Reading:
Imagine Otherwise: J. Kēhaulani Kauanui on Hawaiian Sovereignty

Imagine Otherwise: J. Kēhaulani Kauanui on Hawaiian Sovereignty

retro
January 16, 2019

J. Kēhaulani Kauanui wearing a black blazer and blue striped shirt, in front of houses nestled in the mountains

 

How can independent media amplify Indigenous politics? What do the politics of land, gender, and sexuality tell us about the paradox of Hawaiian sovereignty? What might a decolonial Indigenous futurity look like?

In episode 80 of the Imagine Otherwise podcast, host Cathy Hannabach chats with Indigenous studies professor and radio host J. Kēhaulani Kauanui about the histories and futures of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, why independent media is uniquely suited to telling Indigenous stories, the solidarities between anarchist and Indigenous movements, and how putting consent politics front and center is key to how Kēhaulani imagines otherwise.

Guest: J. Kēhaulani Kauanui

J. Kēhaulani Kauanui is a professor of American Studies and affiliate faculty of anthropology at Wesleyan University, where she teaches courses related to Indigenous studies, critical race studies, settler colonial studies, and anarchist studies. She is the chair of American Studies and the director of the Center for the Americas.

Her books include Paradoxes of Hawaiian Sovereignty: Land, Sex, and the Colonial Politics of State Nationalism (Duke University Press, 2018), Speaking of Indigenous Politics: Conversations with Activists, Scholars, and Tribal Leaders (University of Minnesota Press, 2018), and Hawaiian Blood: Colonialism and the Politics of Sovereignty and Indigeneity (Duke University Press, 2008).

Kēhaulani serves as a co-producer for an anarchist politics show called Anarchy on Air, a majority people-of-color show co-produced with a group of Wesleyan students, which builds on her earlier work on another collaborative anarchist program called Horizontal Power Hour.

Kēhaulani is one of the original 6 co-founders of the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association (NAISA), founded in 2008.

Episode Sponsor

This episode is sponsored by the MA in Critical Studies Program at the Pacific Northwest College of Art. The goal of the MA in Critical Studies is to produce creative critical thinkers prepared to address pressing contemporary issues at the intersection of cultural production and critical theory. Program graduates develop the research, writing, and communication skills necessary for rigorously investigating the forces shaping contemporary culture with imagination, creativity, and collaboration. MA program applications are open now. For more information visit pnca.edu/criticalstudies

We chatted about

  • Kēhaulani’s new book of edited radio interviews Speaking of Indigenous Politics: Conversations with Activists, Scholars, and Tribal Leaders (1:58)
  • The appeal of audio and radio format in narrating Indigenous stories and politics (05:02)
  • Histories of Hawaiian sovereignty debates and struggles (7:53)
  • Global Indigenous solidarity between Native Hawaiians and First Nations peoples (14:52)
  • Combining academic scholarship with social justice and artistic practices (18:59)
  • Imagining otherwise (24:09)

J. Kēhaulani Kauanui wearing a black blazer and blue striped shirt, in front of houses nestled in the mountains

Takeaways

How to translate a radio show into book form

[I had to] kind of cherry-pick twenty-seven people out of that long run and think about what together could make an edited volume that’s now Speaking of Indigenous Politics. It was really great to be able to look at the transcripts of these interviews and think through the multiple dimensions, the people that I interviewed, all that they gave, and that medium of them speaking to a lay audience—a listenership at the time and now seeing how that translates for a readership.

Why audio formats are so powerful in telling Indigenous stories

The answer to that is linked to the politics of independent media and what it meant for me to produce the only show that dealt with Indigenous issues in New England. I really thought of it as an ethical project of being attentive to what was going on at the times, during those years, in this region. The subtitle [of the show] is “from Native New England and beyond” and that “beyond” part opened up the global scope in terms of really thinking about of all of this as Native land—even New England, which is not typically thought of as a Native space. Part of it is the audio form, but a lot of this is linked into the possibilities and prospects of what independent media can do, whether that’s on air or whether that’s a podcast like yours. These are not perspectives that we’re going to see in corporate media or even public media, like public radio.

Kēhaulani’s recent book Paradoxes of Hawaiian Sovereignty

What I’m looking at in the book is what I call the paradox of Hawaiian sovereignty. What does it mean to have this legal claim to an independence that isn’t being realized right now because of us global domination? How did Hawai‘i as an entity, or the Hawaiian Kingdom, get that recognition as an independent state in the 1800s? What I look at is the politics of land, gender, and sexuality—both then and now.

