?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Oh my gosh... Laakea Suganuma wrote to me.



Laakea Suganuma supposedly wrote to me. Unfortunately I don't check my email often at GMail but he wrote to me on March 30, 2006. For those who don't know he is the moopuna of Mary Kawena Pukui and is one of the plaintiffs who SUED other Hawaiians such as Eddie Ayau.

I feel very strongly about this issue and I guess he came across what I wrote about him and it wasn't mean. Well this is what I wrote about him:

http://haolegirl.livejournal.com/957753.html and http://haolegirl.livejournal.com/967419.html

" I do not blame Suganuma nor Kawananakoa for suing Hui Malama. They have a right to do so. However Ayau has rights too."

and

"I am not going to blast Suganuma nor Kawananakoa for doing what they wish with the iwi because to me they have a right to protect the iwi how they want to protect the iwi. I just do not wish the iwi nor the moepu to be put in a museum so that people can make millions off of the iwi that is inside of me. Similarly I do not even like zoos because they imprison animals against their will. In this case... Suganuma and Kawananakoa should have called for a hoo pono pono. Did they? No. Instead they sought the American courts which leads me to believe that they have a colonized mind. However while I disagree with them... they still have a right to the iwi just as other Hawaiians do too. Of course there are some Hawaiians who are sell-outs who would sell our kupuna's bones or iwi to make a dollar. It remains to be seen if Sunganuma and Kawananakoa are like that but so far that is what they seem to be. That is... they want these bones or iwi and moepu to be placed in a museum or museums which I do not agree with."



I make it clear that I DO NOT AGREE WITH LAAKEA SUGANUMA. However I DO agree with Eddie Ayau and with Hui Malama I Na Kupuna.



Well in his recent email to me, Laakea Suganuma told me that it's never been about the iwi. This is what he wrote to me and remember... I do censor some emails that people send to me but evidently somehow he found out what I wrote about him. He sent this to me or at least I think it's him because there are still a few Umiamaka or "deceivers" so it's hard for me to tell if it's him or not but this is what he (Laakea Suganuma) wrote to me:


"The iwi have NEVER been an issue from the very beginning. Please listen to podcast at http://www.doctortrey.com/archives.html. Scroll down (right side) to Special Edition between episodes 13 and 14."




I disagree. Being Hawaiian IS ALL ABOUT THE IWI.

It is what DEFINES us as Hawaiians.

It is what MAKES us HAWAIIAN.

But he can believe what he wants to believe.

While I disagree with him... he like other human beings are entitled to believe what they want to believe.


Worse... when a Hawaiian SUES another Hawaiian it shows me a colonized mind so while I disagree with Laakea Suganuma who is the grandson of Mary Kawena Pukui the Hawaiian way is NOT to sue other Hawaiians. PERIOD.

Also as a martial artist... he should know about "the code." I'm a martial artist... of shurite to be exact which comes from Okinawa via China a place of some of my ancestors. As a martial artist... you do not SUE as in take some defendants to court. Defendants such as your history, traditions, and KUPUNA and that is what Laakea Suganuma has done. And THAT is BLASPHEMOUS to ALL HAWAIIANS and THUS blasphemous to our IWI. Iwi that ALL Hawaiians SHARE.

Therefore TO ME... Laakea Suganuma broke "the code." The code of HAWAIIANS. As in the Kakou Concept. As in "US... inclusive." As in... what is in the BEST interest of ALL Hawaiians. NOT JUST HIM.




I'm working on my response to him. Other than that I will respond to him out of respect for the IWI. I'll repost what I tell him laters. Once again since some people like to twist some words to mean what they want it to mean LOL:


Laakea Suganuma can believe what he wants to believe.

While I disagree with him... he like other human beings are entitled to believe what they want to believe. I just do not appreciate him taking Hui Malama and thus EDDIE AYAU to court. To me that is a sign of a colonized mind. Who would sue another Hawaiian such as Eddie Ayau who is protecting the very iwi that defines who we are? A selfish, egocentric person. And once again I repeat:


Laakea Suganuma can believe what he wants to believe.

While I disagree with him... he like other human beings are entitled to believe what they want to believe.

