creating appropriate educational
workshops, hands-on community events and documenting the teaching
techniques of elders.
Although KAHO was created over 30 years ago, considerable planning for
the CLC only began in 2008 with the establishment of Makani Hou o KalokoHonokōhau, which means, “The new wind of Kaloko-Honokōhau”—a group that
has worked together since June of 2008. The initial meeting invited selected
members of the community by invitation only. Many have been involved with
KAHO in the past serving on committees, as Hawaiian descendents of the area,
or consultants. It was then determined at the first meeting that monthly meetings
would be held in the Kona area on every third Saturday. Participants included
kūpuna (elders), cultural practitioners and one of the last original NPS advisory
commission members who helped establish Kaloko-Honokōhau National
Historical Park. A core group of members attend the meetings, work parties, and
various events regularly. The Action Research approach effectively engaged
participants and created a motivating and positive environment.
Social Constructs for Group Results
Social Constructivism is a well-known theory advanced by Berger and
46
Luckmann in The Social Construction of Reality (1966). The primary theme
behind this theory is that most individuals seek an understanding of the world in
which they live and work (Creswell, 2003). This study, which relied on the views
and perceptions of the participants, uses the theory of social construction,
employing an inquiry-based format, as participants tackle a problematic situation
by forming questions, constructing theories and reaching a consensus on
solutions (Bevevino et al., 1999).
Some of the questions that were given the group were broad and general so
that participants could form their own meanings; significant to this process is that
these were developed through social and group interaction within the framework
of historical and cultural norms that operate in individuals’ lives (Creswell, 2003).
An important framework in any cultural perspective is that of Cultural Attachment.
Deeply rooted in a culture’s values and identity, yet often overlooked or
dismissed by another culture that does not hold these values. James Kent noted
in Cultural Attachment: Assessments of Impacts to Living Culture:
Cultural Attachment embodies the tangible and intangible
values of a culture-how people identify with, and personify the
environment around them. It is the intimate relationship
(developed over generations of experiences) that people of a
particular culture feel for the sites, features, phenomena, and
natural resources etc. that surround them-their sense of place.
(Kent, 1995, p.7)
Valuing the importance of cultural features and traditions is important to note
when initiating a participatory research process. Strategies employed within a
PAR process to achieve meaningful social change involve engaging with a group
47
or groups of participants in a series of self-reflective cycles that include: planning
a change within the community, acting and observing the process and
consequences of change, reflecting on these processes and consequences and
further cycles of planning and reflecting (Heron and Reason, 2001). To maintain
the rights and privacy of research participants, researchers need to also
anticipate the ethical issues that might arise during their participation (Creswell,
2003). Prior consent was received from all participants in the video
documentation process. The rights to all video, recorded or printed matter will be
the property of NPS and Makani Hou.
Description of Participants
•
A total of 18 individuals attended the intial two-day planning
workshop in June of 2008.
•
Sixteen individuals attended the meeting on both days. Five were
NPS staff and one a former NPS staff person.
•
The ages of the individuals varied from the mid-30’s to mid- 70’s,
with the median age of about 50.
•
Many of the attendees were well-known cultural practitioners and
professional educators in the local community. A few were farmers
and fishermen, and about 75 percent of the group was of Hawaiian
descent. Three or four were direct lineal descendents of the lands
of Kaloko-Honokōhau.
•
Eight of the attendees were women and 10 were men. Since the
original meeting in June of 2008, two of the participants have
passed away. One of the original NPS participants has retired and
two of the original five NPS participants have moved on to other
jobs.
48
•
Of the original Hawaiian participants involved, five that were
members contributed consistently, attended every meeting and
were essential to the process of getting the organization off the
ground.
•
At the first meeting, the attitude of participants was cordial but
tentative, as most of the participants knew each other from other
local committees and organizations. They had met in similar
community meetings before in which no specific actions had
occurred, thus they were a bit skeptical about this group.
•
A total of thirteen “Respondents” provided quotes to compare and
contrast and provide evidence of their attitudes in the past two and
a half years-- their responses are included in Appendix H.
Justification for Action Research (PAR)
We present our stories on behalf of people who have entrusted
them to share with the world of Participatory Action
Research(PAR)- a term we favor- which, in its commitment to
combining academic and people’s knowledge in dialogue and
action, offers a fresh avenue for recovering ancient wisdom within
and without oneself. (Pyrch and Castillo, 2006, p.379)
The Participatory Action Research (PAR) approach was chosen as the
primary method to work with members of Makani Hou. In this collaborative study
approach, participants worked with the researcher to examine the meanings and
interpretations that participants derived from the process of cultural immersion,
which occurred when Native Hawaiians and others in the study worked together
as a team to solve problems and suggest further actions. Culturally, this research
method fit in well with the ‘Hawaiian-style’ of doing things. It involved ‘talk story’
sessions and collaboration built on mutual trust, shared goals and a feeling of
49
mutual accomplishment.
One of the main objectives for using PAR in this study was to examine the
meanings and interpretations derived from the planning process of creating
cultural immersion. This involved Native Hawaiians, community members, NPS
staff, and others who worked together as a group to develop a CLC at KAHO.
The nature of the project required me to be involved in many of the details of
planning and collaboration and to develop close working relationships with the
group. I was not in the role of an ‘outsider’ who came to the project to ‘study’
them and leave. I stated to the group from the beginning that I planned on
working with them, even after my studies were finished.
In traditional forms of research – empirical research – researchers conduct
studies on other people. Empirical researchers inquire into other people’s lives
(Creswell, 2003). This relationship can sometimes create mistrust and suspicion.
Richard Arnold, Chairman of the Paiute Tribe in southern Nevada, remarked at a
speech at the 2010 National Association of Interpretation Conference, “so many
times we don’t see people who want to know what makes us tick, they have this
compartmentalized view of the world dictated by the mandates of a project and
so they’re here for a project, and when it’s done they’re gone”.
Methods or sources used in this study included: 1) video documentation of
interviews with CLC members and ancient Hawaiian ceremonial events such as
the ancient practice of making fishing nets, etc.; 2) an independent video
produced by the group, and was shown to attendees at the National Association
50
of Interpreters conference in Hartford, Connecticut in November 2009 as well as
being posted online; 3) individual oral interviews with NPS planners, Makani Hou
participants, respected kūpuna, community members and experts in Hawaiian
history; 4) relevant previous research and personal accounts by and about Native
Hawaiians, and 5) historical data about the Hawaiian Renaissance and other
important events in the ancient and modern Hawaiian community.
The video produced by Makani Hou in 2009 showcased the participants’
Hawaiian heritage and served as a way for them to discuss specific cultural
areas of the park and cultural methods used at KAHO. It demonstrated Action
Research at its best. The inspiration and direction for the production came from
the participants themselves, and it was accomplished by simply asking them for a
video to be shown at the NAI conference. The group took ownership of the video
production and completed it themselves. Other relevant information about the
project (4 and 5 above), were obtained from books, pamphlets, newspapers,
magazines and speeches, as well as data from Hawaiian organizations.
The video documentation in the future will most likely prove valuable in the
"hands-on" teaching of various traditional Hawaiian cultural practices. A
participant stated in May 2009, "Makani Hou continues to video as many of the
ongoing activities as possible. A key component is gathering the wisdom of
kūpuna. We documented their information in part to assist others who want to
accomplish similar goals,” stated Isaac Harp, executive vice chairman of Makani
Hou in a personal email on May 3, 2009. The CLC group hopes to continue to
51
focus on supporting each other to study, explore and identify with the culturally
significant land area of KAHO by hands-on learning from their own hard work and
investigation of traditional Hawaiian cultural practices. Group members have
suggested that they will accomplish their goals through immersion at the site.
The physical construction of structures and the planning and participating in
future workshops will be their learning classroom. The learning process will be
cyclical and expanded incrementally, which is key to the action research process
because...“It builds on previous learning to develop and transform past practices
into new contexts” (McNiff, 2002, p.4).
Although the CLC refers to a specific location with physical structures, it has
come to represent on another level; the developing of the educational curriculum
by “learning by doing.” It has been stated that the CLC itself represents much
more than the buildings and structures that are planned, as the feelings of many
in the community desire a “living” national park where everyone who attends is
fully engaged. To complete the many educational projects, the basic curriculum
and learning focus are to be included in the strategies identified as critical to the
creation and continued existence of the center. For example, a strategy
employed to learn how to construct a traditional Hawaiian house or make a
fishing net will be documented and incorporated into the curriculum as
participants learn. One way this could be accomplished is through hands on
workshops. This information will then be practiced and passed on to other
participants, who will in turn teach others, thus increasing the cumulative
52
knowledge of the group.
It is the hope of many in the local community that Native Hawaiians will
someday be engaged with this land though ongoing learning and working,
teaching others about a traditional Hawaiian lifestyle specific to the area. To be
done successfully the community must feel welcome at the park. An attitude of
openness and trust must be fostered for people to make use of the area in a
culturally appropriate way. This openness to the community is not always present
in national parks and other federally protected areas. This welcoming attitude will
be especially important to create nurturing relationships and meaningful
interpretations of Hawaiian culture in the future.
A future primary action of the CLC group will be to video-document their
activities for data collection, followed by reflection and analysis of this information
by the participants. They will have to work within the systems of indigenous and
Western styles of learning, which can be similar and also contradictory. This will
be an important component to further the development of other similar live-in
centers for indigenous peoples. The video documenting for data collection will
not be studied in this paper but could be a topic for future study. The video
documentation for this report consisted of several videotaped ethnographic
interviews with participants and a video produced by CLC members that was
shown at the 2009 National Association of Interpretation Conference in Hartford,
Connecticut.
With advances in technology the use of video documentation has become
53
more common for research purposes. A review of the literature by Rosenstein
(2002) showed that the use of video technology for research fell into two areas:
observation (including data collection and analysis), and as a mechanism for
giving feedback and consultation via videoconferencing. Video observation has
provided researchers with permanent, revisable documentation from the field.
This documentation can serve both as a source of data collection to be used in
research or evaluation or as a historical record (Rosenstein, 2002, p.2). In the
field of education, video documentation has proven useful for new teachers to
observe an expert teacher. It was shown that video could capture the elusive
quality of teaching that makes one teacher successful and another less
successful (Leinhardt, 1986).
Another purpose of this study was to use the participatory process to collect
and analyze relevant data in order to determine which outcomes are central to
the needs of the CLC participants. Although research outcomes are difficult to
predict using an action research method, PAR, which is cyclical, exploratory and
needs based, helped clarify anticipated findings and predicted outcomes. PAR
research focuses on “working together with others as full partners to enhance,
enquire and learn about specific issues and then determine a course of action or
actions” (Creswell, 2008, p.600).
54
Role and Position of Researcher
Having grown up in Hawai’i as a kama‘aina (literally, “child of the land”), I am
familiar with certain aspects of the Hawaiian culture and lifestyle and I have
continued to learn more with my employment at KAHO. I grew up in Kane‘ohe on
the island of O‘ahu. My father is a marine biologist, and I spent many summers
diving and working at his University of Hawai'i marine lab at the Coconut Island
facility and have a love and deep respect for the Ocean. In addition to my role as
a student, researcher and an interpretive park ranger at KAHO, I have helped to
facilitate the achievement of Makani Hou’s goals with PAR. This includes note
taking, document research, grant writing, A/V set-up and operation, organizing
Makani Hou events, presenting information about the project at community
events and bringing potluck food to the many outdoor meetings we have held at
the park. I believe that I am a participant in the process rather than just a
researcher studying the group from the outside.
I believe in the action-oriented role of the group dynamic with the inherent
power (mana) derived from people working together to solve their own problems
in ways that are appropriate for them. I have established rapport and personal
relationships with many of the participants and community members. I listened to
the knowledge from kūpuna (elders) and recorded information as accurately as
possible, helping to contribute to the increasing body of knowledge about Native
Hawaiians attempting to recreate their culture in this specific study. I am not of
55
Hawaiian ethnicity, nor do I profess to be an expert in Hawaiian culture. I have
learned with the participants as I will continue to learn. “As all research is laden
with values,” (Creswell, 2003, p.182), an attempt was made to portray
participants values and ideas as accurately and respectfully as possible. I also
realize that my observations are based on the personal values and assumptions
that I bring to this study.
My wife, Theresa, has served as the interim secretary for Makani Hou for
nearly two years. We have both established a close rapport with group members,
who have readily accepted and trusted us to help the CLC be successful.
A Model for Future Hawaiian Studies
“We are part of a larger picture, a part of a bigger cultural phenomenon, the
behavior and beliefs of a culture, part of an entire movement,” (personal
communication with Respondent 2, June 2009). One of the aims of this study is
to document and record the activities of Makani Hou, thus establishing a model
for other groups interested in cultural studies and practices. Another parallel
seeks portraying their contribution to the whole, the culmination of Hawaiian
cultural knowledge as is known and experienced today. The group believes they
will have significant contributions to the next Hawaiian Renaissance, specific to
this one site on the Kona coast. The cultural practices once done here were not
always practiced in other parts of the Hawaiian Islands, thus it will be a unique
56
contribution. Hawaiian cultural practices vary throughout the islands by coastal
and mountain region. Shore-based products gathered at KAHO complimented
mountain products in the ahupua’a system, a resource management system
where products harvested near the shore were traded with products produced
upland.
The cultural practices the group decides to reestablish can only be meaningful
to the participants if they believe they are, regardless if it was something
practiced in the past at KAHO. Questions remain as to what this center will
represent and who will be invited to attend. When hearing of a CLC many not
familiar with the project believe it will be a place for visitors to attend; another
‘park attraction’ that people who visit national parks have come to expect to visit.
The participants in this project abhor the idea that the CLC idea could turn into
such a tourist destination where Hawaiians will be on display. The difficulty is
attempting to recreate this authentic cultural experience focusing on a specific
place/ time period, i.e. before the arrival of Captain James Cook and the changes
brought by Western civilization.
How will this “pocket of authenticity” be created today? Will it be meaningful to
the participants and provide them with the connections they are seeking, even if
no one is there to see it? Outsiders who are not familiar with the Hawaiian culture
may view the project as a historical reenactment of culture- rather than the
private personal experience that Hawaiians are seeking. These types of
questions will continue to arise in people’s consciousness, both visitors and
57
participants alike. In the future these perceptions must be thoroughly addressed
and discussed for positive and meaningful dialogue and future discovery.
Throughout the process of this study, my participation with the group occurred
as a research student and also as an NPS interpretive park ranger. I asked the
Makani Hou participants to outline their questions regarding the creation of a
CLC. What will this place look like? What will the CLC be used for? What will the
educational curriculum include? How will Native Hawaiians at the site be
encouraged to tell their stories? As I focused my research, some of these
questions remained outside the scope of this study. In the future some of these
questions may eventually be answered.
The question of developing an educational curriculum for the CLC remains a
top priority for many participants. Kamehameha Schools, Hawaiian Immersion
Charter Schools and other Hawaiian cultural organizations could assume this
task along with the national park, though this has not been determined at this
point. Documenting and recording the gathering and discovery of "best practice"
learning methods will be discovered as part of the process for developing this
curriculum. Without a meaningful educational curriculum, the CLC will be little
more than physical structures.