The political and ethical connections between anarchism and indigeneity

For me, these issues are connected. Some people say, “Wait, how are you going to anarchism from indigeneity?” And I say, “Well, when we have anarchist critique of the state and authoritarianism, the state for me is not some abstract thing. It’s a settler colonial state.” So for me, the connection is about that and identifying and teasing this out.

Imagining otherwise

I want a demilitarized world. A world of environmental sustainability a world that is not premised or based on proprietary relationships, where we don’t own the land, where we don’t own other humans, where we don’t engage people sexually as though we own people. I want nothing less than the end of non-consensual domination.

More from Kēhaulani

Projects and people discussed

About Imagine Otherwise

Imagine Otherwise is a podcast about the people and projects bridging art, activism, and academia to build better worlds. Episodes offer in-depth interviews with creators who use culture for social justice, and explore the nitty-gritty work of imagining and creating more just worlds. Check out full podcast episodes and show notes at ideasonfire.net/imagine-otherwise-podcast. Imagine Otherwise is produced by Ideas on Fire, an academic editing and consulting agency helping progressive, interdisciplinary scholars write and publish awesome texts, enliven public conversations, and create more just worlds.

Sign up for our newsletter

Podcast episodes, articles, and offers right to your inbox to help you rock your interdisciplinary career

Our Privacy Policy

Episode transcript

Cathy Hannabach [00:03]: [upbeat music in background] Welcome to Imagine Otherwise, the podcast about the people and projects bridging art, activism, and academia to build better worlds. Episodes offer in-depth interviews with creators who use culture for social justice and explore the nitty-gritty work of imagining otherwise. I’m your host, Cathy Hannabach. [music fadeout]

[00:22] This episode is sponsored by the MA in Critical Studies Program at the Pacific Northwest College of Art. The Critical Studies Program produces creative, critical thinkers with the research, writing, and communication skills necessary to address pressing issues at the intersection of cultural production and critical theory. MA program applications are open now. For more information on the program and the enrollment process, you can visit pnca.edu/criticalstudies.

[00:49] This is episode 80 and my guest today is J. Kēhaulani Kauanui.

Kēhaulani is a professor of American studies and affiliate faculty of anthropology at Wesleyan University, where teaches courses related to Indigenous studies, critical race studies, settler colonial studies, and anarchist studies. She is the chair of American Studies and the director of the Center for the Americas.

Her books include Paradoxes of Hawaiian Sovereignty: Land, Sex, and the Colonial Politics of State Nationalism (Duke University Press, 2018), Speaking of Indigenous Politics: Conversations with Activists, Scholars, and Tribal Leaders (University of Minnesota Press, 2018), and Hawaiian Blood: Colonialism and the Politics of Sovereignty and Indigeneity (Duke University Press, 2008).

Kēhaulani serves as a co-producer for an anarchist politics show called Anarchy on Air, a majority people-of-color show co-produced with a group of Wesleyan students, which builds on her earlier work on another collaborative anarchist program called Horizontal Power Hour.

Kēhaulani is one of the original 6 co-founders of the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association (NAISA), founded in 2008.

In our interview, Kēhaulani and I chat about the histories and futures of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, why independent media is uniquely suited to telling Indigenous stories, the solidarities between anarchist and Indigenous movements, and how putting consent politics from and center is key to how Kēhaulani imagines otherwise.

[To Kēhaulani] Thank you so much for being with us today.

J. Kēhaulani Kauanui [02:23]: Mahalo. Thank you for having me on the show. I’m excited to be in conversation with you.

Cathy: I would like to start talking about one of two very recent books that you had come out I’m hoping to talk about both, but let’s start off by talking about the one that originally started out as a radio show, Speaking of Indigenous Politics. That book collects a large number of interviews that you had done over the course of years in that radio show. I’m curious about that process of translating something from audio form to book form. What was that like?

Kēhaulani: Oh yeah. Thank you for asking. I’m really excited about this book.

So for context for your listeners, I produced alone and hosted a show called Indigenous Politics from Native New England and Beyond through the studios at WESU in Middletown, Connecticut. That show launched in February 2007 and was on air through 2013.

[03:15] There were over 200 people featured on the show in that time, and for most of the people that were on the program, I did conduct interviews. There were some [episodes] where there are lectures that I had attended. I aired the lecture because the lecture was so open in terms of a generalist audience. So not all of the show was interview-based, but most of it was.

