Posted by Marie on June 18, 2001 at 02:14:47:
In Reply to: Huna posted by Marie on June 17, 2001 at 05:07:02:
I would also like to add
In pre-contact Hawai`i, there was no word for "religion" and "spirituality"
Why?
Because there was no need to verbalize such things
Because there was no need to talk about it, no need to study it, no need to philosophize about it
Because Hawaiians lived it.
It is a western way - to transliterate and to define. So when the haole came to Hawaii, they asked, "What is the Hawaiian word for 'religion' and 'spirituality'" I can only imagine how the elders responded!
So my point again is - how reliable is Max Freedom Long's "account" of Hawaiian practices and beliefs? How much of his "account" is mixed with western cultural values?
How did Max Freedom Long observe Hawaiian practices and beliefs? Through his Western eyes.
How did Max Freedom Long analyze Hawaiian practices and beliefs? Using his Western way of thinking.
Scholars and observers have a difficult time keeping their own cultural values and ways of thinking in neutral mode. Somewhere along the way, they mix up their values and way of thinking with their "object" of study. Thus, Max Freedom Long's "account" of Hawaiian practices and beliefs is highly biased.
This is a problem among the intelligencia of old and of present. There was an anothrologist called Evans-Pritchard who studied the "sorcery practice" of the Azande tribe in Africa. I feel that Evans-Pritchard's study of the Azandes and Max Freedom Long's study of the Hawaiians are very similar. Biased.
Even some Hawaiians do it ...mix things up with christianity.