Data Collection & Analysis in Indigenous Cultures
Indigenous cultures mark events in nature and these hold powerful
58
metaphors. In Australia, the aboriginal people talk of the mixing of the salt water
from the ocean and the fresh water from land (called ‘ganma’ in English). “The
theory holds (in part) that the forces of the streams combine and lead to deeper
understanding and truth” (Hughes, p.5, 2000). Lilla Watson, an aboriginal social
worker, once spoke to a group of non-aboriginal social workers, “If you’ve come
to help me, you’re wasting your time. But if you’ve come because your liberation
is bound up with mine, then let us work together” (Stringer, 2007, p.195).
Traditional research studies often analyze groups and data by “looking in from
the outside.” The researcher using this approach can appear uninvolved, nonparticipatory and as an “outsider” to the participants being studied, even though
the researcher may present the study as being “helpful” to the group. With many
indigenous cultures, a sense of trust must first be established, and then a
relationship can be built. This is a necessity before any meaningful action will be
able to take place. In PAR approaches, there is a genuine sense of partnership,
where practitioner and supporter recognize that there might be a difference in
responsibilities and professional expertise, but no difference in value. They are
equal as practitioners. Both are there to improve their work by acting as
challenging and supportive critical colleagues. This is a creative dialogue of
equals in which both are trying to find the best way forward for themselves and
each other (McNiff, 2002). Therefore, data collection becomes a shared
experience between the researcher and the participants, as they are both
seeking common goals.
59
The decision making process among Pacific Islanders generally involves
group interaction and discussion, a “mixing” of different opinions, often described
locally as “talking story.” There was no written language in pre-contact Hawaii
and an oral tradition and oral discussion was the way that information was
processed and transmitted. Hawaiian chants passed down genealogical histories
and stories that were important to continue. The Western approach of using
videotaped interviews and questionnaires is certainly familiar to many members
of Makani Hou, who have been educated in the Western system. However, these
cultural practitioners also have deep roots in the traditional system. Therefore,
one aspect of his investigation compared the outcome of an individual written
questionnaire (milestone questionnaire) distributed to participants after the
formation of the group and then it was redistributed two years later to see if
attitudes had changed.
The video focused on a “talk story” session related to the individuals
perceptions of working with the National Park Service and other various aspects
and motivations (and their roles) working on the project that were important to
them. The written questionnaire provided some data on the initial perceptions of
each individual. The transcribed video record of each interview provided
significantly more relevant data on the dynamic process used in cultural settings
in the Pacific Islands.
The source of data for the results section consists of quotes and themes
drawn from minutes of the monthly meetings, researchers' personal notes and
60
conversations, and comments and input generated at the initial planning meeting
in June 2008, the core group was formed (SPI workshop,appendix C). A
milestone questionnaire handed out in March 2009 and February 2011 provided
some data on participant’s attitudes and how they changed. This was then
compared with a video made on February 19, 2011 with questions related to a
western method of decision-making (more formalized with many rules and
procedures), compared to a Hawaiian method (involving less structure and based
on personal relationships; a hierarchy of leadership that comes from respecting
elders(kupuna) and important religious/spiritual protocol). Monthly meeting notes
provided important qualitative data to analyze and determine positive and
negative changes in the attitudes, motivations and actions of individual CLC
members after working together for over two years.
Secondary results included:
1) By-laws for the organization
2) Agreements with the NPS
3) Grants pursued by the group
4) Email and personal communications
This data correlates group responses, delineates attitudes and suggests
possible strategies and actions. These three documents track the group’s
activities, responsibilities and progress since its inception in June of 2008.
Additional results were gathered from personal and email
communications and video interviews with individual group members,
61
some of these comments by respondents are listed in Appendix H.
Video interviews were produced on February 19, 2011 at Kaloko Fishpond
near the CLC site. A restored opelu canoe, owned by KAHO, was transported
to the site and provided a tangible and memorable connection for members to
‘talk story’ about the area. This special type of Hawaiian canoe was used for
opelu fishing, (a type of fish that Kona is known for), and opelu canoe fishing
fleets were once a common site to see offshore. In the video interview,
members participated and shared their personal viewpoints about the CLC,
their connection to the park, and also shared about the places important to
them, such as Kaloko fishpond. Talking about and being on the land (‘aina)
remains an important connection; and it set the scene in a natural
environment, allowing them to present themselves in a comfortable and
relaxed. The use of a video camera may not have allowed for completely
natural conversation, yet it did allow the participants to address the questions
asked of them in a familiar and special place. Nonetheless, they seemed
comfortable sharing their own personal mana’o (story) about the area,
including their relationship/ experience working within park rules and
procedures, and their own personal history and connection to the place.
One of the participants, a former commissioner, explained his role in the
creation of the national park. The questions allowed each participant to reflect on
his/her own personal experience with developing the CLC and working within the
political structure and rules in a national park. The mannerisms and behavior of
62
the participants suggested a comfortable and relaxed atmosphere where they
could be themselves.
63
RESULTS and DISCUSSION
The Cultural Live-In Center at KAHO: The Rediscovery of Hawaiian Knowledge
Do participants perceive the establishment of a Cultural Live-in
Center as the most effective method of cultural perpetuation
and practice for the group and the community to participate in
Hawaiian education and learning at Kaloko-Honokōhau
National Historical Park?
The results show that the core group of participants remain committed to
cultural revival at the CLC site, though not entirely knowledgeable of how a CLC
will actually be constructed. Of the original 18 Hawaiian participants who
attended the first meeting in June of 2008, eight remain active as members. Four
no longer participate, four occasionally will attend a meeting, and two have
passed away. Two participants, who have family ties to the area, would like to
see a thriving fishpond community in the future. They will likely direct their talents
and energies to another group that will be created to manage Kaloko Fishpond
when it is completed sometime next year.
Key Findings:
1.) The results suggest a “buy-in” idea that creating the CLC that will create a
bridge to cultural renewal and perpetuation. At this time, there is a
commitment by the group to move forward with construction of a CLC
64
without considering other alternatives; such as simply developing a
cultural education program without structures. The CLC is the focusing
point. Very little discussion has occurred about less costly methods to
teach and relearn Hawaiian culture.
2.) Participants strongly believe that the eventual site should be a
place that will recreate the lineal knowledge of their ancestors and
generate a strong connection to the 'aina (land) as well as being a
place for cultural practice that is specific to the area. The idea of a
place-based site is essential to the group. "The kūpuna (elders) will
by example lead others in the quest for self-knowledge and an
understanding of a culture that was – and remains – the
inextricable link between ‘ohana (family) and ‘aina," said Participant
(5).
3.) The establishment of the CLC will complete a spiritual connection
with their ancestors and it will provide a completion for many of the
individuals involved. “Great care has been taken over the past 35
years to ensure that its establishment—a template for any future
CLC projects—is worthy of the Hawaiian people and our
ancestors,” added Respondent 5. “The very act of participating in
this very long and painful process is the kuleana (responsibility) of
65
participants and is accomplished with the view that kokua (help) to
the Hawaiian community is for present and future generations.”
Many participants feel they are participating in a movement that is
bigger than themselves and that they are contributing to the
movement of cultural revival, possibly to the bigger picture of a
second Hawaiian Renaissance. "This program will give all of us a
chance to share what we all as individuals have learned throughout
our lives and are able to bring it to the table for the education of the
culture," said Respondent 3. "The restoration of the site for use as
a cultural live-in center provides Hawaiians with a glimpse into their
past and a better understanding of it," said Respondent 5. "We
cannot know where we are going unless we know where we have
been."
4.) The momentum gained in the past three years continues to propel
the group to complete key projects. For example, the legal process
of pursing a 501c3 designation, drafting agreements with the
National Park Service and adopting a mission statement and
bylaws are a few of the objectives they have accomplished that will
provide a structure for the future.
66
The CLC Working Group
The framework and enthusiasm for the first key group of 18 strategic planning
members had its’ significant start with a Strategic Planning Initiative (SPI)
workshop held June 21-22, 2008 as mentioned. Notes from this initial workshop
are listed in Appendix C.
The workshop was organized and facilitated by a strategic planning instructor
trained in conducting leadership and group interaction processes. The
participants focused on long-term strategic planning and collaborative decisionmaking and created a framework for the group to develop a long-term plan and a
short-term proactive plan based on evolving information.
The group of participants used a step-by-step discussion method to evaluate
each component of the process, beginning with an introduction to the model and
followed by action plans needed for success. The participants received models of
short- and long-term action plans to take home and evaluate for possible
adaptation by the CLC group. The group also identified strategic planning issues,
including possible threats from inside and outside forces. The second day, after
identifying key Hawaiian values, the group used the SWOT (Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) technique to collaboratively develop
their mission statement which they continue to use presently:
We are committed to working in partnership with the NPS,
embracing values including Aloha, Lokahi & Kuleana to
establish and manage a Live-In Cultural Education Center that
will preserve, respect and perpetuate our unique traditional
67
Hawaiian legacy for future generations.
Members voted on the desired positive characteristics and skills of the CLC
members. Their top priorities were that the group have a strong congressional
legislative mandate, since the CLC would be located in a national park; that
members mainly consist of Kānaka maoli (Hawaiian people) with important
cultural knowledge and kuleana (personal responsibility), that the group develop
a large network of influence and support due to the diverse backgrounds and
expertise of its members and consultants. The weaknesses in the planning group
as expressed by members were that they lacked legal sanction and authority to
accomplish their construction goals.
Many participants said they were overcommitted and too busy with other
projects at work and in their personal lives and that they had too many time
constraints. Another weakness was that they were not yet a non-profit
organization, making the search for funding difficult.
The threats considered a real possibility included the absence of funding in
the current financial downturn, and that a natural disaster such as a tsunami
would be devastating to the area. (As a side note, a damaging tsunami occurred
at KAHO on March 11, 2010, scattering debris in the parking area of the fishpond
and damaging its walls; but no damage occurred at the CLC site.)
The session also brought up the fact that the community must be involved to
make this project a success. Currently there is not much involvement from the
community-at-large besides the planning group, mostly because the site work
68
has yet to begin.
The initial planning meeting accomplished 11 out of 13 “expectations for
success” including (see Appendix C):
•
Increased knowledge
•
Developed a group identity
•
Energy from the process was directed from ideas to actions
•
A complete agenda established to develop a mission and goals
•
The ability to move forward
•
A working plan for implementation by next year
•
A method to ensure the correct interpretation of ancient stories
•
Identified concrete projects, such as building the first structure
•
Created a mechanism to resolve conflicts and debate major
issues
•
Developed realistic methods to turn proper concepts into
reality.
The two unachieved expectations for success (obtaining funding and the
establishment of a legal non-profit organization) remained as the top priorities.
Participants acted as stakeholders in the project, with each vowing a
commitment to responsibilities. All responses from members were completely
voluntary, and no information about/from the participants was used without their
consent. A handful of members participated in video interviews and "talk story"
sessions at the future site of the live-in center. These participants frequently
expressed their attitudes and personal feelings (both positive and negative)
about this project, which served as a documentary record of the group's
collaboration and evaluation process.In the monthly meetings following the initial
69
workshop, the following topics have been discussed and specific actions
implemented.
Milestone Questionnaire
The first Milestone questionnaire survey (March 2009) went out to all of the
original 18 participants who attended the first Strategic Planning Initiative
Workshop and could be contacted.
Five Milestone questionnaires were
subsequently returned. These consisted of responses that ranked various
questions that held importance to them in the process of participating in the
designing of various features of the CLC (see actual questionnaire, Appendix F).
The questionnaire, familiar to all respondents as a western-style survey, was
then ranked by four of the original five respondents in February of 2011. Many
did not return the survey for various reasons. A few members were no longer
involved with the group and at least two of the members had passed away by the
time the survey was distributed. The survey asked them to rank, in order of
importance, the most important factors for them in creating a CLC. The survey
was then redistributed in April of 2011.
The ranking of questions of importance that was redistributed in April of 2011,
changed slightly in ranking over the two year period (four responded to the April
2011 resurvey). The small change could possibility be due to the two year period
70
of time involved from when the first questionnaire was distributed; respondents
might also not have remembered their rankings from the first survey.
The results were similar to Stringer’s Action Research Interacting Spiral (see
p.38). According to Stringer, changes will occur at each point as the group takes
a look at results of each survey and how the new information is developed. If at
some point the group is re-surveyed over another time period (perhaps shorter),
the emergence of new ideas could quantify changes in the ranking and diversity
of previous suggestions. Due to the small sample size, statistically relevant
results could not be determined and generalized. The survey was primarily used
only for the additional written responses provided by several of the members on
their forms.
The Milestone Questionnaire showed to be not as valuable in determining the
attitudes of members as initially thought when this study was begun. Perhaps
with a more significant sample size more information could have been gathered
on how ideas increased, synthesized or were reduced in number, and then these
numbers could be assigned as to how the group came together in their thinking
by using the iterative Stringer model and the “talk story” model (see below). The
difficulties were that the survey had too few respondents, there was some
confusion on ranking the different questions, and a few respondents from the first
survey were not available to answer the questions two years later; so responses
could not be analyzed with a significant data set.
71
One way the survey was of benefit was that three of the respondents provided
narrative responses on their questionnaire in explanation of their rankings. The
use of these additional narrative responses provided the most valuable data to
analyze their personal feelings towards working with the NPS in a western-style
format compared with a more Hawaiian approach.
Where are we now in the CLC Process?
The creation of the CLC remains in progress; the group has been working
together for over three years. An Environmental Assessment (EA) is nearing
completion. One of the half-a-dozen planned structures is expected to be
completed within a year. A few significant grants have been applied for.
This report covers the first two and a half years of work. The results are a
snapshot in time of the current individuals working together. It is a sampling of
their interactions, attitudes about the project and how they have worked together.
The core group of participants, most who have participated since June 2008,
appear to be very committed to continuing with the project. Participants are
expected to change as new members come into the group and others leave.
Some members have already left the group to pursue other interests, or for
personal reasons, and some important contributors have recently passed away,
including Herb Kane, an iconic Hawaiian historian, master artist and architect
who was involved in conceptual drawings for the structures located at the CLC
72
site. Herb Kane also sketched the original line drawings for the creation of the
National Park in the 1970’s. The establishment of the CLC could provide valuable
information for the future study of similar projects. It will help other researchers to
continue work on the CLC, as well as other groups who want to follow a plan and
learn from a group focused on Hawaiian cultural connection and reconnection.
Many members involved have not shared the same feelings about the CLC’s
first location.Herb Kane mentioned at an on-site discussion on July 10, 2009 that
“Hawaiians would have built within view of the ocean, they would not have built
this far inland … the presence of the ocean is culturally very important to all
antecedents of the site,” He viewed that the first site should be located near the
ocean or by Kaloko Fishpond, as he felt, “the sea is their garden” (Meeting on
January 11, 2009 at CLC site). His statement was initially discouraging. After
some reflection and discussion about this statement the group recommitted to
the site location. After two years of searching for a location and an environmental
assessment already underway, the participants were not prepared to change
plans. They all believed that this would be the first of many different sites and
refocused on their plan to continue the process.
At this point, since there is no clear roadmap on how to proceed with creating
a CLC, and participants continue to explore the best methods to recreate the
basic elements of an ancient Hawaiian culture. Perhaps this can be expected
with very little knowledge of exactly what occurred at KAHO in ancient times.
“The question is: what are we going to do here, and how is it going to occur?”
73
asked Respondent 2 on a site visit to the proposed CLC site on 7/10/2009. This
question has also emerged during the monthly Makani Hou meetings by NPS.