So [I had to] kind of cherry-pick twenty-seven people out of that long run and think about what together could make an edited volume that’s now Speaking of Indigenous Politics. It was really great to be able to look at the transcripts of these interviews and think through the multiple dimensions, the people that I interviewed, all that they gave, and that medium of them speaking to a lay audience—a listenership at the time and now seeing how that translates for a readership.

[04:06] One of the aims for me in terms of being the host and producer of that show was to do a kind of translation. If there was a complicated legal issue that I had done research on that I was interviewing them about, it gave me a chance to retranslate or restate what they had told me in the interview for a general listening audience. I used that as a way to unpack these sometimes complicated legal conundrums or political cases.

Re-reading the interviews and selecting what I was going to put in [the book] was a rich process and also gave me a chance to do some light editing. I thought, “How do I translate this from a transcript that’s been on air, where we really know we’re being listened to, to think about how this is reading on the page.” [This was] in terms of the mechanics, like the paragraph break and taking out the “ums” and the “ahs,” but also thinking about those questions and doing a little bit more streamlining and fine tuning.

[05:05] Out of the twenty-seven people that I selected to include in the book, the people that granted me permission, three of those have two interviews each and that’s because the show did a follow-up on a particular case study. It’s a really diverse collection in terms of the range of Indigenous political issues, activism, art, legal cases, scholarly work—you name it.

Cathy [05:29]: I’m glad you brought up this question of voice and of translating audio into written form because that’s something that I’ve seen a lot of podcasts do lately and more and more over the years. It’s really exciting. It was certainly at the forefront of why I wanted to start this podcast [Imagine Otherwise]: to foreground the literal voices and bodies of folks that we often only engage with through texts. If we don’t engage with them in our local communities, often we encounter these artists or these scholars through their written work.

What draws you to the audio format or radio format? What does it let you tell about Indigenous stories and Indigenous politics?

Kēhaulani [06:06]: For me, the answer to that is linked to the politics of independent media and what it meant for me to produce the only show that dealt with Indigenous issues in New England. I really thought of it as an ethical project of being attentive to what was going on at the times, during those years, in this region.

The subtitle [of the show] is “from Native New England and beyond” and that “beyond” part opened up the global scope in terms of really thinking about of all of this as Native land—even New England, which is not typically thought of as a Native space.

Part of it is the audio form, but a lot of this is linked into the possibilities and prospects of what independent media can do, whether that’s on air or whether that’s a podcast like yours. These are not perspectives that we’re going to see in corporate media or even public media, like public radio.

[06:58] So for me, the independent radio was the key piece and certainly audio in terms of actually listening to a conversation and having me be able to sit down and talk to a scholar about a brand new book. Part of it was thinking about what I wanted to feature and then to have that conversation and unpack issues in a way that could be thought about as a broad sort of education, if you will—a civic education, for lack of a better word.

Along with the audio is the form of the interview. That that to me is a very particular genre. To have that conversation is interesting for me because, in general, people that know me socially or who’ve heard me give my own lectures, I’m described as a talker. But in in this context, I’m really the listener and a kind of a translator of sorts.

[07:48] If somebody was using a shorthand that’s known in Native America around a particular political status, for example, I didn’t want to take it for granted that listeners knew what that person meant even though I did. So part of it was about doing a follow-up question where I would restate and unpack it, and then taking it to another level to have another question come. I really do like the play on the title of the book, “speaking of Indigenous politics,” because it really gets at that issue of the conversation and what that means to be in dialogue with these distinct guests.

Cathy [08:20]: So in addition to this collection that you just had come out, you also are the author of a recent book called Paradoxes of Hawaiian Sovereignty: Land, Sex, and the Colonial Politics of State Nationalism. That book traces the history of sovereignty debates and struggles in Hawai‘i. Can you give our listeners a quick overview of what you argue in that book? Then I’d love to dive into some of the specifics.

Kēhaulani [08:43]: Sure, yeah. The book is hot off the press and it’s been a long time coming. It is something that has been a challenge to write.

I am affiliated with the Hawaiian nationalist movement and yet I launch some pretty sustained critiques in this work in relation to the contemporary nationalist movement for Hawaiian sovereignty. [That movement] can be characterized as being in two major camps. [The first is] people fighting for federal recognition along the lines of what American Indian tribal nations have, a Native nation status under US federal policy. [The other camp] insists that the Hawaiian Kingdom still exists and we’re fighting for the restoration that independent country.

[09:30] There are people within the independence camp who see it in different ways. Some would say the kingdom still exists, actually, but it’s just that it’s occupied by the United States military. Others would say that we have this claim to restore our independence as an independent country because of the illegal occupation. You have the US Marines backing white settlers and a US foreign minister in Hawai‘i in 1893 and then subsequently annexing Hawai‘i unilaterally through a joint resolution of Congress in 1898. Then you have fraudulent statehood for Hawai‘i, which become the 50th state in 1959 through an internal vote administered by the colonial government. So those are the two broad strokes of the Hawaiian nationalist movement right now.

What I’m looking at in the book is what I call the paradox of Hawaiian sovereignty. What does it mean to have this legal claim to an independence that isn’t being realized right now because of us global domination? How did Hawai‘i as an entity, or the Hawaiian Kingdom, get that recognition as an independent state in the 1800s?

[10:35] What I look at is the politics of land, gender, and sexuality—both then and now. So I look at how when the kingdom was founded by Kamehameha I, in 1810, and then it eventually went to his son Kamehameha II and then to Kamehameha III.

It’s under Kamehameha III that we see the kingdom leaning towards a westernized model. That’s when land became privatized. That’s when Hawaiian women became legally subordinated and you have a range of legal sanctions against and the criminalization of a range of sexual practices and possibilities. I liken it to what looked like in the early-to-mid-nineteenth century as a form of respectability politics. Because Hawaiians are a brown Polynesian people, they were thought of as savage and childlike. They had to prove a Western likeness to say they were capable of self-governance, they were rational, they were modern.

[11:28] Land, gender, and sexuality were indices at the time for Western nations of being capable. To hold private land was to be considered modern and civilized. Gender egalitarianism—things Western nations now strive for and call themselves progressive for—[were looked down upon]. Without patrilineality and patriarchy, Hawaii‘i, was seen as backward. What does that mean?

Same-sex sexual practices and the mahu category (alternately intersex or transgender, depending on how people are using it today in the 21st century) and also multiple partners for people of all genders, not just men. In some societies, you know, you have multiple partners just for men. So to try and regulate and eradicate those practices meant an assault on Indigenous ways of life, especially if you think about the links between land, gender, and sexuality as relationships. What did it mean to convert those relationships into proprietary ones? To transform something like land as homeland and relative into the notion of territory and property?

[12:33] Or think about the legal subsumption of women under their spouses when they became married. This Christian law of coverture is a property model. Heterosexual marriage was formed within Calvinist constraints in a Christian model that is about property. Or think about what it means to engage someone sexually and people behaving as though they think they own the other person and their sexuality.

I’m looking what that meant in the 1800s and then what it means today in terms of the nationalist movement, in terms of how the politics of land, gender, and sexuality play out in the contemporary nationalist struggle, and how those issues are dealt with differently in these two different camps.

Where I come out in the end, and this gets to that argument part, is that the federal recognition model doesn’t deal with that illegality and the sort of subordinate Native position. [Federal recognition] means recognition of being Indigenous, but as a politically subordinate category.

[13:25] On the other hand, for the independence activists, there are a lot of people who are really fixated on the fact that we had this independent state. They reject the language of indigeneity and Indigenous peoples for Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawaiians) because they understand that Indigenous peoples are politically subordinate under international law as well.

I critique both of these movements because they really don’t get at decolonization or a very robust decolonization that can really talk about what it means to come through this legacy of forms of Christianity and settler colonialism that can’t just be remedied by a legal model either way.

I stand publicly with Hawaiian independence activists and will always be able to show you in international law that the claim that the US asserts over Hawai‘i is illegal. That’s a fact. But de-occupation alone isn’t going to fix things and that has to do with settler colonialism and the way that our life practices, our Indigenous lifeways, have been transformed.

In the end I advocate for a decolonial model that is critical of state solutions. So it’s bit of an anarchist bent, if you will. And that has to do with thinking about decolonization beyond just the legal or historical remedy, in the service of a new state like renewing a kingdom as the answer or having a state-recognized, federally-recognized Native governing entity on the other.

Cathy [14:53]: One of the things that you talk about quite extensively in the book is the very complicated and often fraught and tense relationship between Native Hawaiians and Native American and other Indigenous movements, communities, and nations—particularly given the very different and also equally complex histories of US settler colonialism in different locations. What changes have you seen in history of that relationship over time and where do you see or where do you hope to see it go in the future?

