Everyday Boundaries, Borders and

Post Conflict Societies 1st ed. Edition

Renata Summa
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/everyday-boundaries-borders-and-post-conflict-societ
ies-1st-ed-edition-renata-summa/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Everyday Boundaries, Borders and Post Conflict

Societies 1st ed. Edition Renata Summa

https://ebookmass.com/product/everyday-boundaries-borders-and-
post-conflict-societies-1st-ed-edition-renata-summa/

Syria: Borders, Boundaries, and the State 1st ed.

Edition Matthieu Cimino

https://ebookmass.com/product/syria-borders-boundaries-and-the-
state-1st-ed-edition-matthieu-cimino/

Childhood and Schooling in (Post)Socialist Societies:

Memories of Everyday Life 1st Edition Iveta Silova

https://ebookmass.com/product/childhood-and-schooling-in-
postsocialist-societies-memories-of-everyday-life-1st-edition-
iveta-silova/

Post-Conflict Hauntings: Transforming Memories of

Historical Trauma 1st ed. Edition Kim Wale

https://ebookmass.com/product/post-conflict-hauntings-
transforming-memories-of-historical-trauma-1st-ed-edition-kim-
wale/
Inclusion in Post-Conflict Legislatures: The Kosovo and
Northern Ireland Assemblies 1st ed. 2020 Edition
Michael Potter

https://ebookmass.com/product/inclusion-in-post-conflict-
legislatures-the-kosovo-and-northern-ireland-assemblies-1st-
ed-2020-edition-michael-potter/

Conflict and Post-Conflict Governance in the Middle

East and Africa Moosa A. Elayah

https://ebookmass.com/product/conflict-and-post-conflict-
governance-in-the-middle-east-and-africa-moosa-a-elayah/

Post-Conflict Power-Sharing Agreements: Options for

Syria 1st Edition Imad Salamey

https://ebookmass.com/product/post-conflict-power-sharing-
agreements-options-for-syria-1st-edition-imad-salamey/

SWISS DEMOCRACY : possible solutions to conflict in

multicultural societies. 4th Edition Wolf Linder

https://ebookmass.com/product/swiss-democracy-possible-solutions-
to-conflict-in-multicultural-societies-4th-edition-wolf-linder/

Practical Spirituality and Human Development:

Transformations in Religions and Societies 1st ed.
Edition Ananta Kumar Giri

https://ebookmass.com/product/practical-spirituality-and-human-
development-transformations-in-religions-and-societies-1st-ed-
edition-ananta-kumar-giri/
CRITICAL SECURITY STUDIES
IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH
SERIES EDITORS: PINAR BILGIN · MONICA HERZ

Everyday Boundaries,
Borders and Post
Conflict Societies
Renata Summa
Critical Security Studies in the Global South

Series Editors
Pinar Bilgin
Department of International Relations
Bilkent University
Ankara, Turkey

Monica Herz
Institute of International Relations
PUC-Rio
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Critical approaches to security have made significant inroads into the study
of world politics in the past 30 years. Drawing from a broad range of
critical approaches to world politics (including Frankfurt School Crit-
ical Theory, Poststructuralism, Gramscian approaches and Postcolonial
Studies), critical approaches to security have inspired students of inter-
national relations to think broadly and deeply about the security dynamic
in world politics, multiple aspects of insecurities and how insecurities are
produced as we seek to address them. This series, given its focus on the
study of security in and of the Global South, will bring to the debate new
spheres of empirical research both in terms of themes and social locations,
as well as develop new interconnection between security and other related
subfields.