“The mission of the park is to perpetuate culture—and culture includes evolution.
How do we look at that? I’m looking to Makani Hou to learn how to do this," said
Park Superintendent Kathy Billings at the October 2010 Makani Hou meeting. A
very real consideration are the feelings that the community shares about creating
the CLC. What do they want to learn today that will help benefit the community in
the future? How will a CLC that focuses on ancient Hawaiian culture remain
viable and relevant to the Kona community in today’s world?
The Curriculum
"One of the most exciting things about this entire venture will be the curriculum
that's included from the beginning and the construction process throughout the
building phase. With the curriculum, we share different types of cultural activities,
so not only Hawaiians can learn about their own culture, but also park visitors
and guests who might be invited to participate in some of our workshops," said
Respondent 1 (email communication on May 3, 2009).
The enthusiasm expressed by these participants demonstrates that the
educational process requires an appropriate place-based center to host cultural
learning that can be shared with others. "The exploration and discovery process
of educational learning that will occur is in itself a goal," said Participant 3, “The
74
learning would not otherwise be able to occur without a place-based learning
environment.”
Video Interviews
All responses from members were completely voluntary, and no information
about the participants was used without their consent. A few members
participated in video interviews and a "talk story" session near the live-in site and
expressed a willingness to continue to do so in the future. The responses
showed their attitudes and personal feelings about this project, as well as serving
as a documentary record of the group's progress after two and a half years.
Using a qualitative approach, many of the discoveries were revealed as
significant events and authorities emerged, along with individual learning. The
new information was then discussed among the entire group. A main component
of an action research approach, as used in this study, is that participants reevaluate and then propose more questions arising from the new information. The
results conform to Stringer’s (1999) Action Research Interacting Spiral Model (as
noted) where results are cyclical, involving a continual process of looking, acting
and thinking. Interestingly, the questions asked in the milestone questionnaire
gave rise to a new set of questions discovered by Respondent 2. He believes
more questions should be asked in the future:
1) Is it desirable and feasible for the specific practices and
activities of the CLC to be closely articulated with other on-going
75
park operations?
2) What are the current Park operations that increase knowledge
and stimulate Hawaiian cultural immersion and values or create
cultural meaning and connections with the land? How can they
be articulated with operations in the CLC?
3) What conditions and criteria may be applied at the CLC in
considering when and where compromises or deviations from
traditional customs, practices and beliefs may occur in any other
activities in the CLC such as the construction of various hale?
Additional information was gained through trial and error. For example, a
contradiction between the groups expressed open door policy and later
disapproval of a visitor’s zeal to be heard during a meeting. The group agreed to
discuss this conflict and create a better way to communicate its “open door”
policy.
The Importance of Place in Traditional Practice
Why does the group believe that a CLC at KAHO would be the most effective
method of cultural perpetuation and practice? As noted by Riesenweber (2008),
“Most [people] value places because of [the] memories associated with them,
because these memories and the attached places are part of who we are.”
What is the primary use and purpose for this center? This question continually
arose for many of the Hawaiian participants and NPS staff that are charged with
the creation and implementation of plans to build the structures and teach the
curriculum. Many players will be involved in supporting, planning and executing
an important part of the park’s legislation. A member of the executive committee
76
has mentioned many times that the purpose of the center will always be a place
for… “Hawaiians to tell their story and tell it in their own way,” according to
Respondent 2 in several discussions over a two year period. The participants say
they want to “recreate a place at Kaloko where they can walk in the footsteps of
their kūpuna (elders) and to do some of the things they may have done in this
area; which was primarily ocean and pond related” (Personal communication with
respondent 2, May 10, 2009). Will a CLC be needed or is there a more effective
method? Are there other ways for the group members to practice and learn their
culture?
Current video recordings, park legislation, documents and meeting notes
support the idea that the CLC has full support from all participants, although
some have expressed other motives for being part of the group; such as learning
specific facets of Hawaiian culture or a desire to eventually be working with a
group to revitalize and manage Kaloko fishpond. Not building a center or
pursuing some other methods for Hawaiian cultural perpetuation have not been
discussed at any of the meetings. At a meeting at the CLC site on November 23,
2009 Respondent 2 stated,
This is a place that we are not going to be embarrassed by trying to
relearn what our kūpuna didn’t teach us. We’re not going to be
ashamed that we don’t know. We’re going to do it our way, our
style, without anybody looking over our shoulder and criticizing us.
[We want] a sense of privacy, of being comfortable in being
Hawaiian. [This place was once] a privileged area, and those who
come here, really come with a physical and spiritual intent... maybe
speaking the language, maybe wearing the malo, wearing the
77
sandals that you make, drinking out of the ipu wai, sleeping on hala
mats, eating out of a common kou food container, that is the kind of
immersion I’m looking at that was part of our discussion today.
Video clips were used as evidence about the progress and success of this
approach, followed by a discussion of the filming process used for the first video
presented at the 2009 NAI convention.
The Cultural Live-In Center at KAHO: Understanding Hawaiian Approaches to
Meetings and Decision Making
What understandings about their culture can this center foster? Will
it be a bridge to the past to recapture and reconnect to meanings
and understandings from which they are today disconnected? How
will this vision change over time?”
“The primary purpose for KAHO was not necessarily for visitors, it was
primarily a place for Hawaiians to relive and restore their cultural practices and to
recount and participate in the finest hours of their ancient ancestors….[to]
restore some of the essence and integrity of how they thrived, remarked
Respondent 3 in a personal communication in June of 2009.
Meanings change over time as cultures change over time. The Hawaiian
culture is no exception. Many of the participants feel this will be a place for
cultural education and exchange. As noted by Respondent 1 in the milestone
questionnaire in May of 2009: “The re-learning the culture of one’s ancestors is
valuable in reviving cultural pride, but we must not allow ourselves to remain in
78
the past. All cultures evolve, and we must allow ours to evolve as well. We’re
looking into the pattern of culture and what can we do to facilitate that?”
The Cultural Live-In Center at KAHO: Understanding Hawaiian Approaches to
Meetings and Decision Making
Can the National Park Service work effectively with Makani Hou o
Kaloko Honokōhau to establish a cultural learning site within the
park?
A Hawaiian prayer (pule) began each meeting, a traditional way to start social
events in Hawai‘i. A prayer was given to give thanks to all that has been
provided, and to show appreciation for the people who were attending. The pule
also requests for the continued health and good fortune of all the participants.
The format for the rest of the meeting generally followed the western approach;
with Robert’s Rules of order, procedural motions, quorums and action items.
Most of the participants were well versed in these western meeting procedures,
having served on many other types of committees, often in executive roles. Many
are college educated and some have master’s degrees. A few are familiar with
running and setting up structured meetings. Significantly, the meetings were also
held “Hawaiian style” as they were informal at times with a “talk-story” format,
stories being told and discussions ensuing about what it might have been like
living in the Hawai‘i of the past.
79
The results showed that the group was able to work and complete tasks using
both an NPS process and western method as well as the traditional Hawaiian
planning approach which involves ceremony and informal discussion. The
process of using western procedures was discussed as follows:
[There is] little difficulty with the western restrictions on certain
activities that can occur,” stated Respondent 1. “The traditional
Hawaiian approach, I think, has been taken quite a bit by the
creation of our board of directors, which is primarily Native
Hawaiians, and a lot of people who are descendants in this area.
I'm really glad to be working with people who have a history here,
also with people who work for the Park Service. They have the
deepest respect for the cultural aspects of the park and protecting
those cultural resources. In terms of the western approach, we
need to create the Environmental Assessment and such, to prove, I
guess, to the federal government that we aren't destroying our own
cultural resource—that would be kind of counterproductive on our
own behalf. I'm not really opposed to it, it just makes it a little more
difficult; but I do appreciate the precautionary approach under the
western laws.
In the original legislation the park was established to provide a center for the
preservation, perpetuation and interpretation of the Hawaiian culture. The results
showed a forming of consensus with the individuals who came together for the
weekend meeting in June of 2008. Many had a long history of being involved with
other NPS committees and advisory boards. A current grant application they
have submitted states that “The Makani Hou Board is comprised of professionals
who have for years worked for the benefit of the Hawaiian community.” Many in
the group share similar organizational goals and values about making a cultural
place for immersion a reality.
In talking to members who have been involved in planning the CLC, many
80
have expressed how grateful they were that the area became an national park
instead of a resort development. Conversely, many harbor feelings of frustration
as to why the process to build the CLC has taken so long. Indeed, many do not
agree with the National Park polices at KAHO. A few of the original commission
members who helped establish the original park legislation felt that the
management plan went astray. They believed that park policies do not follow the
trail set by the original advisory commission members and missed the mark of
what the park’s vision was originally set up for. One major issue that remained
volatile was the description of the ‘phasing out’ of a local family that lived in the
park and who claimed generational ties to the land. KAHO management offered
them a lease to remain and lived at ‘Aio’pio Fishtrap (on the south side of the
park), until the early 1990’s. The National Park Service, though making great
strides to include indigenous peoples in practice and policy in recent times, still
primarily cater to different groups and for diverse reasons that often are in direct
conflict with each other. Preservation, perpetuation, and recreation are often
contradictory goals and cannot be accomplished in harmony within a parks’
mission.
Nonetheless, many members have chosen to be part of this new cultural livein center group with its new energy. A few have been involved for many years
and have witnessed groups form and disband. Since then, many of the original
leaders and kūpuna (elders) have moved on (or passed away), and many have
become so disillusioned about the many unproductive gatherings that occurred in
81
the past with a “no-action” agenda, that they no longer want to be part of the
group or work with the National Park Service. Some of the members have
expressed anger, confusion or complacency about the entire process, especially
the continual meetings and studies. One member has chosen to use humor to
effectively cope with his frustration and still remains a dedicated participant after
many years. He commented, “How do you maintain cultural protocol processes
when influenced by western processes? There will be conflict all the way, all we
have is compromise” (comment at meeting by Respondent 4 at Makani Hou
meeting November 2009). One member stated (referencing a preference for
another site location for the CLC), “What do we want? We all wished we had the
best view. We have a site. We cannot be all things to all people” (personal
communication with Respondent 3 on March 3, 2010).
The Western versus Hawaiian Approach
Several interviews with Makani Hou Board Members on February 19, 2011,
showed that the group had no significant problems working within NPS
procedures and planning, although they felt many of the parks’ rules were
cumbersome and detailed- but all had a purpose. “We need to create the
Environmental Assessment …. I'm not really opposed to it, it just makes it a little
more difficult, but I do appreciate the precautionary approach under the western
laws”, stated Respondent 1 in a video interview at Kaloko Fishpond. It is not
82
surprising that CLC members could shift easily between the two systems, as
many of the group members have some experience working with the park,
governmental, and other organizations, and are used to meetings using Robert’s
Rules of Order and other types of meeting formats. A few have extensive
experience working within the federal system and have been very successful
completing other projects that have involved dealing with governmental policies.
The results show that all respondents had no difficulties switching between
the western method of meetings and incorporating a Hawaiian process, which
consisted of 1)pule or a blessing, before each meeting 2)discussions outside of
the meetings that often resulted in informal agreements and the building strong
personal relationships and 3) several work parties at the CLC site (a physical
connection with the land) that involved group members working together.
Usually, meetings involved bringing food and snacks as part of a shared social
event. These aspects (blessings, talk-story, site-based activities, and the sharing
of food) are important social and traditional components of Hawaiian culture.
The planning documents, such as the Spirit Report and the General
Management Plan offered some guidance to participants, but the group preferred
more specific strategies derived from gaining personal knowledge from their own
discoveries about traditional Hawaiian practice. The important founding
documents were primarily used as an overall guide and framework to refocus
overall efforts or to clarify specific purposes. Most group members agreed with
Respondent 1, who noted, “Unless we have experience in what we're doing, it's
83
all a learning exercise. We will develop relationships with individuals and entities
that have access to skills and materials we need to get the job done, which
includes an invitation to the community for involvement through members”.
The Cultural Live-In Center at KAHO: Changing Participant Perspectives
How will a live-in center benefit the community? How can its value
be most effectively communicated to the community?
The CLC group faces many challenges in communicating the benefits of
participating with group and marketing their value to the community of KailuaKona as well as to other interested groups throughout the state. Besides
developing the groundwork of building the center, developing educational
programs and instituting the rules and regulations for the CLC, attitudes must be
changed on how modern families value Hawaiian cultural education. The cultural
makeup of Kona has changed since the 1970’s. The State of Hawai‘i census
(2008) is 1,288,198 residents with a Hawaiian Native and other Pacific Islander
population of 115,938 residents. Hawai‘i County census has 175,784 residents,
with a population of 19,688 Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders (State of
Hawaii Census, 2008).
In the past few decades, the cultural make up of the population of Hawaii has
changed with a greater influx of families from Mexico and the South Pacific. This
fact could have an impact on attendance at The CLC, even though it is designed
84
for Native Hawaiians, anyone who has an interest in the culture may attend.
Families in Hawai‘i also have many other options on how to spend their free
time. Sports such as baseball, surfing, and soccer are all popular in Hawai‘i as
elsewhere. Youth and adults spend a significant amount time with video games
and other technology. In Hawai‘i, with the current difficult economic conditions
many family members work two jobs allowing little free time for families to
participate in cultural activities.
Many Native Hawaiians and others believe that the teaching of Hawaiian
culture in schools needs enhancement, even though significant improvements
have occurred in the last 20 years. The fourth grade curriculum teaches
Hawaiian studies in public schools. Unfortunately, many schools “teach to the
test”, as assessments have become the primary evaluation tool for many
administrators and teachers in evaluating student performance. The state budget
crisis means less field trips to cultural sites such as KAHO and the focused
curriculum in schools means less emphasis on Hawaiian studies.
Another possible use of the CLC could be a center to interface with other
cultures. Herb Kane mentioned at a site visit on that one purpose of the center is
to welcome high chiefs from other places in Polynesia. This is a common
tradition in New Zealand where the Maori peoples have the Marae, a ceremonial
place where the highest values and dignity of the people reside. This is an
important community place deserving of the utmost respect. The question arose
by the participants is if this is the proper place for the community to receive
85
guests of high stature? Will other organizations in the Hawaiian community fulfill
this need? The value of a CLC remains to be seen in the community.
With very busy lifestyles and lack of time for extracurricular activities, families
and Native Hawaiian participants will choose the activities that have the most
overall value for them. Will participating in activities at a CLC be the best choice
for a family with other choices?
The CLC- Hawaiians Living on the Land
Although the concept of a CLC has been included in the NPS enabling
legislation for over 30 years, it was nonetheless a new challenge and new idea to
the group. A handful of the participants expressed a longtime desire to complete
such a project, especially several Hawaiian participants who have remained
active with KAHO projects (including discussion of a future CLC) over the years.
“It's been almost half of my life devoted to creating a place for Hawaiians to tell
their story and tell it in their own way,” remarked Participant (2) during a video
interview at Kaloko Fishpond Feb. 19, 2011.
The NPS and Makani Hou continue to seek, adopt and follow “best practices”
in order to create a blueprint for the group (and the park to complete its
legislative mission) , to develop a center for learning and culture in the future.
One of the hopes is that this process of partnership will serve as a guide for
others who would like to learn from the successes and challenges of Makani Hou
86
in order to develop similar type projects. The idea is that these organizations
working together will develop a partnership that will provide a venue to discover,
evaluate and incorporate new methods that will benefit and advance Hawaiian
cultural knowledge. It may also expand and exhibit successful working
relationships among federal agencies, non-profit groups and other interested
parties.