Kēhaulani [15:19]: Thank you, I appreciate that question so much. There is a long, deep history of Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawaiian) and Native American solidarity, through multiple epochs and eras, that so important. There is also a global solidarity politics with Indigenous peoples all over the world.

Kanaka Maoli have visited Ainu land in Japan and talked about what the Ainu people have faced, and Sámi land, the Indigenous place of the Sámi people subject to Scandinavian forms of colonialism.

Global Indigenous solidarity is really important. One of the things that I try to really get at in this book, though, is that when we have state officials pushing the federal recognition model on the Hawaiian people, it makes for a complicated set of politics. This is so in terms of Hawaiians committed to independence rejecting that model and unfortunately sometimes couching that rejection in chauvinistic language that talks about Native Americans or First Nations peoples as somehow settling for this lesser model, without any real engagement or appreciation or sensitivity to the fact that in so many cases, they have a much longer colonial history.

[16:38] So, for example, I’m in Connecticut right now, close to Massachusetts. I’m thinking about being in one of the states that was one of the original thirteen [British] colonies. Here you have the long, long legacy of British colonialism. How somebody is engaging English settlers in the 1600s is going to look really different than Captain [James] Cook coming [to Hawai‘i] in the late eighteenth century. And then you have the founding of the Hawaiian Kingdom in the early eighteenth century. It’s a different era. It’s the era of modern nation-states.

The Hawaiian Kingdom nationalists that I’m critically engaging reject the federal recognition model—and rightly so. This is something that is state-driven. When it came up from the grassroots in the 1980s, the state officials were against it. But when the movement started to turn towards independence, state officials began really pushing this model as the solution.

[17:31] I’m against federal recognition in the Hawaiian context. I support it in the context in which I live [Connecticut]. I stand with tribes who want federal recognition—that’s the part about self-determination, so I don’t want to compare it.

To go back to the radio book for a minute, Speaking of Indigenous Politics, in the critical introduction to those interviews, I have a somewhat substantial section comparing the federal recognition political problem in the Hawaiian context and the Schaghticoke nation here in Connecticut, where state officials overturned the Bureau of Indian Affairs decision to federally recognize that Indian tribe. The Schaghticoke people fought for that for years. But in the Hawai‘i case, it’s state officials that are driving this as a solution to what they see as a Hawaiian problem.

[18:27] As you can see, I’m trying to be attentive to the specifics of location, the specifics of different Indigenous peoples’ political genealogies and histories. This is not to say that I think that tribal sovereignty or Indigenous peoples’ sovereignty is worth less or is less. The difference is that the US government doesn’t recognize Indian tribal sovereignty as being on par with foreign nations’ sovereignty and that is a different legal genealogy.

The problem isn’t indigeneity. The problem is violent, oppressive states that want to dominate Indigenous peoples. That’s the problem. And so I’m really trying to open up a space where we all are working for Indigenous futures, a decolonial Indigenous futurity. State solutions aren’t the answer.

Cathy: How do you see your work combining your interest in academia or scholarship with your social justice work and your interest in art, creativity, and cultural production?

Kēhaulani: Oh, what a great question, thank you. For me, they all feed into each other and they compliment each other.

[19:27] So for example, when I was producing the Indigenous Politics radio show for seven years, I talked with Margo Tamaz, who’s interviewed in the Speaking of Indigenous Politics book. She and her mother founded an organization, Lipan Apache Women Defense, which has filed a legal claim against the US Department of Defense, the US Department of Homeland Security, and the US Department of the Interior. That meant that I had to really learn those issues to do interviews responsibly. I had to do all that legal research and to keep up with a particular case. Or to interview somebody about a new book meant I had to read the book.

All of that research for the radio show and my commitment to bringing those perspectives, bringing Indigenous agency, Indigenous sovereignty, Indigenous resistance to a general listenership—all of that research certainly feeds into my own research agenda for my own projects, my own books, and also in the classroom.

[20:23] That keeps me up-to-date. So when I’m teaching a class called Indigenous Politics, as I do at Wesleyan, I can say, “Well, what do I want to feature in this class? You know, this legal case that I’ve been following for five years might be one of them.” My courses often influence what things I have access to, and the interviews and the research would often feed back into my own research and teaching.