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/15576
 Renata Summa

Everyday Boundaries,
Borders and Post
Conflict Societies
Renata Summa
International Relations Institute
Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Critical Security Studies in the Global South

ISBN 978-3-030-55816-1 ISBN 978-3-030-55817-8 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55817-8

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc.
in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such
names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for
general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and informa-
tion in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither
the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with
respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been
made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

Cover illustration: © Lia Lopes

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To my parents, Cristina and Aimone
 Preface

This is ultimately a book about how borders and boundaries are produced,
reproduced, challenged and diverted in post-conflict societies. Although
borders and boundaries have been claimed as fundamental assets during
conflict and in post-conflict societies—justifying walls and fences and
displacing whole populations—this book argues that the production of
boundaries does not happen in the ways we usually think it does, nor
where we usually expect it to happen. Indeed, borders and boundaries
have been easily naturalized and taken for granted—sometimes as a de-
historicized given, as fixed lines that clearly demarcate the inside from
the outside and produce inclusions and exclusions. Sometimes historical
claims are made in order to trace or contest the demarcation lines, but
even when this happens, space is essentialized as a national space clearly
demarcated from the space of the ‘others’. From Bosnia and Herzegovina
to Northern Ireland, from Croatia to Cyprus, conflict has strengthened,
if not produced, new forms of violent demarcations, highlighting the role
played by borders and boundaries in conflict and post-conflict societies.
They have been understood both as the cause and as the solution to wars.
As such, they have been of major concern of the political elites, figuring on
the negotiation tables and peace agreements, demarcated on official maps,
preserved by the national military or by NATO and used as a fundamental
security tool to keep peace in post-conflict societies. Based on security
claims, many boundaries are institutionalized.

vii
viii PREFACE

This book, however, suggests looking elsewhere to make sense of

borders and boundaries in post-conflict society. It provides an alternative
account of how boundaries operate in post-conflict societies by taking the
everyday as a serious field of analysis. Indeed, looking into the everyday of
a post-conflict society challenges militarized conceptions of security and
reveals that everyday interactions and everyday places are crucial to how
local people experience security. Moreover, by looking at the everyday
and, more specifically, to everyday places, it is possible to provide a more
dynamic account of boundary productions than the one offered by peace
treaties or UN Peace Operations.
Drawing on a detailed investigation of everyday places in two cities in
Bosnia and Herzegovina, this book raises questions about how processes
of identification and othering take place in post-conflict societies, some-
times appearing as rigid lines of segregation and, in many other cases, as
ephemerous and fragmented enactments of boundaries. Tactics such as
silencing, crossing, cherishing the pre-war past and passing as someone
from the other community are widely adopted, while more frontal ways
of challenging the post-war ethnonational logic are also widespread in
everyday practices and places.
Coach stations, schools, cafes, squares, beauty salons and shopping
malls thus become political spaces where boundaries are both enacted
and challenged, reconfigured, subverted, minimized, displaced, disdained,
dismissed, but also reinforced, reaffirmed and celebrated. The fluidity of
everyday boundary enactments provides for a very different picture of the
situation of Bosnia and Herzegovina than the one offered by the Dayton
Peace Agreement—and, ultimately, of post-conflict societies that rely on
the idea of the segregation of difference in order to keep order, secu-
rity and peace. And so, by looking at the everyday, it becomes clear that
Bosnia will never be what Dayton wants it to be.
This book is largely based on the research conducted for my Ph.D.
which was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de
Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001. It is fair
to say that this is also a work about encounters: between people, ideas
and places, and, also, my encounters with people, ideas and places. I
would thus like to thank those who were part of this journey, espe-
cially my supervisor, João Pontes Nogueira, who has always supported my
work and my ideas. I am very grateful to other professors from Pontifical
Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro: Monica Herz, Carolina Moulin,
Marta Fernandéz, Maira Simon, Nicholas Onuf, Philippe Bonditti, Rob
 PREFACE ix

