Another example of Ken Conklin's deception

From Paul Arrighi:

"Ken Conklin posted a commentary on an article saying that "ohana" was a recent creation and when Lana Robbins provided proof that ohana has been in use for well over 120 years, Conklin's response is a lame, maybe the person who wrote the article did not have access to this information. A honest assessment would be to admit that the article was wrong but Conklin because of his prejudice or whatever reason is unable to bring himself to say this."

A little background:


This is what Ken Conklin wrote about the Hawaiian word "ohana." Note that he amended it but he does not reflect the fact that Lana Robbins pointed it out to him that "Ohana" has been in Hawaiian language papers as early as 1834 which proves that "ohana" is NOT a modern invention as he inaccurately claims on his website here inaccurately asserting that the Hawaiian word "ohana" was created in about 1950 when it was not:


http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/ohana.html


Then Lana Robbins showed that the Hawaiian word "ohana" is shown being used as early as in 1834 NOT in 1950 which Ken Conklin tries to deceptively lead people to believe:

http://nupepa.org/gsdl2.5/cgi-bin/nupepa?a=q&r=1&hs=1&e=q-0nupepa--00-0-0--010---4----text---0-1l--1en-Zz-1---20-about---00031-0000utfZz-8-00&t=0&q=ohana


This is reflected here:

http://www.kenconklin.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=The_Word_


In it the editor states:

"Editor's note


Lana Ululani Robbins found references to the word "ohana" in old olelo newspapers online, circa 1831 and forward. It is quite possible that the information she uncovered was not available to the original writer of the article referenced below."

It is easy for people to see the deception of Ken Conklin.


Again... the Hawaiian word "ohana" is clearly seen in a Hawaiian newspaper dated as early as in 1834 which is clearly NOT a modern invention as Conklin inaccurately and deceptively claims.


The writers could have easily checked out this information. Especially Kenneth Conklin PhD aka Ken Conklin PhD. He has a PhD in the Philosophy of Education yet he FAILED to do thorough research. Instead he published it and has been caught by Lana Robbins.


In conclusion... it is clear that Conklin tries to deceive people in order to try to spread his racism against Hawaiians based on their national origin.

Ken Conklin's Racist Attacks on the Hawaiian Culture

In the HAWAII REPORTER, Ken Conklin writes a piece regarding the recent desecration of ahu (alters) that were put up at Maunakea on the island of Hawai'i and at 'Iolani Palace on O'ahu. He questions if it was:

1) a simple act of vandalism by people who did not know its significance?

2) demolition of a rockpile a desecration of a religious shrine?

3) was it an act against ethnic Hawaiians?

4) was it a political statement against Hawaiian sovereignty, therefore being protected under "free speech"?

5) an act done by sovereignty activists in order to gain sympathy?

So to answer his questions.

#1 Does he really think that people are that clueless not only being aware of the cultures in the islands but just standard, social etiquette?

#2 What it comes down to is destroying property, that's all he needs to be concerned about.

#3 If there's any act against "ethnic" Hawaiians, a term that he habitually uses, it would be him. Keep in mind how many centuries we have lived together with outsiders and allowed them to come in to the islands. Now comes Ken Conklin with his own agenda and rocks the boat and questions non-Hawaiians as to why they never went against Hawaiians to begin with.

#4 This is nothing but an excuse. He hates sovereignty, therefore will use anything he can against it. This is just that.

#5 Now he is really groping for things to say. Ken claims to be savvy in the Hawaiian culture. If that's the case, he should know that Hawaiians would never do things like that akin to the tapu system.

He says that there is no way to know unless the perpetrators are caught. Yet he can publicly pose these scenarios, but what about number 6, where Ken Conklin may have something to do with this in order to write this article?

He belittles our culture by his constant use of rockpile to which in his opinion it is nothing more than that unless we hold his beliefs as to what is deemed as sacred or not. He asks if it is a shrine, what god does it honor? In other words, it cannot be a "shrine" unless it honors an actual god that he is familiar with because if it doesn't, then it isn't a shrine, only because he believes that it is. Does he realize that a shrine is nothing more than a place where devotion is paid to a venerated person, not necessarily a "god" as he insists. He uses this term (to no surprise) in order to marginalize our culture. I hear about these "make-shift shrines" on the t.v. all the time when someone is gunned down, run over, or killed by any other means in any given area. They are not "gods". And if he really knew something about Hawaiian culture, he should know that there were also kupua (demigods) that were venerated as well.

Worse, he justifies its attack and demolition simply because the monument at 'Iolani Palace was built for political purpose. Is he serious? It's like saying that it's okay for Al-Queda to attack the White House, Statue of Liberty, Mount Rushmore or the Washington Monument.

Because some Hawaiians are practicing the ancient religion, he finds that it is a bold move since it is used as an embellishment for political purposes. Ken will say anything to use against sovereignty, something he does not want Hawaiians to have.

He continues by repeating the purpose of the "rockpile" that it was done with nothing more than a political purpose. I find it very odd that he opens up by mentioning possible scenarios a la CSI only to finally state that he sees this "rockpile" as nothing more than having a political purpose. So all of this just to express again how much he despises Hawaiian people and their culture once again:



http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?c4781530-a57b-4c05-8e38-7d3987a15164