For instance, the companies engage kama‘āina within their names for purposes of showing connection to the immediate community (Yamashiro, 2009).
Further, I agree with the author that settler colonialism theory depends on the fast distinction between non-Native/settler and Native/indigenous. The distinction is aimed at achieving an ethical understanding of settler claims through recognition and storage of unique rights of indigenous peoples within the land. Malihini and Kama‘āina are defined as binary through the supportive Hawai‘i scholarship. For illustration shows that kama‘āina form the Hawaiian locality initially meant indigenous Hawaiian or “Native-born” and such meaning changed over the years to mean “well-acquainted” or “island-born” in Hawai‘i (Yamashiro, 2009). However, the author could have used Mary Louise-Pratt’s anti-conquest rhetoric perception to explain the kama‘āina identity and its consumption of white missionaries’ children born in Hawai‘i. The children were opposed to parents coming from New England to Hawai‘I to do dual work involving the assertion of innocence and securing hegemony.
I believe that the irrevocable distinction between non-Native and Native presents a contradiction of the findings in cultural material and other folklore sources of Hawaiian-language such as the ‘ōlelo no‘eau to mean wise poetical proverbs or sayings. The Hawaiian-language songs use words malihini and kama‘āina. Despite malihini being used as reference to white newcomers and foreigners to Hawai‘i, the term was not entirely reserved among the non-Natives (Yamashiro, 2009). The standard Elbert and Pukui Hawaiian-English terminology showed that malihini was broadly defined as “stranger, newcomer, the foreigner,” with unfamiliar places and customs.
Similarly, it is critical to identify the resonance of kama‘āina