Walker, Roberto Yamato, Mike Shapiro and Stefano Guzzini. I can only
offer my gratitude to Jef Huysmans, for his insightful thoughts and the
productive discussions we had at Open University and elsewhere following
my time there. To Pinar Bilgin, for comments and encouragement. And
to Cynthia Enloe, for being an inspiration to (female) IR academics.
I am indebted to all my interlocutors in Bosnia and Herzegovina: thank
you for your time, your trust and your interest. I could have not achieved
as much without Aida Golić, Aida Hadzimusić, Amir T., Andrea Peres,
Armina Pilav, Azra Polimać, François Lunel, Giulia Carabelli, Nicholas
Moll, Selma Dzemidzić. Thanks to Ratko Orozović, who introduced me
to many of his friends and acquaintances in Dobrinja/Istočno Sarajevo
and, also, in Mostar. Thanks to all my interviewees, who have been
anonymized in this book, for taking the time to share your stories with
me. I learnt a lot from our encounters. Life in Sarajevo (and so many
encounters since) would not be the same without Armin, Bojan, Maria.
Caterina, Daniela and Mate: thanks for sharing coffee, thoughts, trips,
books and your friendship in Sarajevo, Bjelina, Belgrade, London and
beyond. Many thanks to Omar, with whom I had so many important
discussions since our encounter in Kino Bosna. Our friendship has shaped
this book in many ways. Thanks to my language teachers, Tea and Milan.
Also thank you to my close friends through this journey, my sources of
joy, strength and inspiration along the way: Gigi, Boselli, Camé, Carol,
Emma, Fe Alves, Fe Sucupira, Guilherme, Julián, Leo, Manu, Horta, Nat,
Paulinha, Paulinho, Victor and Sue. Thanks to Patricia and Ricardo, the
best siblings one could have. To Numa, who has supported this project
in so many ways and through the years, I am forever grateful. Thanks for
being there. And to Henrique, who makes life (and life in quarantine)
beautiful, which was the condition of possibility to finish this book.

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Renata Summa

 Contents

1 Introduction 1
1.1 ‘Gladni smo na tri jezika!’ 11
References 19

2 Enacting Boundaries 21
2.1 Introduction 21
2.2 Dayton Peace Accords: Boundaries as Solution? 23
2.3 Conceptualizing Borders and Boundaries 30
2.4 International Relations: From Borders to Boundaries? 33
2.5 Making (Violent?) Boundaries 41
2.6 Enacting Boundaries 46
2.7 Conclusion 49
References 50

3 The Place(s) of Everyday and Everyday Places 55

3.1 Introduction 56
3.2 An Invitation to Look at the Everyday 57
3.3 Conceptualizing the Everyday 60
3.3.1 Four Prevalent Conceptions of the Everyday
and Its Critic 65
3.4 The International as Everyday 71
3.5 Everyday Places 80
3.5.1 Displacement, Estrangement, Curiosity 84

xi
xii CONTENTS

3.5.2 Snippets as Method 86

3.5.3 On Sites and Places 88
3.5.4 Localizing Research 91
3.6 Conclusion 93
References 93

4 Politics of (Im)mobility (or Everyday Practices Around

a Coach Station) 97
4.1 Dobrinja/Istočno Sarajevo 97
4.2 Imagining Boundaries (or, How Boundaries Came
to Be) 101
4.3 Drawing, Redrawing, Demarcating 112
4.4 (Im)mobility, Crossing 116
4.4.1 Taxis’ Tactics: Coping with Bordering Practices 122
4.5 Boundary Zone (or, a Meeting Place?) 125
4.6 Everyday Places as Boundary Enactments 130
4.7 Polysemic Boundaries 139
4.8 Conclusion 141
References 143

5 Boundary Displacement and Displacement as Boundary

(or a Saturday Afternoon in a Kafana) 145
5.1 Introduction: Placing Mostar 146
5.2 What Boundary? (or, a Short Story of the Bulevar) 152
5.2.1 The Bulevar as a Frontline 153
5.2.2 Dayton Divisions and Displacements 156
5.3 The ‘Invisible Boundary’ or, ‘Boundaries Are
on People’s Head’ 159
5.3.1 Destruction and Renovation 160
5.3.2 Boundary Enactments at the Bulevar 161
5.3.3 Beyond Administrative Integration: Attempts
in Everyday Life 166
5.3.4 Polysemy of the Lived Space 168
5.4 Displacing Boundaries at Boemi Kafana: Alternative
Spatiotemporal Categories 171
5.5 Inventing Places: Disrupting the ‘Divided City’ 178
5.6 Conclusion 184
References 185
 CONTENTS xiii