Unfortunately he seems to think that his beliefs are the only beliefs whereas each and every Hawaiian has a right to believe what THEY want to believe.

It is also hypocritical for Suganuma to have stated on the Podcast that Eddie Ayau acts as though only what he (Eddie Ayau) says goes when Suganuma turns around and does the exact, same thing and acts as though what he (Suganuma) says goes. Same thing. No ONE Hawaiian decides. However ALL Hawaiians do. Thus the KAKOU CONCEPT. The "US... inclusive." Not the "US... exclusive." Not the "I AND ONLY I DECIDE EXCLUSIVE." It's US.. INCLUSIVE. Includes ALL HAWAIIANS.


Also he mentioned the court system. Only colonized Hawaiians turn to the Western courts to resolve Hawaiian issues. That is NOT the type of Hawaiian whom I want protecting the iwi that ALL Hawaiians share when it comes to dealing with OTHER Hawaiians. The first thing to do is hooponopono until ALL agree and if there is no agreement then the people who have a problem should wait til an agreement is reached but nooooo Suganuma sued Bishop Museum and OTHER HAWAIIANS which is a HUGE No-No in MY book not just as a Hawaiian but also as a martial artist and Suganuma is a martial artist in lua.


This is my manao. Other Hawaiians are entitled to their manao too. This includes Suganuma as well as Ayau. Each and every Hawaiian has a right to their manao whether I disagree with it or not... whether other Hawaiians disagree with it or not.

Of course... I am stating the obvious and in no way should what I write about Suganuma be misconstrued that I don't like Suganuma because that is untrue. I have never met Suganuma and I cannot like or dislike someone whom I DO NOT KNOW. This is JUST my manao and I am entitled to my manao. So is Suganuma. So is Ayau. So are other Hawaiians. That is... he never should have named Hui Malama as a defendant. That simply goes against the code of Hawaiians and for that I do not agree nor do I support him. It goes against my beliefs and that is why I do not give Suganuma my unofficial vote of confidence. Instead my unofficial vote of confidence continues to go to Eddie Ayau and Hui Malama because I do not want any of the iwi nor belongings of OUR ancestors to be put on public display. I also do not and will not support ANY Hawaiian who sues another Hawaiian who is clearly trying to protect the iwi and I feel very strongly about protecting the iwi. PERIOD. NO exceptions... but he (Suganuma) is entitled to his beliefs. So am I. So is Eddie Ayau. Each and every Hawaiian are entitled to their beliefs too.



My response to him MAY be reposted later. It will probably be censored because sometimes self-censorship goes a loooooooong way and yes I do censor myself here as I only post about 10% of my manao. The rest of my manao are private.



Comments

( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
nakai8
Apr. 16th, 2006 09:55 pm (UTC)
The iwi have NEVER been an issue from the very beginning.

So, it's still an issue about items belonging to our ancestors. It BELONGED to them, not to US. His whole issue, he like some others believe the items will be "safer" in the museum versus the caves. They need to respect the decision of na kupuna. Worse, they use the Forbes, et. al breaking in as well as the situation where a haole rebroke into the caves to sell the items on ebay. I say "haole" b/c it's not a Hawaiian. A Hawaiian would be the last person to do that considering all that has happened to our people.
haolegirl
Apr. 18th, 2006 08:53 pm (UTC)
Yeah and he wants all of us to see them when some of us no like see em. We recognize that that is why our kupuna HID them. As in... they hid them for a reason.

And safer is a relative term. Is charging us $14.95 per person "safe?" No. Fricken keep out. Kapu. Hands off! It's as simple as that.
nakai8
Apr. 18th, 2006 10:05 pm (UTC)
Yeah, good point. Charging $15, how can that be safe or beneficial?
haolegirl
Apr. 18th, 2006 11:36 pm (UTC)
Frick... I dunno but that's how much the Bishop Museum charges us to look at the stuff. That's why I no understand Suganuma. Protect them fine but no charge us. That's where he loses my vote of confidence because though he not agreeing with Bishop Museum he is still allowing them to charge US to see our stuff.

So selfish!
( 4 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

Yo!
haolegirl
For my family and friends ™
Website

Latest Month

January 2015
S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031

Tags

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow