I wish more people realized this because you can never truly understand how someone feels unless you were in their shoes. I think it's foolish to assume you know a lot without having any experience with what you're talking about.

This was a powerful statement because trauma affects all parts of oneself sometimes even unconsciously affecting how and why you do things you cannot explain.

I was impressed with how many people she was able to interview, and thought it was important how she was very cognizant of the type of perspectives each individual had based on their individual backgrounds, histories, knowledge, education, and experiences;

I get a strong sense that interviewing is very psychological. It makes me wonder if there are any other tactics archaeologists or even cultural anthropologists use to try and get additional information from native people?

This seemed like a cultural exchange of gratitude as each party offered the other some form of benefit/knowledge. We have seen gift exchange as a big theme throughout pacific island cultures in the various films, articles, and books that we have read.

I really liked this differentiation because you will never have every single piece to the puzzle, so as you work you need to logically organize your information to come to your conclusions/findings.

I never really felt the sense that she demonized archaeology. I respected how it played in a role in each individual situation and the impacts it had along with its relationship to the Kanaka Maoli. I think I just received a better understanding of her intentions and motives of the points/ideas she was trying to make.

I appreciate how Kawelu is making the claim and realization of explaining to the reader how she is shaping her perspectives. She wants to highlight the issues archaeology brings light to, which unfortunately come from negative cases.

The concept of archaeology being controversial and rooting from conflict to be newsworthy is fascinating because it seems as if the only way for it to be seen as important or even respected is through its notable findings.

This is important to realize because I believe that anytime you are receiving perspectives or opinions from people you are interviewing, you should be aware of bias or at least have an idea of which factors, cultures, histories, etc are influencing their perspectives.

There is such a narrow viewpoint on what heritage truly is because I do not think it is limited to a physical space. We have tangible cultural heritage such as artwork or sites, but lots of heritage is passed through generations in different ways like through a sense of identity and values, which are not necessarily physical things.

I am interested to learn more about why archaeology was the chosen path for ethnographic investigation because there is lots of value studying artifacts to learn more about people in the past, but I just do not know much about it and it seems like a very unique approach.

I agree because I think a big part of being an anthropologist is understanding your purpose as to why you are doing your research and why it is important to you. This would involve having a solid foundation of what your relationship is towards the culture and people you are studying.

When thinking about these situations, it must be very difficult for adults and parents to be constantly thinking about what they are doing or what the social norms are in every situational context they face. It is crazy how "easy" it seems to just pass the burden they would face to their child to avoid any consequences.

I feel a sense that many of the distinctions between adults and children are assumed, but in reality there can be mature children and immature adults, so I would say the way someone behaves and reacts is totally dependent upon the situation and environment.

I cannot even believe that his future is dependent on the beliefs of others. But, it does make sense that children and adults are held to different standards of social norms and criticization because more times than not adults should "know better."

I found the idea of older-younger relationships somewhat relevant to my life because (at least for me), people who I am friends with where we have an age gap are people who I share similar life experiences with such as: playing the same sport, having the same interests, or perhaps just being in close proximity with them like neighbors. I also think many occurrences in life bring people together for different reasons although they may not be the same age. I like how in this context, the children were pretty open to the idea of older-younger relationships for a variety of reasons.

I never really realized how much of a difference changing only a few words in a phrase can impact its meanings and emotions. Indirect speaking seems to hold lots of value depending on who you are addressing, what your relationship is to that person, and what your desired outcome is.

This could simply be rooted in cultural differences, but the fact that children are taught from a young age to insult and criticize one another does not sit right with me. I just wonder how the social norms and habits they experience in their childhood affect their behaviors as adults?

This seems to take all the value and purpose away from what culture is. Culture is something completely different if you are using it for different purposes.

I think this is part of the reason why maintaining balance in all of their relationships is so important. I could imagine for example you would not want to disgrace your family by not holding up your end of an exchange. It seems as if all aspects of their culture requires both sides to either give up or provide something for each other.

I would feel very uncomfortable basically dropping who I am or the life that I knew to embrace a "new person." But, this idea only seems uncomfortable because it is not our norm. It is common in other cultures, so people must be used to this happening.

I think one's environment is the single largest influence on culture and individuality. There are different ways to be a person because we are all unique individuals with our own personalities, even if we grow up in the same place with the same culture and same customs/traditions.

It seems as if many people put the blame and responsibility on others for bringing sickness and disease. I think it was important to know where the source of disease was coming from because many people did not have immunities and were greatly affected.

It is shocking how much tragedy occurred and how death rates approached 50%. I wonder why adults in their prime were affected more than children or elderly?

I like the connections with Hau'ofa because it continues to emphasize how land and the environment allows people to deeply connect with their history/ancestry and culture.

This was shocking to read because having posed shots really sends a different message than reality. I think this reinforces the idea that a photo can tell a lot, and you can always make interpretations about what was going on, but you can never really know the truth unless you were there.

This is why I think fieldwork in ethnography is important because you have a real, authentic perspective of the culture, people, and events that occurred.

It doesn't surprise me that lots of environmental damage was done to provide materials for development, but it just makes me wonder how much better off our world would've been today if we kept nature the way it was?

I also think about this a lot because when most people think of "bikini" they will think of the swimsuit, not necessarily the horrifying history and wounded past of island people. It is such a norm in our society thinking of swimwear instead of acknowledging that the name could have a completely different meaning.

Dvorak had a great point because if the swimsuit had another name, would it change the way people thought about it? I also recall Spongebob drawing inspiration from the name "Bikini" referring to the nuclear tests. That would be another instance of kind of normalizing the name, but for a kids show.

The distinction and connection between coral and concrete was shown here. The coral was destroyed to allow the construction of military fortifications (concrete).

I really liked the correlation Dvorak made between coral and the Marshallese people because both were reshaped/impacted to suit the needs of other people and other developments. In a way, both couldn't really do much and just had to accept their fate since it was in control of higher powers.

As we've seen throughout history, for some cultures land is one of the most important aspects of existence because it holds a deep sense of identity, purpose, and belonging. But, being forced to relocate off of your own land must've been very devastating for many people.

For these families, that is extremely depressing not being able to know where your loved one passed away. I would feel like an empty box would represent the unknown and uncertainty of what happened, which wouldn't make me feel at peace.

I never realized how significant bathtubs/baths were because seeing how the military saw it in ways such as through vulnerability and purification was pretty powerful. I couldn't imagine what would be going through some of their heads knowing this could be one of their last moments of pleasure and comfort before going on their missions.

I thought it was interesting how a dream completely changed and opened up his perspective by kind of allowing him to accept the feeling of the haunting presence of Kwajalein's tragic past and its spirits. I think his realization worked in a way where once you notice something, you can't unsee it.

I keep getting the sense that Dvorak is a very careful ethnographer. His stances are often ambiguous relating to what he is describing such as in section he mentions some of his feelings towards the world of spirit/demons/ghosts, etc, but mainly keeps the focus on how the islanders interpret it. You could say he teased his opinions rather than telling you his judgement straightforward.

This made me think of Hau'ofa's "Our Sea of Islands" because this sentence emphasized his ideas and perspective that Pacific history was about bridging gaps between cultures, and seeing the ocean as a place of significance that allowed for exploration and connectivity, and not just a vast body of water that separated places by distance.

Dvorak's use of immediate narrative and storytelling, using personal connections to explain his relationship to the research is extremely intriguing. As a reader, I already feel more engaged in this book simply because I am able to realize the importance this place holds for him as well as his family.

I think it's effective when Dvorak engages in trade-offs between different historical contexts of culture from the past and present. Being able to view culture from multiple perspectives can help us make distinctions between how we view culture in the modern day vs what it actually was.

Questions about how ethnography is written:

1) How do authors of ethnography know what approach will be best for their readers?

2) Should their writing style depend on who their intended audience is?

3) What factors do you think influences an ethnographer's writing style?

This made me think of the broad issue we discuss in this class dealing with how ethnography is written. We have seen that authors like Bashkow and Ka'ili have different approaches to ethnography. Bashkow had a drawn back and distanced tone of writing, whereas Ka'ili was actively engaging in personal connections and more open about sharing his experiences. It seems that Dvorak will make use of immediate narrative as he is confident in his storytelling abilities. I believe authors will write their best ethnography when focusing on their strengths.

I didn't know how to react to this situation. I find it difficult that people must trade-off the feeling of māfana (warmth) and donations against their responsibility of caring for their families. At the end of the day, I think some may feel obligated to donate, but how do you truly know if that's worth the risk of having your family suffer and struggle.

This has shown the importance of Tongans physical presence in creating harmonious social spaces. In contrast, Tongans absence at events creates disharmony and creates feelings of shame. This was an interesting trade-off because it really emphasized the importance of social responsibility in their culture.

I think we often value one's willingness to help and their thoughtfulness over monetary value because your physical actions are more meaningful than money.

This example of comparison shows how each culture values what to do with leftover food. In Tonga, they value providing for the host, while people on Maui value their individual shares and providing for their guests. I definitely understand each perspective, but I just thought it was an interesting trade-off/comparison.

I think this paragraph is immediate narrative because he's telling a story from a specific point in time, and his descriptions made it easy to visualize what was going on such as his actions and how he felt.

It's impressive how art/images could last such a long time giving insight to people in the future of how interactions between different cultures occurred in the past.

Similar to the 'Ewa example that was used in the previous paragraph, it was really interesting to see how significant names were because they could form connections between two different places, people, etc.

I appreciate how Tēvita explains his personal genealogy since it's such an important aspect of culture. Aside from his writing style being very inclusive of both immediate and distance narrative, I feel that he also has a strong ability to utilize comparison not only between cultures, but through deeper connections and meanings to his personal life.

I think it's important to keep in mind that wherever you travel (for research, vacation, etc) you should do research and educate yourself about the cultural rules/norms of a place. It's important to be respectful, and you have to realize that just because something is considered acceptable in your culture doesn't mean it's acceptable in another culture.

Genealogy was also very important for native Hawaiians, and was a critical aspect of one's social identity.

I've appreciated the use of diagrams in this book because it's helped me have an easier time visualizing the concepts, ideas, and information being introduced in each section.

It's interesting to see how everything is encompassing within time and space, and I like how every aspect is broken down into further and further parts such as having different dimensions.

It's evident that art (like in many cultures) was used as a strong form of communication, where art has the ability represent a culture's opinions and values while also bringing people closer together.

I can sense the recurring theme of “mobility” and how significant it was for natives to be able to travel and spread their culture. I am inferring that throughout the book we might see strong connections between mobility and the concept of tā and vā as natives had to adapt their time to prioritize what was most important to them at a given moment/time.

Test