6 ‘Meeting at BBI’ (or, on Shopping Malls, the ‘Local’

and the ‘International’) 187
6.1 Introduction 187
6.2 Meeting Points 188
6.3 (Re)Inventing the Square 193
6.4 The Politics Behind ‘Non-places’ 200
6.5 The International and/in the City 208
6.6 Conclusion 214
References 215

7 Conclusion 217
Reference 224

Bibliography 225

Index 243
 About the Author

Renata Summa is a Postdoctoral Researcher in International Relations

at Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro (PUC-Rio). She holds
a Ph.D. from PUC-Rio and an M.A. in International Relations from
Sciences Po Paris. She was a Visiting Researcher at the Centre for South-
eastern European Studies at the University of Graz, Austria. Her research
interests are conflict and post-conflict situations, borders and boundaries,
ex-Yugoslavia and everyday approaches in IR.

xv
 Abbreviations

ARBiH Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina

BBI Bosnia Bank International
BiH Bosnia and Herzegovina
BSC Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian language
DPA Dayton Peace Accords
EU European Union
EUFOR European Union Forces
FBiH Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina
GFA General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herze-
govina (also known as Dayton Peace Accords)
HDZ Hravatska demokratska zajednica—Croat Democratic Union
HR High Representative
HVO Hravatsko vijece obrane—Croat Defense Council
ICTY International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
IDP Internal Displaced Person
IEBL Inter-Entity Boundary Line
IFOR Implementation Force
IMF International Monetary Fund
JNA (Jugoslavenska narodna armija) Yugoslav People’s Army of the
former Yugoslavia
KM Konvertibilna Marka—Convertible Marks
KS Kanton Sarajevo—Canton Sarajevo
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
OHR Office of High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina
OSCE Organization for Security and Co-ordination in Europe

xvii
xviii ABBREVIATIONS

PIC Peace Implementation Council, an International Body Guiding

and legitimizing the OHR
RS Republika Srpska
SCC Sarajevo City Center
SFOR Stabilization Force
SFRY Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
UN United Nations
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organiza-
tions
UNHCR United Nations High Commission for Refugees
UNPD United Nations Procurement Division
UNPROFOR United Nations Protection Force
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VRS Vojska Republike Srpske—Army of Republika Srpska
 List of Figures

Fig. 4.1 Demarcations showing the end of Kanton Sarajevo—and,

therefore, the city of Sarajevo—and the beginning of City
of Istočno Sarajevo—both in Cyrillic and Latin scripts 98
Fig. 4.2 The Coach Station 99
Fig. 4.3 Map of the area 102
Fig. 4.4 Street signs in Istočno Sarajevo (blue) and Sarajevo (green) 115
Fig. 4.5 Doorbell at a building on the boundary, Istočno Sarajevo 116
Fig. 4.6 Woman sells painted eggs for Orthodox Easter at the
boundary 128
Fig. 5.1 Map of Mostar 147
Fig. 5.2 Mostar Old Town, Old Bridge and Neretva River—March
2015 149
Fig. 5.3 Dwellers crossing the Bulevar—December 2014 154
Fig. 5.4 Bulevar and Catholic Church with its redimensioned tower 162
Fig. 5.5 Mostar Old Gymnasium, at Spanish Square 164
Fig. 5.6 Destroyed buildings around Spanish Square—April 2015 165
Fig. 5.7 Granice su u vasoj glavi—Borders are in your heads—May
2015 170
Fig. 5.8 Boemi Kafana, Tito’s photo—April 2015 173
Fig. 6.1 Three of the meeting points: the Eternal Flame, the
Cathedral and BBI 189
Fig. 6.2 One of the Olympic Snowflakes, this one painted at
Sarajevo main pedestrian street 197
Fig. 6.3 Sarajevo City Center and its neon lights (on the left and
below) 202

