|
So were Texas and California.
We can disagree, I'm ok with that. My original comment was more at the difference between 1971 and 2006 in Hawaii. Hawaii no longer exists in informatoinal isolation and the change from a mostly agricultural to a mostly service economy has done much to smooth out some of the differences.
In the more traditional native Hawaiian communities I think there are some real differences, particularly in the view of how people relate to government. And there are certainly unique things about Hawaii in general (Frank De Lima really isn't funny if you didn't grow up there), just as there are about any other place. But I find them to be differences of minor degree rather than anything truly unique. And primarily driven by geographical and climactic differences. For the most part, they aren't things that are going to be things that are noticed by tourists on a 10-day vacation (such as the political force that is the OHA and the surprisingly large seccessionist movement; or the impacts of the Bishop Estate on community building and population patterns. Or the difference in assumptions if you say you went to Punaho, Kamehameha, or Pearl City High. Or how it is that one of the most popular sports is indoor women's vollyball).
Most Hawaiians (state of residence, not ethnic heritage) I know who move to the mainland are more annoyed by the assumptions of difference (hey, you must have had thatched roofing) than asssumptions of similarity.
In the end, though, the only difference that really matters is that you can get chicken curry manapua at 7-11. As long as that remains the case Hawaii is heaven on earth.
|