Personal Connection
Although many participants have a strong cultural connection with the chosen
site—and a few are direct lineal descendants of family members who lived on the
land pre-KAHO—none have established a living-on-the-land connection with the
area as their ancestors once experienced. Nonetheless, deep meanings and
connections were frequently expressed. “Imagine how much more connected to
their culture they will feel when ti and pili (native Hawaiian plants) and thatched
hale arise at the site; and kūpuna (elders) and kumu (teachers) are there to help
them learn about what their ancestors did at this very spot," said Participant 5.
"This program will give all of us a chance to share what we all as individuals
have learned throughout our lives and are able to bring it to the table for the
education of the culture," said Respondent 3. "The restoration of the site for use
as a cultural live-in center provides Hawaiians with a glimpse into their past and a
better understanding of it," said Respondent 5. "We cannot know where we are
87
going unless we know where we have been."
The Hawaiian culture has been exploited by the tourist industry for the past
50 years. The CLC model attempts to chart a new course and set a positive
example for an authentic experience for Hawaiians, both culturally and
spiritually. The model proposed is not geared for the tourist experience as many
Hawaiian cultural programs have been structured in the past. The desire for a
private experience that is authentic, and not a place for all visitors to see, be
effectively communicated to the community by the national park and
participants.
Study Limitations
This study primarily looked at key members of a group motivated to come
together for a sole purpose—to create an organization, with a specific mission
statement, and a defined goal at an NPS site. The study primarily looked at
meanings and results from the last three years. Some information was gathered
from meetings and discussions previous to this time period for context and
comparison to the current group. As this was a qualitative study with a small
number of participants, the results cannot be generalized to the Hawaiian
population or the community-at-large. Caution should be advised to applying the
results to the ‘new’ Hawaiian Renaissance that many believe is occurring now, it
has been generalized that the CLC is part of this movement. Initially, the
88
milestone questionnaire had respondents rank questions for importance and this
data was to be used quantitatively, yet a statistically irrelevant amount of
participants participated and the information was not used in the manner initially
intended. The written responses of members from the surveys and video
interviews proved to be the most valuable data from this data and this
information is included in Appendix H.
CONCLUSION
The invitation of people to a National Park Service site in order to reconnect to
the land by an immersion experience has yet to be accomplished anywhere in
the country. Many national parks exist largely as museums to view cultures that
are no longer in existence. According to Gon (2006, p. 1), “It boils down to
establishing a relationship between people and lands. Instead of viewing people
as the problem, it acknowledges that people are part of the living universe, with
clear responsibilities to nurture the land in a reciprocal and sustainable manner”.
It has been suggested that removing people from the land actually impairs the
land.
“A good action research project has no well-defined ending,” (Stringer, 2007,
p. 165). As this project continues to gather momentum, similar undertakings are
likely to be started and completed, eventually reaching key milestones. As with
any large project there will certainly be triumphs as well as setbacks. As specific
89
CLC projects are finished, the hope is that participants will continue to reflect and
renew on the work they have done and come up with improved understandings.
The Hawaiian tradition of gatherings and celebrations complement and
necessitate the beginning and ending of any of events. The sharing of Food (ai)
and gifts (ho’okupu), along with a spirit of aloha are a meaningful part of the
culture and will bring people to the CLC because of this welcome feeling. It’s
been stated by many that appropriate Hawaiian cultural protocol will be followed;
this includes the blessing of sacred activities before any work begins and the
asking for permission from the forces of nature and one’s aumakua (personal
god).
The perpetuation of Hawaiian cultural practice will require a delicate balance
between how things were done in the past and how practices can be translated
into the context of today’s world. The original inhabitants of the area would have
never considered this process of creating a live-in center- it was simply their life.
It was not a conscious action that they thought of (how to create a village), it was
survival and living with the resources they had available to them. The idea of a
totally authentic CLC that recreates a lifestyle that existed in the area hundreds
of years ago is not 100% possible, as there will certainly be a need to
compromise/adapt to present modern requirements and conditions.
This project involves changing participant perspectives; as there will be
ongoing learning, cultural practice and continual renewal and discovery. The
Hawaiian culture is a living culture. How many cultures have that opportunity
90
today? Is this group ready in their rediscovery of Hawaiian culture for that to
happen and then shift course if necessary?
This group will be working within the constraints of the federal government
and the shrinking public tax dollar. The CLC has been proposed as a private
experience for Hawaiians and those interested in Hawaiian culture. Even though
the idea is supported in the parks’ legislation, will the idea be able to succeed as
a few clustered enclaves/sites in a public place? Will the vision of a ‘living park’
expand to other areas, not just the CLC site, and could this model by used at
other national parks?
Ultimately, this project focuses on the people in the immediate community and
how they will benefit in the future. The community needs to embrace it. It will
also need the abilities of all involved; exploring how to work and learn together. It
will involve trial and error, using new found knowledge, while at the same time
rediscovering important information from the past that is useful in learning today.
Cultures continually change and the CLC project will certainly change in the
future. In order to be relevant within the cultural context of the present, it will
need to offer benefits to all people. It will require the participation from the young
and old, (it will need to be intergenerational), and will have to reach many
different economic, social, and cultural levels. To develop a living center for
Hawaiian cultural education takes the commitment from many individuals and
organizations- federal, state, community, and non-profit groups on many different
levels, now and forever.
91
In the future, the next generation of participants will have to decide for
themselves whether a place of Hawaiian cultural immersion is of value to them.
What will the future hold?. The younger generation has to take ownership of the
project and want to learn about cultural practice. Will they be interested? Will
some of the ideas and visions of the creators of the original spirit report still be
heard and their ideas put into practice 100 years from now? How will the people
engage with the park then? Will there be continued interest in things from the
past? If you make it antiquated and focus on a specific time period that few
people have immediate knowledge of, will the community still be interested? How
will this value be presented in the future?
It’s no accident that KAHO came into being during the first Hawaiian
Renaissance in the 1970’s. It was a time of cultural renewal. This 1160 acre
area was found to be a significant place to rediscover and immerse oneself in
Hawaiian culture, many of its’ cultural sites were still intact and accessible; as
other sites throughout Hawaii were being lost to development. The effort to make
it a national park had the full support of many influential leaders and politicians in
Hawaii and nationally at the time. Now, over 30 years later, there may be another
opportunity. It can be argued that a renewed Hawaiian Renaissance is occurring
today with the many current interest in indigenous methods- as it relates to
science and the environment. “For the past century Hawai’i has been dominated
by a ‘Western’ model of marine environmental management. Recently, however,
there has been a renewed interest in the traditional management tools of marine
92
environmental management” (Jokiel, 2011, p.1).
The challenge now is to use the initial legislation that created the park, the
guiding documents such as the spirit report and GMP, and put these ideas into
practice with the resources available and the laws and regulations that need to
be followed. This is where the difficulty lies. The initial commission members and
others who eloquently expressed their ideas and vision in the past are no longer
here. The situation has become much more complicated. The national park is
now faced with severe development issues surrounding its boundaries; other
natural resource issues- such as the protection of its water rights are a top
priority.
With expanded park visitation, more regulations have been enacted. The
pressure on park resources is increasing. With shrinking budgets and limited
staffing, this will create difficulties to do many things. What will management’s
emphasis be? The political, economic and social climate has changed over the
years. The publics’ support of national parks has increased dramatically, but park
budgets have not.
Besides these considerations, there are also many practical considerations of
a CLC. Do people want an outdoor experience on a lava field with little shade
and few modern amenities? Will the participants feel as if they are living in a
fishbowl with other park visitors looking in? Will there be a blending of site
relevance and culture, a pocket of time that is authentic and realistic to the
spiritual and knowledge needs of the participants? Is the CLC just a romantic
93
idea, people living on the land practicing culture, and something many will not
participate in it? How authentic will this experience be considering there may not
be enough substantial knowledge about what life was really like at this place in
ancient times?
The challenge for agencies such as the National Park Service and others is to
go beyond protection and preservation in order to build community support and
engage in activities that renew the community. National parks need to allow
access to important cultural sites in a new way- while at the same time protecting
these sacred areas.
As other projects for the CLC are started, participants will hopefully continue
to reflect and renew their enthusiasm for Hawaiian cultural practice. This project
is about people in the community working together, learning and then teaching
the younger generation and getting them involved in their culture. The journey of
Makani Hou and others will hopefully measure its success by its ability to
educate others in culture and to reestablish relationships with the land in a
sustainable and respectful manner for future generations.
Role of the Researcher in the Future
I plan on remaining in my current role as an interpretive park ranger at KAHO
and will continue to help facilitate and plan with Makani Hou, using the skills I’ve
learned with PAR. Structures will be built within the next year, cultural
94
workshops and other events are being planned. I will help organize and
participate with these events and workshops. I will continue to help the group find
funding through partner organizations. Hawaiian cultural education is a primary
part of my job, therefore I plan on helping Makani Hou develop Hawaiian cultural
curriculum for the CLC- as it relates directly to the curriculum taught to school
groups who attend programs at the park. Another goal is to condense this
research report into an NPS publication that can be used by the agency and
others to document an important beginning for an important part of KAHO’s
mission and legislation
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon study results, the following recommendations are provided:
•
Establish a National Task Force on “Living Parks”. This group
would support NPS agency efforts to re-establish a place-based
relationship with Native peoples on federal lands.
•
Investment by NPS and other agencies to develop current and
relevant cultural curriculum to be used by the CLC and for others in
efforts related to teaching indigenous culture.
•
Start a process for developing procedures to sustain cultural live-in
center type efforts in other national parks.
•
Create and sustain partnerships -increased efforts to join with
Native peoples, other federal agencies, and community groups to
discover meanings where indigenous people are living on their
lands practicing their culture.
•
Increased park outreach and education- create welcoming
opportunities that will draw people to the park to get involved in
park educational activities and events.
95
REFERENCES
Alaska native heritage museum. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.alaskanative.net/
Arnold, R. (2011, November). Speech given at the National Association of
Interpretation Annual Conference, Las Vegas, NV.
Anderson, R. & Braud, W. (1998). Additional suggestions, ethical considerations
and future challenges. In Braud, W. & Anderson, R. (Eds.) Transpersonal
methods for the social sciences, pp.238-55. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Babbie, E. (2001). The practice of social research (9th ed.). Belmont, CA.:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Baptiste, I. (2005). Qualitative data analysis: Common phases, strategic
differences. Forum: Qualitative Social 2(3), Art. 22. Retrieved November
10, 2010 from http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114fqs0103226"http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0103226.
Benham, M.K.P., & Heck, R.H. (1998). Culture and educational policy in Hawai’i,
the silencing of native voices. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berger, P & Luckmann, T. (1966). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise
in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.
Bevevino, M. M., Dengel, J., & Adams, K. (May/June 1999). Constructivist theory
in the classroom: Internalizing concepts through inquiry learning. The
Clearing House, 72(5): 275-278.
Calhoun, E., (1994). How to Use Action Research in the Self-Renewing School.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Chad, J. (1984). Conservation and indigenous peoples: a study of convergent
interests. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 8(1): 68-73.
96
Charlot, J. (2005). Classical Hawaiian Education: Generations of Hawaiian
culture. Retrieved February 25, 2011 from
http://www2.Hawai‘i.edu/~charlot/CHE%20post/che.pdf.
Churchill, W. & Verne, S.H. (2004). Islands in captivity: The record of the
International Tribunal on the Rights of Indigenous Hawaiians. Cambridge,
MA: South End Press.
Cockburn, L., & Trentham, B. (2002). Participatory Action Research: Integrating
Community Occupational Therapy Practice and Research. Canadian
Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69(1):20-30.
Corney, G. (1996) An eclectic approach to qualitative research design in
geographical education, In Williams, M., Understanding geographical and
environmental education, pp. 76-91. New York, NY: Cassell Wellington
House.
Creswell, J.W. (2008) Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and
Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods
approaches (2nd ed.). (pp. 596-625). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J.W. (1999). Mixed-Method research: Introduction and application. In
G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Handbook of educational policy (pp. 455-472). San
Diego: Academic Press.
Dale, E. (1969) Audio-Visual Methods in Teaching(3rd ed). Austin, TX: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston: Chicago, Ill.
Dougherty, M. (2000) To Steal A Kingdom- Probing Hawaiian History (1st ed.)
Waimanalo, HI: Island Style Press.
Dustin, D. McAvoy, L.. & Rankin, J. (1991). Land ethics in a culturally diverse
society. Trends, 28(3), 25-27.
Field, T. (1995). Caring relationships with natural and artificial environments.
Environmental ethics, 17(3): 307-321.
97
Floyd, M. (1999). Race, ethnicity and use of the national park system, Social
science research review, 1(2):1-124. Retrieved January 2009 from
http://www.nps.gov/socialscience/waso/SSRR_2.pdf"www.nps.gov/socials
cience/waso/SSRR_2.pdf
Gon, S. M. (2006, September 05). Hawaiian culture and Conservation (revised
2006, September 05). Retrieved February 20th, 2011, from
http://www.Hawai‘iecoregionplan.info/culture.htm/"http://www.Hawai‘iecore
gionplan.info/culture.htm/
Greene, T. (1996). Cognition and management of place, in B.L. Driver, D. Dustin,
T. Baltic & G. Peterson (Eds.). Nature and the human spirit: toward an
expanded land management ethic, pp. 301-310. State College, PA:
Venture Publishing.
Grimwade, G. & Carter, B. (2000). Managing small heritage sites with
interpretation and community involvement. International Journal of
Heritage Studies, 6(1):33-48.
Gross, L. (1985). Life versus art: The interpretation of visual narratives. Studies
in Visual Communication,11(4):2-11.
Heelas, P., & Lock, A. (1981). Indigenous psychologies: The anthropology of self.
London: Academic Press.
Heron, J. & Reason, P. (2001). The practice of co-operative inquiry: research
with rather than on people, in: P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.) Handbook
of Action Research, pp. 179–188 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hughes, I. (2000). Gamma: Indigenous knowledge for reconciliation and
community action. Paper presented at the Participatory Action World Action
Conference, Ballarat, Sept., 2000.
Johnson, A. (2009). Kaloko-Honokōhau Cultural Live-in Center Environmental
Assessment (DRAFT) Kona, HI: Pacific West Region.
Jokiel, P. et al. (2011). Marine Resource Management in the Hawaiian
Archipelago: The Traditional Hawaiian System in Relation to the Western
Approach. Journal of Marine Biology, Volume 2011(1-16).
98
Kanahele, G. (1982). Hawaiian Renaissance. Honolulu, HI: Project Waiaha.
Kanahele, G. (1979). Speech at Polynesian Voyaging Society, Honolulu, May
1979.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1999). The action research planner. (3rd ed.).
Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.
Kemmis, S. & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research:
Communicative action and the public sphere (3rd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA:
Deakin University Press.
Kent, J. Ryan, J., Hunka, J. & Schultz, R. (1995) Cultural Attachment:
Assessments of Impacts to Living Culture: EIS statement prepared for
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson National Forest and
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. Aspen, CO.
Kidd, S. & Kral, M. (2005). Practicing participatory action research. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 187-195.
Lauffer, A. (1978). Social planning at the community level. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hill.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social.
Issues 2(4): 34-46.