xix
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

The tragedy of Dayton was that we created a state that was defined in terms
of the people who created the war; and they defined the war ethnically;
and they defined the state ethnically. And that, I don’t think, was the
primary appellation ordinary Bosnians would use. (James O’Brien, [one of
the Americans responsible to formulate the Dayton Accord], in Toal and
Dahlman 2011: 164)

In 1989, while the Berlin Wall was being demolished, a famous comedic
group from Sarajevo imagined the end of Yugoslavia and the division
of the city of Sarajevo in two. In the episode ‘Podjela Sarajeva - Sara-
jevski Zid’1 (Divided Sarajevo-Sarajevan wall), a wall has been built in the
middle of Sarajevo, dividing it into Zapadno Sarajevo (West Sarajevo) and
Istočno Sarajevo (East Sarajevo), as had been the case in Berlin. Although
it was recorded and broadcasted in 1989, the episode suggested that the
action was taking place on 11 November 1995—a date when, indeed,
representatives of the warring parties from Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH)
would later sit at the negotiation table in Dayton, Ohio (USA), along
with leaders from the United States, France, Germany, United Kingdom,

1 This episode from Top Lista Nadrealista can be found on YouTube under the name:
Podjela Sarajeva (Sarajaveski Zid). Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt9
cMJAAwPA&list=RDnt9cMJAAwPA#t=3.

© The Author(s) 2021 1

R. Summa, Everyday Boundaries, Borders and Post Conflict
Societies, Critical Security Studies in the Global South,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55817-8_1
2 R. SUMMA

Russia, Croatia and Yugoslavia (now Serbia), to discuss precisely, among

other topics, the division of Sarajevo.
Two of the main issues to be agreed upon by the parties during
those 21 days of fierce negotiations were ‘the new Bosnian map’ and the
future of approximately half of BiH’s population at that time (4.4 million
people), who were driven from their homes,2 many through practices that
have been denominated ‘ethnic cleansing’.
What emerged from these negotiations—the Dayton Peace Agree-
ment—was an ambivalent response. On the one hand, the ethnic
cleansing campaigns3 were sanctioned, when an internal Inter-Entity
Boundary Line (IEBL) was agreed upon, dividing BiH into two entities
and ‘confirming a de facto ethnoterritorialization of what was once simply
Bosnian shared space by all’ (Toal and Dahlman 2011: 6). The division
of BiH into two political entities—the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina,

2 By 1995, after almost four years of war, it is estimated that 1.1 million were internally
displaced persons and 1,259,000 had fled the country and became refugees in nearby
European states or even on other continents.
3 ‘Ethnic cleansing’ is a term that was forged in the Bosnian war (Bringa 2002; Toal
and Dahlman 2011). It has been defined by the UN as ‘a purposeful policy designed
by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the
civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas’
(Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to United Nations Security Council Reso-
lution 780). A UN Report from the United Nations Commission of Experts, in 1994,
states that ‘ethnic cleansing has involved means such as the mass killing of civilians, sexual
assaults, the bombardments of cities, the destruction of mosques and churches, the confis-
cation of propriety and similar measures to eliminate or dramatically reduce’ the presence
of other groups in a certain territory. According to the report, ‘ethnic cleansing by the
Serbs has been systematic and apparently well-planned’. While acknowledging that Croat
forces, too, have engaged in ethnic cleansing practices, the UN Final Report of the United
Nations Commission of Experts states that Muslims have not engage on such practices:
‘Croatian forces in the Republic of Croatia and BiH have engaged in «ethnic cleans-
ing» practices against Serbs and Muslims. Croats, for example, have conducted «ethnic
cleansing» campaigns against Serbs in eastern and western Slavonia and in parts of the
Krajina region, as well as against Muslims in the Mostar area. The UN concluded that,
while Bosnian Muslim forces have engaged in practices that constitute «grave breaches» of
the Geneva Conventions and other violations of international humanitarian law, they have
not engaged in «ethnic cleansing» operations’. Available at: www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/comexp
ert/anx/IV.htm ‘Ethnic cleansing’, however, is not a juridical category, and the crimes
committed under this label have been judged either as ‘Crimes against Humanity’ or
‘Genocide’ by the International Criminal Court for the Ex-Yugoslavia.
 1 INTRODUCTION 3

