With Hawaii hosting the 2009 Association of Asian American Studies conference comes the opportunity to reassess how scholars in Hawaii approach the subject. UH-Manoa Associate Professor of English Candace Fujikane recently released the book Asian Settler Colonialism: From Local Governance to the Habits of Everyday Life in Hawaii with co-editor Jonathan Okamura. Fujikane spoke with the Weekly about the book and some of her other interests in the rapidly-growing academic field.

Tell me more about your book.

The first version was published in 2000 in a special issue of Amerasia Journal. It sold 2,000 copies in six months and was very controversial. The book came out of a talk by Haunani-Kay Trask on Asian settler colonialism. Because this was at the same time Prop 187 was an issue in California, Asian Americans from the continent thought Trask’s talk was anti-immigrant, which it wasn’t. It took us a while to understand it. You can’t talk about alliances between local non-Hawaiians and Hawaiians. If you’re not Hawaiian, you’re a settler and part of the colonial problem. You have to look at in what ways Asians in Hawaii have engaged in practices that obstruct Hawaiians’ struggle for justice. There are examples of this obstruction in ways that don’t seem political, like how shopping at Ala Moana is colonial…

‘Local’ is so romanticized. For example, when Matsuo Takabuki was appointed to the Board of Trustees of the Bishop Estate in the 1970s, it was a big controversy because he wasn’t Hawaiian.

My work focuses on continental Asian Americans’ avoidance of how their issues might be related to American Indians’. And I focus on Hawaii Asian Americans’ relationship to Hawaiians.

What are some of the criticisms of the book?

In 2004, Dana Takagi of the University of California-Santa Cruz critiqued the use of the word ‘settler.’ But she didn’t know how to define ‘local.’ Her arguments weren’t grounded in evidence and it was obvious she’s not from here. Eileen Tamura of UH romanticizes ‘local’ as one step from sovereignty. But it doesn’t work in phases like that. Some people don’t want to give up the word ‘local.’ They feel it gives them a stronger class alliance between ethnic groups…

Some say the first version of the book was ahistorical. This version has more emphasis on history. We’ve also been accused of promoting ‘yellow guilt.’ But we’re not encouraging people to be paralyzed by guilt. There is an emphasis on action to change the colonial conditions. How do we free ourselves from the roles as agents in a colonial system of violence?

What are some of the Asian American issues on the continent that aren’t as prevalent here, and vice-versa?

When you talk about Asian male emasculation, some here have no idea what you’re talking about. Asians here are seen as masculine because they are part of the power structure. For Japanese Americans, many don’t feel the same sense of racism and historical injustice that Japanese Americans on the mainland do because many don’t have relatives who were interned. But when Hawaii men were interned, they understood where the anger came from.

Immigration issues are different, too. In Hawaii, there is more Pacific Islander discrimination, such as against Micronesians.

Hawaii has been strategic in not participating in Asian American Studies because of the field’s appropriation of the Pacific. J. Kehaulani Kauanui of Wesleyan has a good book about blood quantum, called Hawaiian Blood. Asian American Studies hasn’t given enough representation to Pacific Islanders. The stakes are different for Asian Americans than they are for Pacific Islanders. It’s hard to distinguish being inclusive versus appropriation for one’s own interests.

What about mainland Asian Americans romanticizing Hawaii as a model of progress?

Those on the continent who don’t know local history see the term ‘local’ as a pan-ethnic identification. They don’t see the Hawaiians fighting against Japanese American dominance. Hawaii in general is romanticized. Look at the election of [Barack] Obama. Calling him a ‘native son’ who embodies the aloha spirit is appalling—he is a settler.

The word hapa has also recently been used more in Asian American Studies. Wei-Ming Dariotis of San Francisco State recently wrote that when she discovered that using the term is a settler appropriation of a Hawaiian word, she stopped using it. She is encouraging hapa clubs in California to rename themselves.

Asian American Studies recognizes that identity is fluid. No one likes the idea of fixed identities. But it’s hard to let go in colonial studies.

What do you think of statehood?

Statehood was built on violation of international law… Those afraid of statehood were afraid it would give Japanese Americans more power in the legislature. They make up 40 percent of the legislature, but only 20 percent of the population in Hawaii. Hawaiians make up 20 percent of the general population, but only 10 percent of the legislature.

Who are some of your favorite Asian American scholars?

That’s a hard question… But if I had to name some scholars, I like Mark Chang from the University of Illinois-Chicago, Theo Gonzalves from UH, Erica Lee, my brother Dean who is at Michigan pursuing a Ph.D. in Hawaii statehood issues, Martin Manalansan, Anne Keala Kelly, Elaine Kim, Wei-Ming Dariotis, Alan Isaac.

What would you still like to see explored in the field?

How Asian American Studies is related to other disciplines. What does queer theory have to do with Asian American studies and how can queer methodology help Asian American Studies? What about disability studies? Militarization? The word ‘settler’ is getting more into the vocabulary in Asian American Studies in Hawaii. Are Asian Americans on the continent thinking about settler colonialism? The UH ethnic studies fight in the 1970s had a slogan: “Our history, our way,” and “We built Hawaii.” But what these local Asians were saying was colonial, implying that there was nothing before. There was no perception that Hawaiians have their own struggle.