Linnekin, J. (1982). Selling Hawaiian culture. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 6(3):1015.
LeBaron, C. Video Methods for Research on Strategy as Practice: Looking at
People, Places and Things. Retrieved October 4, 2010 from http//www.sas-p.org/files_news/LeBaron%20and%20Whittington%20-%video-based
Leinhardt, G. (1986). The Use of Video Technology in Science Teaching: A
Vehicle for Alternative Assessment. Teaching and Change, 2(1):14-30.
Levin, M. & Greenwood, D. (2008) Pragmatic action research and the struggle to
transform universities into learning communities. In: P. Reason & H.
Bradbury (Eds.) Handbook of Action Research, pp. 103-102. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
99
Mageo, J.M.M. (2001). Cultural memory: reconfiguring history and identity in the
post colonial pacific. Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools Land Assets
Division.
Maly, K. & Maly, O. (2003). Ka Hana Lawai’a, A me na Ko’a o na kai ‘ewalu. A
history of fishing practices and marine fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands
(Vol. 1). Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools Land Assets Division.
Merrie Monarch Hula Festival. Retrieved March 20, 2011 from
http://www.merriemonarch.com.
McNiff, J. (2002) Action research for professional development: Concise advice
for new action researchers. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
National Park Service, (2006). Pu’uhonua o Honaunau Historical Park Pu’kohola
National Historical Site Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park
Business Plan Fiscal Year 2006. Kona, HI: Pacific West Region.
National Park Service. (1990, September 13). Keepers of the treasures:
Protecting historic properties and cultural traditions on Indian lands. A
report on tribal preservation funding needs submitted to congress.
Washington, D.C.: Interagency Division.
National Park Service. (2005, September 30). Kaloko-Honokohau
National Historical Park Strategic Plan. Kona, HI: Pacific West Region.
National Park Service & Honokohau Study Advisory Commission. (1974). The
Spirit of Kaloko-Honokohau. San Francisco, CA: Western Regional Office.
National Park System Advisory Board. (2001). National Park System Advisory
Board Report. Wilmington, MA: Quebecor World Acme Printing.
National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, 1 U.S.C. § 95-625
(1979),http://www.fs.fed.
us/cdt/pdf_documents/pl_95-625.pdf.
NPS Conservation Study Institute. (2008). The Future of Working Cultural
Landscapes:
100
Parks, Partners, and Local Products, workshop report (powerpoint).
Park, P. (2001). Knowledge and participatory research. In P. Reason & H.
Bradbury (Eds.) Handbook of Action Research, pp. 81-90. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Parker, L. (1989). Native American Estate: the struggle over Indian and Hawaiian
Lands. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
Parsons, J. & McRae, P. Edifying action and site-based action research.
Presented at the Values and Leadership Conference, Sept. 27-29, 2007,
Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.
Pukui, M. K. (1983). ‘Olelo No’eau: Hawaiian proverbs and poetical sayings.
Honolulu, HI: Bishop Museum Press.
Pyrch, T. & Castillo, M. The Sights and Sounds of Indigenous Knowledge, In
P.Reason, H. Bradbury (Eds.) (2006), Handbook of Action Research,
p.379.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. (Eds.) (2006) Handbook of Action Research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Redmond, L. (1996). Diverse Native American perspectives on the use of sacred
lands. In B. Driver, D. Dustin, T.Baltic, G.Elsner, & G. Peterson (Eds.),
Nature and the human spirit: Toward an expanded land management
ethic, pp.127-133. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Rosenstein, B. (2002). Video use in social science research and program
evaluation. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 1 (3), Article 2.
Retrieved October 4, 2010 from http:www.ualbeta.ca/~ijqm.
Rowan, J. (2001). The humanistic approach to action research. In P. Reason &
H. Bradbury (Eds.) Handbook of action research, pp. 114-122. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Savin-Baden, M. & Wimpenny, K. (2007, May). Exploring and implementing
participatory action research. Journal of Geography in Higher Education,
31(2):331-343.
Schaver, M.C. (1985). National Park Values and Living Cultural Parks. Cultural
101
Survival Quarterly, 9(1): 20-28.
Spoon, Jeremy (2010, November 17). Speech given at National Association of
Interpretation Convention, Las Vegas, NV.
Stannard, D.E. (2000, April 30). The Hawaiians: Health, justice and sovereignty.
Cultural Survival Quarterly, 24(1):26-35.
State of Hawaii Census (2010). State & county quickfacts: Hawaii. Retrieved
November 25, 2010, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/
15/15001.html
Stokowski, P.A. (2002). Languages of place and discourses of power:
Constructing new senses of places. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(4),
368-382.
Stringer, E. (2007). Action research (3rd Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Stringer, E. (1999). Action research (1st Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Tsai, M. Hawaiian Renaissance: enduring resolve to maintain cultural and
political identity sowed seeds of sovereignty movement. (2009, August
19). Honolulu Advertiser, pp.A1-A2, main.
Wali, A. (Ed.). (2006). Collaborative Research. Chicago, IL: The Field Museum.
102
APPENDIX A
List of Abbreviations and Acronymns
103
CLC = Cultural Live-in Center
EA = Environmental Assessment
KAHO = Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park
NPS = National Park Service
PAR = Participatory Action Research process
104
APPENDIX B
Hawaiian Words and their Meanings
105
‘ai – to eat
‘aina- the land- a place where Hawaiians get their inspiration.
ahupua’a – Hawaiian type of land division with resources from the
mountains to the sea.
Heiau- sacred rock structure used for worship.
Hokule’a- Well-known Polynesian voyaging canoe that has sailed the
South Pacific on numerous voyages.
Ho’okupu- Gift
Hula Halau- a Hula group
Halau- A Hawaiian House
Hale- A Hawaiian House- in ancient Hawai‘i these were separated by
function.
Hale ‘aina -women’s eating/general purpose building
Hale kapi'o -lean-to shelter
Hale kuku-craft house
Hale moe -dormitory or sleeping house
Hale mua -men’s house
Hale noa -family house
Hale papa’i- storehouse
Kānaka, ‘ōiwi, kānaka maoli or Hawai‘i maoli- Native Hawaiians
kama‘aina- a local person who has spent some time in Hawai‘i.
Kauhale- a Hawaiian group of houses.
106
Kukui- Polynesian introduced tree. Hawaiians used the oil in the seed
to burn for light
and it was also used to make leis.
kuleana -personal responsibility
kūpuna - a respected elder
Lono- a Hawaiian god of the harvest and clouds.
Makahiki- an annual Hawaiian festival celebrating the harvest.
Malama- to take care of
‘olelo no’eau- a Hawaiian proverb
opelu- a small ocean fish common in Kona
‘ohana- family
pule- prayer
ulu- breadfruit
pa’a kai- salt-making
lauhala- weaving with the pandanus plant
107
APPENDIX C
Cultural Live-In Center Strategic Planning Session Notes
108
Date: June 21 & 22, 2008
Place: Hale Na Opio o ka Aina Dormitory, Honaunau, HI
Facilitator: Carrie Kuwada Phipps
Participants: 19 total including NPS staff
I.
AGREEMENT TO PLAN
A. MODEL EXPLAINED AND AGREEMENT ATTAINED
1. All components of the model and their relationship to each other are
explained.
2. Given their current understanding of the strategic planning process,
the group was willing to commit themselves to the one-day process.
B. GROUND RULES
• Maintain a positive attitude
• Be clear and concise
• Switch seats during breaks
• Respect others
• Avoid being defensive about your own ideas
• Listen attentively and avoid interrupting others
• Resist the temptation to put words into another person's mouth
• Avoid side conversations while someone else has the floor
C. EXPECTATIONS FOR SUCCESS
1. What is going to have to happen at the retreat to enable you to feel it
was a success? An evaluation was done at the end of the retreat and
indications that they were met are as follows: + = met, - = unmet,
check = partially met
• More knowledge
+
• Develop a group identity with goals going into the future
+
• A concrete plan that will last into the future
+
• Get energy from process to go forward from thoughts to action
+
• Complete agenda and develop mission and goals
+
• Get it going!
+
• Working plan to put in process by next year
+
109
• To ensure that right stories and process are being told and followed
+
• Group identity
• To create concrete projects
+
• Mechanism to resolve conflicts and issues
+
• Plans for place and process bringing conceptual plans into reality
+
• Group process moving forward in positive direction
+
II. ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN
A. VISIONING
1. What is the best possible future you can envision for your
ORGANIZATION 5 years from now?
• In perpetuity – the project still excites youth & community 5-10
years from now
• Planning group becomes consultants to other Native American
groups (i.e. Arts)
• Group will have created Kekaha descendant-led non-profit to comanage live in center with NPS/also advisory group
• Have developed financial wherewithal to acquire more (mauka)
lands
• Acquire entire Ahupua’a
• Actively recruiting youth
• A few full-time people – create jobs
• Subcommittees
• See what other Native American groups have/sharing of knowledge
• Strong grant writing and fund-raising group
• Consultant to other community group’s doing similar things in
Hawai‘i
• Creating jobs in area of cultural conservation
• Planning group to be training ground for Native Americans to
manage their own cultural and natural resources
• Good volunteer component
• Strong connections to other cultural/community groups local &
state-wide
• This group will be dissolved within 5 years and morphed into
something else
• NPS will continue to want to work with this group
110
2. What is the best possible future you can envision for this CULTURAL
LIVE-IN CENTER 5 years from now?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Thriving cultural landscape (native plants, fishpond, arts, etc.)
Primary place for generating/developing curricula which will
perpetuate traditional cultural practices, esp. oceanic
Canoe halau and several structures, reusing planters
Youth & cultural practitioners coming in
Replica of what was there
Archaeology & cultural landscape will be restored & functioning
Place people want to come
Kids learning traditional skills from elders
Annex to institutions of higher learning (higher degrees/post-grad
work)
Live-in village of fishermen/focus on fishpond and adjoining ponds
Focus on what was there (traditions)
Language used reflects the landscape (correct place names)
Only Hawaiian language spoken (Hawaiian Immersion)
Green center (composting toilets, solar, etc.)
Students do volunteer time (source for future hire)
Education is project/learning center
Financially sustainable
Non-native vegetation eradicated/replace with native plants
Fish pond wall completed
Native plants which can be used medicinally and for culture/arts
Somewhat self-sufficient
Become part of DOE’s curriculum within the Hawaiian studies
program-both elementary and higher ed
Center becomes managing resource for all fishponds
Community immersed totally in the culture (not a zoo)
A place for Hawaiians to recreate themselves without
embarrassment (not part of park exhibit)
Footprint of cultural center to expand into the park
Education will produce publications that will get into the public
Promote traditional forms of education and its value
Actively creating indigenous economics
Privacy- hedges, trees to give sense of 300 years ago
State will give 500 acres and center will restore & manage opelu
koa
Creating sense of place for artisans to deal with culture
Place-based education
Still building 5 years from now
111
•
Sustainable supply of all plant material for restoration/maintenance
B. EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT
1. What are TRENDS in the external environment that may have impact
on your organization?
• Sustainability
• Development
• Increasing momentum for Hawaiian Sovereignty
• Nose dive of tourism economy
• Increasing urbanization of West Hawai‘i
• Energy crisis
• Bureaucracy
• Restoration of sites
• Recession
• Population increase
• Elections
• Continuing diversion of Fed funds to defense
2. Identify STAKEHOLDERS in your organization's external
environment who: (a) are impacted by (End-user), (b) will implement
(Help) or (c) can block implementation of (Hinder) decisions made by
the organization?
• Elected officials
abc
• Kanaka maoli
abc
• Park descendants
abc
• Native Hawaiian sovereignty groups
abc
• Developers
bc
• Environmentalists
abc
• DOE
ac
• HNHA
ac
• Ala Kahakai
ac
• Hawaiian Civic Clubs
ac
• OHA
ac
• Ohana
abc
• DLNR
abc
• Na Ala Hele
abc
• Na kokua Kaloko Honokohau
abc
• Surrounding land owners
abc
• DOT
abc
• DHHL (Laiopua)
ac
• FAA
abc
• People with money to give
ac
112
• Fishermen
• Cultural Practitioners
• Hawai‘i county
• Visitor/tourism industry (HTA)
• University
• Private schools
• Community
• Hawai‘i Burial Council
• Local businesses
• Park visitors
• Park employees
abc
abc
abc
ac
ac
ac
abc
abc
ac
abc
abc
3. Identify COMPETITORS in your organization's external environment
that may have impact on the organization?
• State parks
• Other National parks
• County parks
• Other cultural attractions
• Amy Greenwell Center
• Alternative activities
4. Identify potential COLLABORATORS in your organization's external
environment who the organization may work with in the future?
• People with money
• HNHA
• Na Kokua Honokohau
• Developers
• TREE Hawai‘i
• OHA
• DHHL
• DOE
• Descendants
• HI. Civic clubs
• Other Fed/State agencies
• Other NPS Friends groups
• Volunteers
• NPCA
• Keoli Nahihi Heiau
113
C. INTERNAL ENVIRONMENT
1. What RESOURCES, CLIMATE OR OTHER FACTORS within the
organization can help or hinder it from achieving its desired future
(like items have been clustered together and the title of the cluster
bolded).
Akamai
• Lots of talented people
• Representation from all walks of life
• Diverse group
• Wealth of knowledge
• Knowledgeable
• Cultural education
• Power to Act!
• We all have same goal, different methods
Dedication
• Dedicated (2)
• Committed (2)
• Solidarity
• Kokua
• Love of place and commitment
Busy/Anxious
• We are losing people because of lack of action
• Some frustrated with time beginning to present
• Committee willing to site and discuss – not for long
• Very busy with LOTS of other important things
Ohana
• Ohana (2)
• Respect for descendants of ahupua’a
Outreach
• Who’s not here that should be here?
• We’re missing people
Vision
• Mission statement
• Vision
• Foundation for the greatness that is to come
114
Need for resources
• Need maintenance
• Need equipment
Communication Internally/Externally
• Need communication
• Need agreement
Additional stand-alone thoughts:
• Enforcement (power to act, follow-through)
• We need to make sure we incorporate ideas from previous
meetings/planning processes
• What were the blocks that caused us to take 30 years to create the
cultural live-in place?
III. MISSION
A. VALUES
1. The values you have drive the work you do. What are your most
important organization-related values? Like items have been clustered
together and participants voted to indicate the values of highest
priority
Votes
a. Aloha (Malama/Respect/Honesty/Integrity)
b. Lokahi “working together cooperatively”
c. Kuleana (accepting responsibility)
d. Spirituality/Ike
e. Kupono (fairness)/Pono (correct, just)
11
9
8
5
4
B. UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS
1. Given the values you have, you develop underlying assumptions
about how the world operates. These assumptions determine how you
behave and how you expect others to behave.
At this point in the process, participants divided into small groups
representing each of the priority value clusters and they defined
behaviors indicative of that cluster. Each group was told to make
sure that the behaviors listed were concrete (i.e. behaviors that can
be seen) and that each member of the small group could live with
and support each behavior. If a member of the group could not live
with one of the behaviors, the group would initially try to wordsmith
115
the statement to make it acceptable. If this effort was not successful,
the behavior was struck from the list.