to be divided into ten cantons between Bosniaks4 and Croats, and the
Republika Srpska for the Serbs5 —was based on the territories conquered
during the war by each group at the moment when the DPA was signed.
Negotiations in Dayton thus operated ‘on the assumption that (…) war
could be ended by a cartographic fix’ (ibidem: 149). The drawing of the
IEBL and, consequently, the institutionalization of this ethnoterritorial
logic, created several difficulties for those who suddenly found themselves
living ‘on the other side’—and were called ‘minorities’. The Dayton Peace
Agreement reduced spaces and places to matters of ethnonational owner-
ship (Campbell 1998: 115), and was followed, in the first months after
its signature, by a renewed practice of ‘unmixing’ of Bosnia and Herze-
govina, this time led by ‘minorities’ moving towards their ‘proper’ entity.
On the other hand, the DPA states that ‘the early return of refugees and
displaced persons is an important objective of the settlement of the conflict ’
and that ‘all refugees and displaced persons (…) to freely return to their
homes of origin’ (General Framework Agreement,6 1995, Annex 7).
Dayton, thus, provides a ‘schizophrenic’ normative framework: while it
foresees the re-mixing of Bosnian population, it also reinforces and legit-
imizes the drive for homogenization of spaces produced during the war.
That ambivalence was for a long time reflected in the policies of returning
refugees and internally displaced persons. While the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has mobilized, since 1996, efforts
to assure the returns, in the first years especially, returnees were often met
with animosity and even violence by certain groups, especially in Repub-
lika Srpska, who wanted to maintain the recently achieved status quo.
Sparks of violence led NATO’s Implementation Force (IFOR) respon-
sible for securing the DPA’s Military Annex—to declare a halt to returns
by establishing checkpoints in the IEBL and, thus, “giving it materiality

4 ‘Bosniaks’ and ‘Bosnian’ are terms that refer to two distinct categories. While the
former refers to the group which identifies itself (and/or are identified by others) as
‘Muslims’, here comprise people who are not religious, the latter refers to all people who
have the citizenship of the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
5 Those three are the major ethnonational groups that compose Bosnia and Herze-
govina. Differently from the other federations that integrated Yugoslavia, BiH was formally
constituted not by one, but by three so-called constituent people (Bosniaks, Serbians and
Croatians), since none of the three was truly majoritarian.
6 The General Framework Agreement is the name of the document signed during the
Dayton Peace Accords, and that is still in force today, working as the Constitution of
Bosnia and Herzegovina.
4 R. SUMMA

(…) guarding Republika Srpska from ‘incursions’ and putting Annex 7

on hold for the first years after Dayton” (Toal and Dahlman 2011: 170).
Homogenization was, however, never achieved, and, as this book
argues, it can never be achieved. Through the years, the returning process
was resumed, although it is difficult to ascertain precisely the extent it
has reached.7 For those who would find themselves as a ‘minority’ in
the villages or cities where they were born or spent a part of their life,
there were few incentives to ‘go back’ (Brubaker 2013; Halilovich 2013).
Due to displacements and disruptions in the social fabric, many found
themselves lacking in familiar bonds and connections, which are not
only important for social life, but also in order to find employment, for
example.8 Moreover, just as the Bosnian map has been reduced to matters
of ethnonational ownership, many aspects of life were also ‘remade’. The
DPA has taken ethnonationality as the primary category around which to
organize political life in BiH, and many services on the everyday life have
been reorganized accordingly, such as the health and schooling system,
universities and the media. That has represented a shift for Bosnians,
who were used to categories such as religion and ethnonational affiliations
being considered a personal matter and mainly relegated to domestic life.
For the generations that grew up in Yugoslavia after the Second World
War, ‘being Bosnian was growing up in a multicultural and multireli-
gious environment, an environment where cultural pluralism was seen as
intrinsic to the social order’ (Bringa 1993: 87). There were differences in
how this multiculturalism and multi-religious society was organized and
lived, according to each region and, also, from one village to another. This
distinction, however, was sharpened in what concerned rural and urban
areas. In rural BiH, Bringa (2002) suggests, kinship was the primary bond
of loyalty. Because interethnic marriages are rare in rural areas, even before
the war, ‘kinship overlaps with ethnicity’, although it is ‘kinship and not
ethnicity that held the primary emotional appeal and is the mobilizing
factor’. In the cities, especially among ‘mixed families’9 and those who

