pronunciations” (Matsuda 1991: 1345). The speech pathologist who
testified on behalf of the employer gave the judge ammunition when she
was questioned during the trial: “I urgently recommend [Mr. Kahakua]
seek professional help in striving to lessen this handicap ... Pidgin can be
controlled. And if an individual is totally committed to improving,
professional help on a long-term basis can produce results” (emphasis
added) (ibid.).
This is a very good – if very disturbing – example of how people think
about language: if we want to, if we try hard enough, we can acquire a
perfect language, one which is clean, pure, free of variation and unpleasant
social associations. Language which is not perfect is a handicap, and does
not have to be accepted.
The judge and the speech therapist are sure of themselves: they stake
their professional reputations on their opinions and pronouncements about
language in general and Mr. Kahakua’s language in particular. The court
has decreed that Mr. Kahakua could, if he wished, comply with what they
see as the reasonable request of his employer.
Kahakua’s attorney disagreed, as any linguist would disagree: Mr.
Kahakua can no more comply with the demand that he completely lose his
native phonology – his accent – than he could comply with an order of the
judge to grow four inches, or, and much more controversially, than it
would be possible for him to change the color of his skin. The complexity
of the relationship between language, ethnicity and ideology in Hawai’i
has only been touched upon. The Fragante case, also in Hawai’i, will make
some things clearer.
Fragante v. City & County of Honolulu^13
One commonly heard myth or misconception about Hawai’i is that of the
paradise without racism, where everyone is equal and visitors are
welcomed and treated well. In fact, Hawai’i’s history is rife with ethnic
and race conflicts that continue to the present day (Okamura 2008; Roher
2005a, 2005b).