When the larger group reconvened, the lists were shared and members of the
larger group were asked to indicate their agreement for all items on each of
the lists. As with the small groups, if a member of the large group could not
live with one of the behaviors, the group would initially try to wordsmith the
statement to make it acceptable. If this effort was not successful, the behavior
was struck from the list. The final lists below represent behaviors everyone in
the room could live with and support (i.e. this is how they will behave in the
future and expect others to do the same).
a. Aloha (malama/respect/honesty/integrity)
• Communication: maintain open and positive communication;
listen with an open mind/as an ally/with empathy (positive body
language, facial expression, eye contact)
• Agree to disagree – communicate differences in a nonthreatening manner
• Keep in mind the greater good/bigger picture in
communication/practice active listening
• Resolve differences with people directly, not by gossiping or
talking behind their back
• Facilitate others to communicate directly
• Everyone to feel free to express themselves without feeling
threatened/intimidated
• Be tolerant of differences and be patient
• “Embracing”
• Be able to forgive others any offenses (be willing to make
amends)
b. Lokahi
• Work together toward a common agreed on product and the
process to get there
• Utilize each others’ talents and skills accordingly/don’t make
someone do something they’re not comfortable doing
c. Kuleana
• Accept responsibility with the greater good in mind
• Follow through on your commitments/accept your role and part
and fulfill it.
C. MISSION STATEMENT
1. Are the values and underlying assumptions discussed above
reflected in your organization's mission statement? If not, does the
116
statement need to be updated? Group of volunteers took the core
shared values and the important words & phrases the group
highlighted and formed a group identity (name) and draft mission
statement.
Group Name: Makani Hou o Kaloko-Honokohau
Literal & symbolical “New Wind” of Kaloko-Honokohau, this “new wind”
represents a refreshing, cleansing and renewal evolving wind. To keep it
alive and fresh. To help cleanse & refresh the area.
Draft Mission Statement:
Makani Hou o Kaloko-Honokohau
We are committed to working in partnership with the NPS,
embracing values including Aloha, Lokahi & Kuleana
to establish and manage a Live-In Cultural Education Center
that will preserve, respect & perpetuate
our unique traditional Hawaiian legacy for future generations.
IV. SWOT [At this point in the process, participants identified: (A) Strengths, (B)
Weaknesses, (C) Opportunities and (D) Threats.]
A. STRENGTHS [This group prioritized your organization's strengths listed
below.]
Prioritized list of strengths:
1. Congressional Legislative Mandate (12)
2. Kanaka maoli – cultural knowledge/ kuleana
(11)
3. Large network of influence/support (10)
4. Different backgrounds/expertise, diverse (8)
B. WEAKNESSES [This group prioritized your organization's weaknesses
listed below.] Prioritized list of weaknesses:
1. Not sanctioned, no authority (12)
2. Overcommitted/too busy, time constraints (12)
3. Not a non-profit, funding
(10)
C. OPPORTUNITIES
[This group prioritized the items listed. The group also determined the
probability of each item presenting itself]:
Probability
1. Become a non-profit
High
2. Grants
High
3. Outreach/partnerships/volunteer manpower
Medium
4. Training/education for group
Med/High
5. Congressional support
Med
117
D. THREATS
[This group prioritized the items listed. The group also determined the
probability of each item presenting itself]:
Probability
1. Natural Disasters
High
2. Lack of funding
High
3. Recession
High
4. Development
High
5. Human disasters(pollution, lack of water, etc.)
High
V. STRATEGIC ISSUES
Issues were identified by individual participants and similar items have been
clustered together and the title of the cluster bolded.
Brainstormed list – categorized
Funding
• Being non-profit (4)
• Funding (6)
• Financial stability
• Secure special congressional funding specifically for the live-in center
Visible Projects
• Not moving forward with existing momentum
• Implementation
• Need to start projects on the ground (eg. Ipu planter – start growing ipu!)
• Focus on fishpond restoration and fish production
• Need for site-planning & visuals so people can see what group’s vision for
the CLIC
• Volunteers
• Thriving cultural landscape
• Not engaging community/individuals already willing to help with center
Continued Commitment of Time & People
• Time (2)
• Our planning group MUST meet at least once a month to maintain progress
& commitment
• Recruitment – sustainability of the group
• Committed group
Resources
• NPS resources MUST be available to support our planning group &
implement our actions
118
•
•
•
•
Partnerships (collaboration)
Community education
Educate community re: mission
Organizational skills (green)
Threats
• Natural disasters
• Recession
• No authority
Additional Stand Alone Thoughts
• Group expectation
• Employment
After a thorough discussion, the planning committee decided to focus on
funding as THE Priority Strategic Issue to address first and foremost.
Funding was seen to be the “Driver” Issue that once addressed, would
begin to impact the other strategic issues that came up.
Strategic Issue (Definition): A problem or opportunity that, if action is not
taken on it now, is likely to saddle the organization with unbearable future
costs.
Strategic Issue: Funding. Force Field Analysis conducted for the
development of the Compelling Case:
Brainstorming ideas on desired future/Best case scenario:
• Have money
• Work on all projects
• Employ people
• Operate/maintain center to perpetuity
• Effective non-profit
• Purchase mauka lands
• Self-sustaining center
• Amazing cultural programs
• Working fish ponds/aquaculture programs
• Give money to other parks/programs
• Showcase for NPS
• Sharing knowledge with others – set precedence
• Live-in Cultural center with repository for collections (natural & cultural)
• Scholarships/youth programs
• Landscape restored to native plants
• World’s best resource center
• Educational programs
119
Brainstorming ideas on worst case scenario:
• Extinction of group
• No center
• No funds
• No support for cultural education
• Accumulated culture related to Kona Kahakai area will be lost
• Not sustaining
• Invasive (pickle weed) take over
• Kaloko-Honokohau culture not sustained
• Park responsibility not met
Brainstorming ideas on current reality:
• Some/very limited funds
• No center
• Some manpower
• Lack of interest
• Continued dependency on volunteers
• No manpower currently focused on project
• No non-profit
Brainstorming ideas on sustaining forces:
• Grants & endowments
• Starting non-profit status
• Committed people
• Kuleana
• Aloha
• Community support
• Congressional support
• Continued planning meetings to focus group
• NPS commitment
Brainstorming ideas on restraining forces:
• Lack of identity
• Lack of organization
• Lack of time
• Lack of commitment•
• Lack of cooperation
• Lack of community support
• Deepening recession
Compelling Case: Volunteers Mandy, Richard and Jon put together a
compelling case narrative from the information gathered from the force field
analysis. This narrative assists the group in organizing their thoughts and
get agreement about key aspects of this strategic issue. The desired
120
outcome is to develop a case compelling enough to motivate people to
commit to action immediately (stakeholders that aren’t here, those whose
help you need to enlist for the action plan to be successfully
implemented/achieved).
The cost of building, managing & sustaining a cultural live-in center
complete with infrastructure, curriculum and staffing will require a
substantial amount of funds.
With no direct funding from the NPS, outside funding is necessary and
required to meet the goals of the center.
If Makani Hou o Kaloko Honokahau is not able to secure funding, the
cultural “live-in” center may not be built and the accumulated cultural
knowledge of our kūpuna may be lost. This will result in future generations
suffering a tremendous loss as this opportunity to learn about their unique
Pacific Island cultural heritage would be lost.
The group also decided to focus on “Visible Projects” as their second
strategic issue in addition to the Funding Issue.
EVALUATION
Day 1
+
(What Liked/Went Well)
• Got more done than expected
• Collaboration
• Well planned out agenda
• Lots of participation
• Respectful
• Focused
• Food
• Brainstorming
• Lots of progress
• Focus by facilitator
• 2 scribes
• Process
DAY 2
∆
(What to change to improve)
• More chocolate
• Keep on track with agenda
VI. GOALS
A.LIST GOALS the group initially brainstormed the following goals and
prioritized goals were chosen to be worked on. Action verb+desired outcome=
Goal: Medium to long range time frame (3-5 years)
121
Given the issues prioritized in the last section, what are some goals which will
help you address the funding issue (brainstormed list)?
• Establish subcommittees
• Establish non-profit
• Explore internal funding
• Establish budget
• Develop list of funding sources
• Develop internal/external grant writing capabilities
• Pursue internal NPS funding in partnerships
• Develop volunteer parameters (plan, hours, etc.)
• Develop management/maintenance plans
• Identify existing non-profit umbrella
• Design site plan (use Nainoa’s conceptual plan)
• Seek philanthropic individuals & foundations
• Fund-raising efforts
• Seek state/county/oha/ana funding
• NPS contract fund-raising specialist
• Seek community support
• Seek congressional funding
• Seek matching funds
• Discuss fund-raising ideas with Pacific Islanders
• Put tip/kitty jars at National Parks/Businesses, etc.
• Concession at Park
Visible projects issue (brainstormed list):
• Look at current GMP for current projects that will impact CLIC
• Look at footprint of selected site. Assess inventory.
• Create a briefing paper on current GMP projects that impact directly
on site.
B. PRIORITIZE GOALS
1. Prioritize those goals which have the best potential of enabling you to
achieve your desired future.
GOALS/OBJECTIVES AND ACTION PLAN
GOAL 1: Establish funding mechanism to build, operate and manage
Cultural Live-In Center
Objective 1: By June 2009, MaKani Hou will have established their
501C3
Action Steps:
1. Establish 501C3 subcommittee
122
• Follow up with another non-profit organization for info. on
process and attorney costs by 6/30/08
• Create interim board by today: all group members present part
of board except for NPS staff
• register name of planning committee asap
2. Set follow-up meeting date. Makani Hou members to meet on
August 2, 2008 at 9:00 a.m. at the Kaloko-Honokohau Park Office.
Geri to work on details.
3. Subcommittee to file for non-profit status by 11/30/08
Objective 2: Seek immediate funding for operational costs covering
the period of June 2008 through June 2009 (operational costs: airfare,
phone, food, mailbox, etc.
Action Steps:
1. Determine budget for coming year. Includes monthly meetings for
next 6 months. Meetings will be on the third Saturday of each
month beginning in September. Participation by phone conference
or face to face.
determine 08/09 budget
2. Look to HNHA by 7/30 for additional operating funds.
3. Kitty to be established by next meeting for those who want to
contribute funds for expenses. Member needed to oversee fund.
4. Sign-up sheet for snacks/pot-luck. All to sign up today for upcoming
meetings.
5. seek two additional alternative funding sources for $$$ and report
at August meeting.
Objective 3: Develop plan/proposal to secure Congressional funding
by 12/30/08 (to include: budget justification, description of project,
GPRA goals, outcomes, etc.).
Action Steps:
1. propose draft to board by 12/08 meeting
2. staff to submit proposal by 12/30/08
3. inform board re: letters of support submission to congress (begin
with Senators and Maize first)
Objective 4: Explore internal NPS project funding by 12/2010
(Centennial funding, etc.). Follow-up by NPS staff.
GOAL 2: Complete prioritized existing ON-SITE projects (includes:
planting, landscaping, site prep, elevation of site, soil sampling,
access/egress issues)
123
Objective 1: By December 2009, MaKani Hou will complete the Perimeter
Planting project
Action Steps:
1. NPS staff to complete EA by 12/30/08
1. reconnaissance of perimeter areas by 7/30/08
2. NPS to complete archaeological survey (cultural & natural) of planting
area (50’ buffer) by 10/30/08
3. MaKani Hou members to acquire plantings (puhala, niu, Hawaiian
dryland forest plants, kou, hau, ko pili grass) and bring them on site
for isolation between 6/30 – 8/30/08. Completion of isolation by
10/30/08.
4. Work group (MaKani Hou members and volunteers) to plant between
7/30 – 12/30/08.
5. Volunteer workers to be recruited by MaKani Hou members by
7/15/08. Set planting work dates.
6. Volunteer workers to set up drip irrigation system by 7/1/08.
7. create a briefing paper on current GMP projects that impact directly on
site and share with board/committee at August meeting.
GOAL 3: Complete prioritized existing OFF-SITE projects (includes:
restoration of ponds, creation of opelu koa, restoration of anchialine
ponds, canoe halau)
Objective 1: By July 2009, MaKani Hou will complete the restoration of
selected planters (one to be pololei/others enhanced)
Action Steps:
1. NPS staff to include Kūpuna in consultation re: soil restoration by
9/30/08. Committee members to input regarding determination of
plants/purpose.
2. Namahiai subcommittee and soil restoration to begin by 10/30/08
3. NPS staff to document soil restoration process
4. Namahiai subcommittee to continue malama of planters
EVALUATION
Day 2
•
•
•
•
•
•
+
(What Liked/Went Well)
Action phase
committee
Confront reality
Timeline
Meshing needs of NPS and group
Liked how group worked together
Name & Mission statement
∆
(What to change to improve)
• Future facilitation training for
• AWA consumption – need for all
• Assets mapping
124
•
•
•
•
•
Food & snacks
Facilitator moving us forward with dates
Discussed supporting projects
Focus by facilitator
Recorder
*Final note from Facilitator: Congratulations on a job well done by all. You have
your work cut out for you as you move towards creating your desired future.
Stick to your plan & don’t get distracted by running after other ideas that
“sound good”. Most of all . . . enjoy your journey – this is a process and not a
final destination. You will soon be having many successes to put under your
belt.
You may want to massage your MISSION STATEMENT a little more to clarify
it as it will have to be CLEAR to funders as you establish your non-profit
status. Funders/Grantors will need to have a clear understanding of your
mission and any Hawaiian language words may need to be defined as
although you may understand them, others may not. It would be a good idea
for you to have some outsiders (non native Hawaiians) who are not familiar
with your organization read your mission statement and see how clear it is to
them. This will give you a good indication of how well it would be understood
by the “powers that be”. Once again, thank you for the honor and privilege of
working with Makani Hou o Kaloko-Honokohau.
125
APPENDIX D
Introductory Letter to Participants, First Meeting (SPI)
126
Aloha kakou!My name is Jon Jokiel and I am a second-year graduate student in an online
Resource Interpretation program through Stephen F. Austin State University in
Texas. As part of my master’s degree studies I will be conducting research and
preparing a thesis proposal. I have chosen to explore the development of the
cultural live-in center at Kaloko Fishpond as a topic. I grew up in Kaneohe and I
have lived in Hawaii for most of my life. My dad is a coral reef marine biologist who
helped develop HIMB marine laboratory on Coconut Island (Moku o Lo’e) in
Kaneohe Bay in the late 1960’s. After living on the mainland for a dozen years, I
moved back to Hawaii and I have lived in Kailua-Kona for 3 years.
Recently, I accepted a permanent park-guide position at Kaloko-Honokohau
NHP; a position I have held as a seasonal then term employee for almost 3 years. I
have also worked on Alcatraz Island in California and at Mt. Rainier National Park in
Washington State as an interpretive park ranger.
For my master’s degree program, I have been asked to conduct a research
project on a topic of my choice. I would like to work with everyone who is
participating in the process of developing a cultural ‘live-in’ center, providing
whatever support and assistance is needed by you and cooperating partners.
I acknowledge challenges may arise as part of the process of developing this
cultural resource center, challenges we may not anticipate. The development of a
cultural live-in center is unique in National Parks and throughout the country.
As a part of my initial research proposal I have been asked to consider potential
challenges for the process of developing, and opportunities related to, this cultural
‘live-in’ center. In summary, I chose the following four points.
•
Preliminary research suggests that there are very few models for what we
are trying to accomplish here—the development of a cultural live-in center
for Native Hawaiians.
