I had never heard of this before, and now I kind of want a copy of the Hawaiian-alphabet-arranged version of the dictionary :) I feel like there is such a level of infrastructural resistance baked into a dictionary that is organized according to a different alphabet, so that the reader is forced face-first to recognize the difference between their own way of thinking and that of others.

This made me really sad, and it sort of reminds me of newspaper articles about climate change and the loss of biodiversity today. The thought of having to watch something fade away in real time is incredibly distressing.

I have never heard of this terminology before, but I really like the picture that it paints in my head. I think this issue is still prevalent today within academia, and within many other avenues. I believe it is hard to get around sometimes, because it is almost like looking at internal biases and trying to account for them in an appropriate manner. But I agree with Nogelmeierʻs notion that there needs to be an investigation of texts and their baggage, as well as an inclusion of other, non-canonical texts.

Reading the story from different authors is really interesting. Even between Keliikaapuni and Kalunaaina and Kamakau. They each add a different sort of style to the writing and the story. I wonder how much the authors may have interacted with one another beyond their printing of this moʻolelo. And if they discussed their moʻolelo versions with one another before/during/after publication.

I feel like the fact that this story was being reprinted in a blog form really evokes the history of moʻolelo being printed in newspapers, when you would have to read the paper every day in order to get the full picture. Obviously, it is nice to be able to read the moʻolelo all in one piece right now, because it is easier to keep track of the various turns in the story, but I still enjoy the similarity in publishing methodology.

I found this comment interesting, especially because ʻUmi spent so much of his time proving to others that despite his commoner background, he was still worthy of being an aliʻi. But maybe I am reading this part wrong, or maybe there is an element that I am missing from it.

The notion of consent is mentioned a lot in this text. I am interested in what the definition of “consent” would be for Kamakau. And how would it compare to a 21st century definition of “consent”?