Do you speak “Pomoish”? Translation follows
May 4, 2018 § Leave a comment
In Paradoxes of Hawaiian Sovereignty J. Kēhaulani Kauanui examines contradictions of indigeneity and self-determination in U.S. domestic policy and international law.
In A B examines C of D and E in F and G.
She theorizes paradoxes in the laws themselves, and in nationalist assertions of Hawaiian Kingdom restoration and demands for U.S. deoccupation, which echo colonialist models of governance.
A theorizes B in C themselves, and in D of E and F for G, which echo H of I.
Kauanui argues that Hawaiian elites’ approaches to reforming and regulating land, gender, and sexuality in the early nineteenth century that paved the way for sovereign recognition of the kingdom complicate contemporary nationalist activism today, which too often includes disavowing the indigeneity of the Kanaka Maoli (Indigenous Hawaiian) people.
A argues that B to C and D, E and F in the G that paved I for J of the K complicate L today, which M includes N the O of P.
Problematizing the ways the positing of the Hawaiian Kingdom’s continued existence has been accompanied by a denial of U.S. settler colonialism, Kauanui considers possibilities for a decolonial approach to Hawaiian sovereignty that would address the privatization and capitalist development of land and the ongoing legacy of the imposition of heteropatriarchal modes of social relations.
A the B the C of the D has been accompanied by E of F, G considers H for a I to J that would K the L and M of N and the O of the P of Q of R.
It is easy to imagine that this is a parody. But I fear it isn’t.
source: https://www.dukeupress.edu/paradoxes-of-hawaiian-sovereignty
Wednesday in the Age of Reason-Munchausen (1988) 
Leave a Reply