•
Before the direction of this project is established, I ask to gather input and
ideas from all participants including, What questions arise about
developing a cultural live-in center? What would success look like? What
do we need to do to accomplish our vision? Are there any areas that might
be problematic? Are there any areas where the group would benefit from
additional information?
•
The purpose of this study will be to identify what the group wants (and
needs) to know, and to assist in providing the group with information and
assistance to accomplish project goals.
127
•
My hope is to listen to and record participation, as you would want it to be
recorded and to participate in the process of creating a cultural live-in
center for the Hawaiian people on land that is Wahi pana—a very special
place with a unique mandate. As the process develops, it has the potential
to serve as a model for the Native Hawaiian community and other cultural
groups around the world.
Today I am here in the role of a student to participate and learn, and to help you
in whatever ways I can with this goal of establishing a live-in center for Native
Hawaiians. It is my hope that this study will explore a process to facilitate
Hawaiian’s cultural immersion and a feeling of pride in the learning and relearning of
Hawaiian ways.
Aloha nui loa!
Jon Jokiel
128
APPENDIX E
Abbreviated Meeting Summaries
(August 2008- January 2011)
129
August 2, 2008 at Kaloko-Honokōhau National Historical Park Headquarters
Attendees: 10 members, 4 NPS Staff
This meeting discussed the procedures for monthly meetings, how many
members will be on the board, and nominations were made. Will there be an
advisory board? It was decided that group will be a 501c3 with a membership
organization to expand in the future. They need to find a lawyer to help with the
application. Clarified that the ‘live-in’ center will be a place for the exclusive use
of cultural practioners. There was a discussion of expanding community
participation from people who live in the area and those who don’t.
September 20, 2008 at Nawahiokalaniopu’u Hawaiian Immersion School in
Puna
Attendees: 8 members, 4 NPS staff
This meeting focused on nominations to the board of directors and the group
pursuing 501c3 status as an organization, the sponsorship by another 501c3
organization and other administrative topics. A short report about the proposed
location of the CLC and a soil test for planting trees at site. Part of the meeting
was discussion about the application for grants, the policy that membership in
Makani Hou is open to all who would like to help the group, as long as they
accept mission and goals of the CLC. Advisory by park- Issue of fishing in the
fishpond presented to the group as there were recent problems with overfishing
in the pond. Some input by member whose family lived near the pond and a
member discussed how they fished at the site. Discussion on developing a
subcommittee to manage the fishpond in the future.
October 18, 2008 at Kaloko Fishpond from 8am- noon.
Attendees: Six members and two NPS staff
Before meeting began members walked a new trail to proposed CLC location on
north side of park. Topics discussed were overview of last meeting, working
group committees, superintendents’ report, review of grant information and
discuss correspondence. Administrative tasks included corrections to last
meetings minutes and talk of how the organization would be structured, and
update on masters work projects by students.
Discussion of membership, can members be non-Hawaiian? How to recruit and
how will fundraising be done?
130
December 5, 2008 at Pu’ukohola NHS maintenance offices, Kawaihae, Hawai‘i.
Attendees: five members and two NPS staff.
10:00 am-11:00am. Short hike to visit John Young’s Kauhale (House site). The
purpose for this visit was to observe a historical house site to spur ideas for
construction of structures that Makani Hou will be building in the future.
The beginning of the meeting consisted of administrative actions to set up
checking account, create a logo and letterhead, and then to designate an official
address. Motions were made to accept previous minutes, and other executive
actions discussed, including reviewing grant applications and a discussion on a
process to pursue a 501c3 application. There was some discussion on naming
the Live-In center location with a Hawaiian name. Second half of the meeting
focused on working group reports; including a work plan for the method of
construction for the CLC. One member suggested that the “curriculum drives the
center,” and the discussion then focused on the idea that if planting and clearing
happen in an area that it is done in a culturally appropriate way and that
participants are trained. This includes all aspects, Same is done for building a
hale and collecting material, cultural links and learning should be included. The
group wishes to schedule a blessing of the area and a workshop before any work
begins at the site.
January 17, 2009 9AM at KAHO Park Offices.
Attendees: 5 members, 1 NPS Staff
The first part of the meeting was spent discussing old business including review
of December meeting minutes, drafting letters in regards to several park issues,
and a thank you letter the secretary is drafting for the field trip the group went on
in September to Kea’au. There was a discussion about applying for grants in a
tough financial year, where most funds are emphasizing food, shelter, and
emergency funds. The next part of the meeting was a discussion of working
groups needed to get the job done of creating the organization. Members
remarked on the necessity of these working groups, along with the desire that the
center will generate learning “curriculum”. The group discussed that a blessing
needs to be scheduled soon for the site. One member remarked that “you can’t
teach how to bless; it comes from the Na’au (spiritual center). Anyone can do a
prayer but not everyone can do a blessing.” The next part of the meeting focused
on committee reports, fundraising and a work plan for the construction ofa hale
and other structures at the Live-In site. The end of the meeting was the
superintendent’s report about development issues around the park.
131
February 21, 2009 10AM at KAHO Park Offices
Attendees: 6 members 3 NPS staff.
First part of meeting was the correction and approval of minutes from the
January meeting, a secretary and treasurer’s report, and a report on old
business. It was discussed that the documents for a mission statement and
bylaws were being drafted and a Hawaiian name was needed for the center.
Comment was made about the difficulty to name a specific place. A member
noted, “For them everywhere was a special place for them, it was all their home,
hard to give it a name” Discussion about contacting Cultural Historian and artist
Herb Kane regarding his help on drawings for CLC and his knowledge of
building Hale ( A Hawaiian home). External Affairs about writing a grant for
Makani Hou. Discussion of a community event/public relation tie-in. Comment
made that the park is for Hawaiians, not visitors and somehow that got put aside.
Working group reports from building group and fundraising/membership.
Superintendent’s report about development around the park and the intervening
and comment on a development next to the park. The park is working with a
person from the school of tropical agriculture planting of pili, a native grass used
for thatching.
March 21, 2009 10AM at KAHO Park Offices.
Attendees: 4 members, 3 NPS staff
Meeting consisted of a review of old minutes, a report from the Superintendent
and a few members who visited with Herb Kane, A local Historian and artist who
was involved in providing sketches for the report that created the park, The Spirit
of Kaloko-Honokohau. Board members had a discussion about working with
another non-profit organization for an event that has similar mission and goals in
working with the Hawaiian culture.
April 25, 2009 9AM at Kaloko Fishpond
Attendees: 5 members, 3 NPS staff
The first part of the meeting discussed a few members overnight experience at
the proposed CLC site and the impressions they had of the noise, light and
location. The main meeting focused on review of by-laws that are in process, a
working group report on the need for a screen of trees (buffer landscape) to
shade the light and noise from the industrial area and the highway mauka
(towards mountain) from the park. Discussion about sponsoring an event with
132
another non-profit and seeking funds from an upcoming grant workshop.
Superintendent’s report was on the reestablishment of the park advisory
committee next year, appointees are nominated from the Department of the
Interior.
June 20, 2009 9AM at KAHO Park Offices.
Attendees: 6 members, 4 NPS staff.
Meeting started with Secretary’s Report, discussion on formally adopting a
letterhead for the organization. Motion to adopt bylaws and articles of
incorporation. Environmental Assessment for CLC – report on progress and
status- many details for getting facilities on site, planning, etc. Other news,
nomination of new secretary, master planning (structures), fundraising support.
Superintendent’s Report and resource manager’s report on development around
the park and an issue with Jellyfish in the fishpond.
August 15, 2009 at KAHO Park Offices.
Attendees: 7 members, 2 NPS staff
Review of, establish, and adopt Makani Hou o Kaloko Honokohau by-laws,
Secretary and Treasurer matters, work party schedule, board member
designation vs. non-board member, 501c3 paperwork, other administrative
matters.
September 19, 2009 at KAHO Park Offices.
Attendees: 6 members and 2 NPS staff
First part of meeting was administrative items: official address, attendance at a
grant writing workshop, setting up checking account, status of funds, and by-laws
review. Environmental Assessment and Master Plan working group reports with
status of when they will be completed (approx. 6 months?). Scheduling of
External Scoping Meeting(s) for public input that will be needed for final
assessment. Second half discussion of recent volunteer work with site clearing,
report that all events were a success. Discussion of setting up a volunteer
program, working with a plant researcher to grow native plants in the park,
testimony by park and Makani Hou for a zoning hearing for an adjacent park
property. Report by Superintendent on nominations to Hoapili commission to
advise the park, discussion of funds to finish Kaloko fishpond wall.
133
October 17, 2009 at KAHO offices.
Attendees: 8 members, 3 NPS staff
The first part of the meeting was discussion of administrative items, a
determination of the address for Makani Hou , bank accounts and a discussion of
a member attending a grant workshop regarding a grant proposal the group will
be applying for. Discussion of a Memo of Understanding with the park and the
details to be contained within it. NAI conference attendance and video rights for a
video about Makani Hou that will be shown. Reports from Fundraising
Committees and Membership. Details on Planting in area, gathering construction
material, and acquiring trees to build house structures.
November 21, 2009 at KAHO offices.
Attendees: 9 members, 2 NPS Staff
First part of meeting was primarily administrative with committee reports and
update on grant process. NPS staff member and student request info from group
for a project in Hawaiian studies. Makani Hou member reports that his land can
be used to harvest trees for structures to be built. Members to develop tri-fold
brochure with logo for organization. Report on suitability of elementary school
near the park that would be a good location to grow ti plants, a plant material
used for cultural uses. The garden coordinator is on the board and would work to
develop a partnership to have the kids involved. By-laws discussion and planning
for public scoping meetings for Environmental Assessments. Superintendent’s
report on various park issues.
January 20, 23, 2010 at KAHO offices/ second day at Kaloko Fishpond.
Attendees: 7 members, 3 NPS staff
Discussion of finishing the production of Makani Hou Brochure and the planning
for public scoping meetings for Cultural Live-In Center. Secretary’s report, the
finalizing of official organization address, the group accepted last meeting
minutes. Discussion of the preferred sites for the CLC. Treasurer’s report on
finances and potential fundraising opportunities in the future. ANA grant details
and a discussion on the hiring of new superintendent for the West Hawai‘i
national parks. Dry land reforestation project 43 report from local school and Jon
Discussion of his Master’s Thesis work.
134
February 23, 2010 at King Kamehameha Hotel, Kona, Hawai‘i.
Attendees: 8 members, 4 NPS Staff.
Introduction of interim superintendent and discussion. A motion proposed to write
a letter to deputy regional director to hire permanent Hawaiian superintendent.
Grant writing details and more information about environmental assessment work
for CLC site that is being done. Responses received on impact to the site.
Preparation to get a workshop going in the community to inform about Makani
Hou.
March 20, 2010 at KAHO park offices.
Attendees: 10 members, 3 NPS staff
Approval of Memo of understanding agreement between NPS and Makani Hou.
Treasurer’s report on funds, discussion of congressional earmark and that
Makani Hou would not be eligible for this; because of the signed agreement with
NPS. The group’s energy will be put into working on a large grant. Former
Superintendent inquiring about ethics-- if she would be continuing to attend
meetings after her retirement. Answer was that she would not be able to attend
executive meetings if other NPS employees attend. Name for now of CLC site
voted on to be Na Leo Kahiko (Voices of the past). Considering changing
members of board from 7 to 9 and changing out board members in future.
April 24, 2010 at KAHO park offices.
Attendees: 12 members and 5 NPS staff
First Half of meeting was a presentation by Ala Kahakai National Historical Trail.
The trail has a kuleana (responsibility) to the community to provide a corridor.
Work with descendent groups and provide capacity building. Involve children and
partners to help, state agencies and trail organizations. Treasurer’s report.
Discussion on the preparation and status for a major grant. Status of renewing a
federal advisory commission for the park. Presentation at State Capitol by
Makani Hou. Clarification of the members that serve on the executive committee.
135
July 23, 2010 at KAHO park offices.
Attendees: 8 members and 3 NPS staff.
The meeting started with the introduction of the New Superintendent for the
park. Next on the agenda was a nomination of two members to the board of
directors. These were seconded by membership. Discussion of planting at the
CLC site and the removal of invasive plants. What is the landscape status? How
would materials be collected and where would materials be stored for the CLC
site? Master plan group forming and moving forward with various stages of the
project. Fundraising ideas, how to get the community involved? Discussion of
curriculum for center. What will it look like? Contact or pre-contact? What will be
taught? Specific to the kona area? Meeting successful with Nature Conservancy
about Fishponds as they are managing them on Oahu. Approval of monies for
501c3 application. Superintendent’s report on Highway Widening in front of park
and other development issues, reestablishing advisory commission and
possibility of regional director visiting the park. Fishpond celebration next year if
wall finished? Grant and fundraising issues, talk of upcoming park public events.
October 23, 2010 at KAHO park offices.
Attendees: 6 members and 2 NPS Staff
Group conversation began with the logistical issues and space issues involved in
getting to the CLC which is a gravel road. There is an issue with possible
overcrowding in the parking lot in the future. The superintendent is looking into
evaluating permitees who use the area. Superintendent’s report; the park
received a visitor survey with comments about the park, mostly good. The park’s
advisory committee will be restored, may have a meeting next February. Planting
class with proper protocols is scheduled for November. Report on Cultural
Festival coming up. Grant monies being requested from Partner organization for
‘Stimulus’ money for Makani Hou.
November 20, 2010 at KAHO park offices.
Attendees: 4 members and 3 NPS staff
Partnership developing with park and local elementary school to grow native
plants for CLC. Planting of Native trees that have been grown locally with seed
stock from area. Review of Grant that Makani Hou did not receive, suggestions
for resubmitting next year. Another grant almost ready for submittal. Discussion
of finalizing 501c3 application and getting it sent to IRS. $1,500 grant approved
136
from partner organization for travel and meeting expenses. Superintendent:
Budget will be lean next year may lose some staff. Focus on completing Kaloko
fishpond wall, hope to have a celebration next year. Environmental Assessment
almost done. Kaloko fishpond reconstruction finishing next year, the park will be
focusing on the pond with a celebration planned. Makani Hou planning
workshops with various practitioners next year, need to make a schedule.
Planning for overnighter at Kaloko fishpond in January.
January 15, 2011
Attendees: 8 staff and 6 NPS staff.
The January Meeting was an overnight experience at Kaloko Fishpond near the
Cultural Live-In Site. The meeting was in the evening after dinner. First part of
the discussion was about last month’s meeting and correction of notes. Minutes
accepted as corrected. Treasurer’s report, Fundraising opportunities and Park
Curriculum were next subjects.
137
APPENDIX F
Milestone Questionnaire
138
Please rank each question between 1-5 with 5 being of high value and 1 being of
low value.
1. How will a ‘live-in’ center use a mix of traditional building practices and modern
technology to create kauhale (group of structures) with useful areas for
practices of Hawaiian culture? How will this create cultural meaning and
connections with the land?
2. By what process will Makani Hou develop a ‘live-in center’ for native
Hawaiians that follows the parks legislation, working with NPS and others, and
developing relationships for learning in the future?
3. How will the construction of the ‘live-in’ center drive the curriculum for the
park? How will a process be created of cultural ‘learning by doing’? What
resources and relationships will have to be developed to accomplish this?
4. How will this project contribute to the Hawaiian cultural renaissance and in
what ways will it increase knowledge and stimulate Hawaiian cultural
immersion and values?