I also want to highlight the ethical connection because I right now do work on an anarchist radio program and I produced it with a working group—a majority POC [people of color] working group. I work with a group of students and we produce a show together called Anarchy on Air. The anarchist radio show also brings in Indigenous perspectives. The kinds of topics that we cover include everything from Palestine solidarity to transgender liberation, sexual freedom, disability rights—you name it. We have a really broad focus for our show. That’s been on air since 2014.

[21:14] For me, these issues are connected. Some people say, “Wait, how are you going to anarchism from indigeneity?” And I say, “Well, when we have anarchist critique of the state and authoritarianism, the state for me is not some abstract thing. It’s a settler colonial state.” So for me, the connection is about that and identifying and teasing this out.

Again, from the Indigenous perspective, statist solutions aren’t the answer. States are the problem; they’re part of the problem.

For me, this has to do with consent politics. We talk about consent of the governed or we talk about interpersonal consent in our relationships and being able to do anti-normalization work and refuse when somebody is abusing their power. The anarchist sensibility is to always challenge power that isn’t legitimate. Even with art, the work of anti-normalization is so important and I think so much of what’s going on that’s exciting in the art world is work that is about lifting up the agency of peoples and stories and histories that have been submerged and subordinated.

Cathy [22:12]: In addition to this new radio show that you’re working on with these students, what other kinds of projects are you up to these days?

Kēhaulani: In relation to activism, one of the things that I would want to emphasize in this interview is my work in solidarity with Palestinians on BDS: boycott, divestment, and sanctions. I’m finishing up a book on BDS solidarity politics, looking at how BDS has played out in very specific Indigenous contexts. That’s a book of political essays and it’s new for me because I’m not aiming for an academic press for that.

For example, I have an essay on what I’ve theorized as redwashing: how Israeli officials have courted Indigenous peoples and what does that mean? Redwashing is a play on pinkwashing, which is about how Israel promotes LGBT rights as a way to pinkwash—pink, you know, drawing on the symbol of the pink triangle. It’s the same with redwashing, and I’ve done quite a bit of research on that.

[23:03] I also have an essay [in that book] that deals with academic boycott politics within the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association—how that has played out there—and another essay that brings Hawai‘i and Palestine into the same frame to look at them as cases of both occupation and settler colonialism. So I’m finishing that [book] up right now.

I’m also working on the next project, which is a spinoff of my second book, Paradoxes of Hawaiian Sovereignty. That [new book] is focused on Native Hawaiian women and the politics of feminism. As part of that project, I’ll be looking at Native Hawaiian women who were activists against US annexation, who did not want to be part of the US in any way, shape, or form. Some of them later, once the US took Hawai‘i, advocated for US women’s suffrage or for their own suffrage as Native Hawaiian women under the US system.

[24:49] I’m interested in how they mobilized around suffrage as a way to try and gain back some of their own gendered agency, which was not just lost through the US annexation but even earlier in terms of the legal status of Hawaiian women.

Cathy: So this brings me to my absolute favorite question that I get to ask guests and I really like rounding out each interview with this. It gets at the heart of why you do what you do—that big why behind all of these different projects: these activist projects, these academic projects, these artistic or creative projects. That is the better world that you’re working towards. So I’ll ask you what might be a giant question and possibly a scary question (as some other guests have mentioned in previous interviews) but I also think it’s a question we don’t ask enough of each other and we don’t get enough opportunities to answer. So what kind of world do you want?

Kēhaulani [25:36]: I want a demilitarized world. A world of environmental sustainability, a world that is not premised or based on proprietary relationships, where we don’t own the land, where we don’t own other humans, where we don’t engage people sexually as though we own people. I want nothing less than the end of non-consensual domination.

Cathy: Well, thank you so much for being with us and sharing all of the different ways that you imagine and create otherwise.

Kēhaulani: Thank you so much for having me on the show. Aloha, Cathy. It’s been a pleasure talking with you.

Cathy [25:07]: [upbeat music in background] Thanks for listening to another episode of Imagine Otherwise. Imagine Otherwise is produced by Ideas on Fire and this episode was created by Christopher Persaud, Rebecca Reynolds, Michelle Velasquez-Potts, and myself, Cathy Hannabach.

You can check out the show notes for this episode on our website at ideasonfire.net where you can also read about our fabulous guest as well as find links to the people and projects we discuss on the show. [music fadeout]


Related Stories

Arrow-up