5. How will this process serve as a model for other groups throughout the country
who are trying to accomplish a similar goal of creating a cultural ‘live-in’
center?
139
APPENDIX G
Makani Hou Bylaws
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
APPENDIX H
Quotes from Participants
148
Hawaiian Participant (Respondent 1)
Little difficulty with the western restrictions on certain activities that can occur,
(though) I personally preferred a location near the fishpond. (1)
Allowing the kūpuna to speak first, basically a sign of respect for the elders. The
young people would hold their tongue , allow the kūpuna to speak, then when the
kūpuna finished speaking they would usually call on the younger people to
speak.(1)
The traditional Hawaiian approach I think has been taken quite a bit by the
creation of our board of directors, which is primary native Hawaiians, and a lot of
people who are descendants in this area. I'm really glad to be working with
people who have a history here, also with people who work for the park service,
they have the deepest respect for the cultural aspects of the park and protecting
those cultural resources.(1)
We need to create the Environmental Assessment and such to prove I guess to
the fed government that we aren't destroying our own cultural resources that
would be kind of counterproductive on our own behalf. I'm not really opposed to
it, it just makes it a little more difficult, but I do appreciate the precautionary
approach under the western laws. (1)
One of the most exciting things I think about this whole venture will be the
curriculum that's included from the beginning, the construction of the site,
throughout with the curriculum we share different types of cultural activities so
not only Hawaiians can learn about their own culture but also the park visitors
and guests that might be invited to participate in some of our workshops. (1)
Unless we have experience in what we’re doing, it’s all a learning exercise. We
will develop relationships with individuals and entities that have access to skills
and materials we need to get the job done, which includes an invitation to the
community for involvement through members. (1)
Participants will come to appreciate the fact that the ancestors of this place were
a part of this ahupua’a’s ecosystem. The take away message will be Malama
Aina - you take care of the land and the land will take care of you.(1)
Participating in constructing the kauhale and supporting components such as
planting, harvesting and using the natural resources, as well as learning
traditional natural resource management, etc. will be cultural learning by doing.
The most valued resource that will be created will be the knowledge gained by
participants and the long-term relationships built over time.(1)
149
Hawaiian Participant (Respondent 2)
Interested in
• specific to historic cultural practices;
• specific to Kaloko and Honokohau practices
• driven by what happened at these sites 200 years ago and
he wants the workshops to arise out of the needs of the CLC (2).
The cultural curriculum does not fit the western stereo type of learning. The
cultural learning is within the cultural context of the people who are doing it. It’s
right whomever is doing it, we need to develop a cultural tolerance- it’s personal
(2).
Native Hawaiians need a place where we can practice and preserve our culture,
a culture that was very unique to this area. At that time, even to today, there is
no place set aside especially for the purpose for Hawaiians to tell their story, to
learn about this story and share and tell it in their own way. We felt this was the
perfect place for Hawaiians to do that. (2)
The primary purpose for KAHO was not necessarily for visitors, it was a place for
Hawaiians to relive and to restore their cultural practices and to recount and be
participating in the finest hours of their ancient ancestors....(to) restore some of
the essence and integrity of how they thrived.(2)
Is the Cultural Live-in Center only for the past? Do we focus in line with the park’s
idea of preservation of Hawaiian Culture- only considering ancient Hawaii? What
about addressing the issue of contemporary Hawaiians – they are Hawaiian
too…fishermen fishing today, musicians creating music and music video and the
dress-makers of today ,is there a place for them to practice their way of
expressing being Hawaiian?(2)
(An) element is that the NPS has policy and principle on what kind of educational
programs they want in the park so we’re not free-wheeling. (2)
It's been almost half of my life devoted to creating a place for Hawaiians to tell
their story and tell it in their own way. (2)
We're not going to be embarrassed to use modern technology.(2)
We have an ancient opelu canoe but we are moving it with a (modern) trailer. I
don't see a major problem of forcing contemporary and traditional practices and
making them in conflict. That is simply to me not a major confrontational issue.(2)
150
Restoration of the park here was meant to be just as spiritual as physical.(2)
We’re very appreciative of the National Park Service, The Department of Interior,
for the opportunity for Hawaiians to interpret what we have. For Hawaiians to
demonstrate, for Hawaiians to restore, for Hawaiians to resurrect.(2)
There are many other ways to find cultures in conflict.(2)
The name the 'new wind' is symbolic of us trying to be part of the cultural
renaissance, of trying to restore the culture, perpetuate it, renew it, making it
come alive. We conduct our meetings not in a council of chiefs, we conduct our
meetings as people talking story. and yeah sometimes when it's convenient, I as
chairman, will use Robert's Rules of Order, there’s nothing wrong with that, it’s a
nice way to conduct business, and so in ancient Hawaii there was no such thing
as Robert's Rules of Order, the word of the chief was the word of the chief...his
word was law. (2)
We are part of a larger picture, a part of a bigger cultural phenomenon, the
behavior and beliefs of a culture, part of an entire movement. (2)
The renaissance is not copyrighted and there’s never enough people to carry it
forward. We are a part of it. (2)
Hawaiian Participant (Respondent 3)
Because we say we are the host culture, we need to step forward and we need
to educate them and be part of the solution and not keep talking about the
problem.(3)
Values are for me the things that I have learned from my kūpuna (elders),so I put
it them in one category by itself, and that is priceless. The things that my tutu’s
know, my aunties, my uncles, those things are priceless, so each and everyone
of us have things that were taught to us….(3)
You go to visit someone’s loko’ia (fishpond) and go, what’s a matter with them?
They don’t know how to do this? That’s not your kuleana that’s the way we do it
that’s the way you’re going to do it, we still know it is priceless.(3)
Ponds actually teach the younger generation. How they actually, you know work
before, we give them the mo’olelo(stories), not just say we’re going to just make
rock wall today and pull weeds, allow them to instill in their minds, set in their
minds, until they hear this mo’olelo, that’s mine! Those kind of values are very,
very important to us.(3)
151
We who are educated, we need to go forward. We are a people this is what
some of us are doing and some of us are not doing this. What then after we’ve
put hard work into this then how does that go in the future if a Haole marry a
Hawaiian?
This program will give all of us a chance to share what we all as individuals have
learned throughout our lives and are able to bring it to the table in the education
of the culture. (3)
Hawaiian Participant (Respondent 4)
Well let’s consider that NPS mission in this day and age is as much about
funding- outsourcing, sub-contracting, getting out of the financial liability, offloading it to others under the façade of ‘isn’t this good to pass around the
business? Have they come to realize they have not the know-how or ability to
financially manage on their own?
Let us too then heed this as a warning as to how we approach financing our
endeavor for before us is a warning that the road ahead may be a difficult one for
if it were not why would they choose to let it go? (4)
Only three places mention the learning center, so 95% (of what we’re doing) is
how we are going to raise money for the park. I don’t feel so comfortable about
us fundraising. NPS is looking to us for financial sustainability, since the park is
already in there, is this what it’s all about? (4)
How do you maintain cultural protocol processes when influenced by western
processes? There will be conflict all the way, all we have is compromise.(4)
Local Participant (non-Hawaiian) (Respondent 5)
The project is needed because Hawaiian families and communities, long the ties
that bind Hawai‘i together, are threatened; our Hawaiian identity and culture are
in danger of being lost.(5)
Great care has been taken over the past 35 years by to ensure that its
establishment - a template for any future CLC projects - is worthy of the Hawaiian
people and our ancestors. The very act of participating in this long and
sometimes painful process is the kuleana (responsibility) of participants and is
accomplished with the view that kokua to the Hawaiian community is for present
and future generations. (5)
152
Imagine how much more connected to their culture they will feel when ti and pili
thatched hale arise at the site and kūpuna and kumu are there to help them learn
about what their ancestors did at this very spot.(5)
The restoration of the site for use as a Cultural Live-in Center provides
Hawaiians with a glimpse into their past and a better understanding of it. We
cannot know where we are going unless we know where we have been.(5)
By learning about the traditional Hawaiian practices, we may through
understanding of them, be better prepared to integrate them into the lives we
lead today. (5)
The kūpuna (elders) will by example lead others in the quest for self-knowledge
and an understanding of a culture that was – and remains – the inextricable link
between ‘Ohana(family) and ‘Aina (land).(5)
Hawaiian participant (Respondent 6)
I think for me as a young person coming into a project like the development of a
Cultural Live-In Center here at Kaloko-Honokohau, that connection to place is
really what drives my passion. You’re physically connected, you’re spiritually
connected, and that bond is unbreakable and it manifests itself in many different
ways.(6)
You know back in the 70’s, with the creation of the park, you know a lot of the
fighters of that time- my grandfather included- wanted to see this Cultural Live-In
Center. They made it such that there is a place for it and now it’s the kuleana
(responsibility)of these up in coming generations, the makua, and the
opio(myself), the younger generation to come and do our part, working with
kūpuna (elders) to actually develop programs that will benefit our children.(6)
Hawaiian participant (Respondent 7)
Stakeholders need to determine what parts of the NPS legislation, policies,
practices, etc would need to be put into place in order to support the vision; not
hinder it.(7)
NPS Participant (Respondent 8)
The Mission of the park is to perpetuate culture and culture includes evolution.
How do we look at that? I’m looking to Makani Hou to learn how to do this.(8)
153
NPS and Hawaiian Participant (Respondent 9)
One of the challenges that we have and we’re still working on is a cultural live-in
center for the park. A unique goal at the time, the visions were broad, we thought
that it never would happen, but it did. I’m still working with members of the
community to make it a reality. (9)
There are things a non-profit can do that NPS (as a Federal Agency) is prohibited
from doing.(9)
NPS and Hawaiian Participant (Respondent 10)
My ancestors probably walked on this sand, just where we are standing here.
NAI video
And the kūpuna aren’t just you and me, the elders, it’s also the ocean, it’s the
rocks, it’s the sky, it’s the plants- these are all our kūpuna that stand behind us.
It’s a great opportunity for Makani Hou,and this Cultural Live-In Center, to provide
a place in a Hawaiian place, a place where people can come and learn, be
inspired, be enlightened, be educated about our people. And I thank you for this
privilege about being Hawaiian and being with the National Park Service.
Mahalo. (10)
The live-in center should be a catalyst for the future, a physical structure that
people can come to-- much like the Hokuleia is and has been. (10) April 2009
meeting
NPS Participant (Respondent 11)
Well, because Ala Kahakai got involved, that’s why it’s happening. Well, there’s
several factors, one factor is that we were working with Richard Boston. We had
numerous discussions.. A lot of discussions about the park, and the mission, the
designation of the park. We started the ball rolling, we all worked on coming up
with this plan for organizing the community and descendants for establishing the
live-in center.(11)
Part of the Ala Kahakai’s trail mission is basically to do the same kind of things
outside of the parks as in the parks, with the communities connecting families
who have ancestral connections, to places along the shoreline to support that
connection, what we would call kuleana or that family ancestral connection to a
place in order to steward it, to live with it, to be a part of it.(11)
154
In my opinion the entire 1500 acres of the park is a live in center, the entire park
was designated as a live-in center. And so to relegate it to a smaller area that’s
an impacted area, to me doesn’t make sense, the whole park was designated as
a live in center and the whole park should be the live in center.(11)
Given that people are an intimate part of the ecosystem, that when we take
people out of the ecosystem the ecosystem is affected, “impaired” to use park
service language and so to restore the ecosystems and to manage it properly
we need to be able to reconnect the families who have that kind of connection,
in a manner that’s appropriate of course, and looking at both traditional sciences,
or indigenous science and western science, working together, complementing
each other is the way we want to proceed from here on. That’s the key thing is
that the people are part of the ecosystem. Any removal of the people or
disconnecting people, that the connects that they had is an impairment.(11)
The value of indigenous science and how that needs to be incorporated in what
we do at the National Park Service.(11)
The live in center is there the thatching just needs to be put back on them.(11)
All of the archaeological resources that are in the park was built by the kūpunas,
of those who are now part of Makani Hou , so it would make total sense if they
could have access to these sites to restore them, that’s the live-in, that’s the
cultural perpetuation component of this whole thing. We have the fishponds that
are being restored, and there are other features in the park that compliment the
fishponds, supports that fishpond. That would be really great is if it can be
restored to functionality. There may be some preservation laws or
archaeological laws that we may need to look at, but I think again the live in
center is there, It’s already been created, we just need to put the thatching back
on em,and make them functional again, with the right protocols, permissions,
data recovery. Like any construction site or any land development you have
archeological features there you send in the archaeologists they do the data
recovery. And once that’s done you can bulldoze it ,right!? but what we do
instead is that we rebuild it, put the thatching up, that’s your live-in center.(11)
NPS Participant (Respondent 12)
Concern with waning enthusiasm from key players in Makani Hou 9/1/2010…
Due to recent speed bumps encountered on the road to getting the CLC on the
ground, several key players in the process are becoming disenchanted with the
process… I am very concerned about this and the impact it could have on the
project to keep these very important members involved.(12)
155
Hawaiian Participant (Respondent 13)
No one has tried this before in one location and the question will come up: this is
a human zoo! (13) Aug 2010
Needs to be circulated in Hawaiian language for input.(13) Aug 2010
Hawaiian Participant (Respondent 14)
Primarily ours was and is an oral culture. That's why the park, the courts and
other agencies give credence to kūpuna testimonies.(14)
In Hawaii, each dawn is filled with news of "old" truths. We care for a place of
great spiritual importance to 'Oiwi in the Homeland of 'Oiwi. In my heart, we must
RESPECT the lands, traditions and history of our forefathers. As national parks is
invested here, such should be the desire of all of us - together. Let us ask the
priests to lead us and teach us.(14)
156
APPENDIX I
Email Communication
157
Aloha Jon,
My comments are placed within your note below.
A hui hou,
Paka
----- Original Message ----From: Jon Jokiel
TO: PAKA
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 3:08 PM
Subject: Research questions
Aloha,
Thank you to those of you who helped me with my research questions at the overnight at
Kaloko.. If youhaven't had a chance to respond... and would like to... I would appreciate it if you
could rank these questions from 1 to 5 (with 5 being your highest priority). If you want to just let
me know which one you like the best that would work too! E kala mai if my last e-mail was a
little confusing....
As Fred has noted in past meetings, construction of the kahua kauhale will "drive the
curriculum." Construction is one component of the curriculum. We will need to document
what we do so that future efforts can improve and build on what we do. Unless we have
experience in what we're doing it's all a learning exercise. We will develop relationships with
individuals and entities that have access to skills and materials we need to get the job done,
which includes an invitation to the community for involvement through membership.
This will be a place for cultural education and exchange. Re-learning the culture of one's
ancestors is valuable in reviving cultural pride, but we must not allow ourselves to remain in
the past. All cultures evolve and we must allow ours to evolve as well. This model may be
viewed as a DRAFT map of the trail we have followed. It will show where we came across
rough terrain and where we have found smooth paths. Future efforts may benefit
by identifying the rough terrain that we came across to make their journey smoother. With the
curriculum, we share different types of cultural activities, so not only Hawaiians can learn
about their own culture, but also park visitors and guests who might be invited to participate in
some of our workshops. Makani Hou continues to video as many of the ongoing activities as
possible. A key component is gathering the wisdom of kūpuna. We documented their
information in part to assist others who want to accomplish similar goals
158
APPENDIX J
Makani Hou Brochure
159
160
APPENDIX K
Poster Displayed at NAI Conference
161
162