7 One way this is measured is by identifying how many houses and apartments were
reclaimed by refugees and displaced persons. However, many only reclaimed them in order
to sell, exchange or rent those apartments.
8 On the role of ‘connections’ in Bosnia and Herzegovina, please refer to Jansen (2015).
9 I use ‘mixed families’ and ‘mixed marriage’ with a quotation mark because this is
also a contested categorization, often employed in a derogatory way. Especially during
the war, but also after, many ‘mixed families’ experienced situations of mistrust from
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 OF HEMA.
Hema was one of the most
famous warriors in the days of
Kamehameha, and a man who
was not afraid of the bravery and
strength of others. Hema was
not trained to be a warrior, or in
the art of war. He was not
accustomed to the waging of
wars, and was never a warrior.
He was a steward of
Kamehameha, and his duties
were to take and keep in charge
rations for the king every day.
While going abroad in war times
he was the bearer of food, and
when a battle was in progress
and Kamehameha became
hungry, then Hema would bring
him provisions.
In all these works pertaining to a
steward Hema was an expert,
and was satisfactory to
Kamehameha, but he had not
received a chiefly term, nor
NO HEMA.
Oia kekahi koa kaulana loa i loko
o ko Kamehameha mau la, a he
kanaka makau ole i ko hai koa a
me ka ikaika. O Hema, aole oia i
ao ia i ke koa a me ke kaua, aole
i maa ma na hoouka kaua, aole
no hoi oia he koa. Aka, he
aipuupuu o Hema na
Kamehameha, o kana hana o ka
lawe a me ka malama i wahi ai
na ke ’lii i na la a pau loa. I ka
wa hele mao a mao, i ka wa
kaua, oia ka mea lawe ai, i ka
wa e kaua ai o Kamehameha a
pololi, alaila lawe aku o Hema i
ka ai a me kahi ia.
Ma keia mau hana a pau loa i pili
i ka aipuupuu, ua makaukau loa
o Hema, a ua kupono i ko
Kamehameha makemake, aka,
aole i loaa kona inoa alii, a me
fame, nor was he a favorite, but
on the day that he chose to be a
warrior and destroyed the
enemies of Kamehameha, that
day he became a chief and a
favorite of Kamehameha, and
abandoned his stewardship.
When Kamehameha was fighting
against Keoua at Koapapaa, in
Hamakua, at a place called
Kealakaha, near to Kaula, and in
a deep valley called Kekualele,
there a fight occurred between
the strongest warriors of Keoua
against Kamehameha. At that
particular place the standing
room was only a fathom in width,
and it was there Kamehameha
fought against forty 51 or more of
Keoua’s warriors.
After considerable fighting
Kamehameha was very much
out of breath, and the men of
Keoua were being reinforced.
Just then Kamehameha
expectantly turned to the rear;
but there were no chiefs, nor
warriors behind him, only Hema
the steward.
ke kaulana a me ka punahele. A
i kona la i lalau ai i ke koa a luku
aku i na enemi o Kamehameha,
ia la oia i lilo ai i alii, a punahele
na Kamehameha, a pau kona
lawe ana i ka oihana aipuupuu.
Ia Kamehameha e kaua ana me
Keoua, ma Koapapaa, i
Hamakua, aia kela wahi ma
Kealakaha e pili la me Kaula, ma
kela kahawai nui hohonu, o
Kekualele kona inoa, ilalo o laila
i hoouka ai na koa ikaika o
Keoua me Kamehameha. No ka
mea, o ka honua olalo e ku ai,
hookahi anana wale no ke akea,
a maia wahi i noke ai o
Kamehameha me na koa o
Keoua, he kanaha a oi aku.
Mahope o keia noke ana, ua pau
loa ke aho o Kamehameha, a ua
nui mai na koa o Keoua, ia wa
huli o Kamehameha i hope,
aohe alii, aohe koa mahope ona,
hookahi wale no o Hema, o ka
aipuupuu. Ia Kamehameha e
olelo ana me Hema, ia wa i
makaukau ai na koa o ka enemi
e lawe i ko Kamehameha ola,
alaila, lele o Hema me kona
makau ole a pepehi i na koa o
While Kamehameha was talking
to Hema, the enemies were
preparing to take
Kamehameha’s life, but Hema
fearlessly leapt forward and slew
the warriors of Keoua. By this
work of Hema in leaping forward
to repulse the enemies,
Kamehameha was victorious
that day, and his life was saved,
and Keoua defeated. Hence the
name Koapapaa until this day,
which means that the warriors
became a storehouse of death
and the lance and the spear the
pathway, here and there. The
warriors were left there in that
valley, a pile of earth.
When Kamehameha witnessed
the matchless bravery of Hema,
he said: “Today you become a
chief as I am, and today you
refrain from carrying and
shouldering baggage, and you
shall be a courtier in my
presence, and in the presence of
the chiefs and the people also.
He who disobeys your word shall
die. If the delinquent be a chief
he shall lose his lands.” 52
Therefore Hema was exalted
until his death, and was very
Keoua. Ma keia lele ana o Hema
e pale i na enemi, ua lanakila o
Kamehameha ia la, a ua pakele
kona ola a ua hee o Keoua.
Nolaila, oia kela inoa o
Koapapaa a hiki i keia la; ke ano
oia, ua lilo na koa i papaa na ka
make, o ka pololu a me ka ihe, i
alanui hele mao a maanei, ua
waiho ia lakou he ahua lepo ma
ia kahawai ia la.
A ike o Kamehameha i ke koa
lua ole o Hema, olelo aku la ia: “I
keia la oe e lilo ai i alii elike me
a’u, a i keia la e waiho oe i ka
lawe, a me ke amo i ka ukana, a
e lilo oe i punahele ma ko’u alo a
me kona ’lii, a pela na
makaainana. O ka mea hoole i
kau olelo, e make ia, ina he ’lii
ka mea hoole, e hemo kona
aina.” Nolaila, ua kiekie o Hema
a hala ia i ka make, a ua kaulana
loa no hoi iloko o ko
Kamehameha mau la. Nolaila,
famous in the days of
Kamehameha.
On reflection, therefore, perhaps
there never was a man on the
continents, or on the Isles of the
Sea, who had never studied the
requirements of a warrior, and
who did go to war as Hema was,
the unlearned. [484]
OF NALU.
Nalu was a very celebrated
warrior during Kamehameha’s
reign, and was an accomplished
soldier. It is said that in his
fighting days he could stand and
fight fearlessly against an
overwhelming number of his
enemies and beat them,
because he gloried 53 in the use
of the lance, the spear, the
javelin, the cudgel, the stone ax
and the encircling pikoi rope.
Nalu was therefore greatly
feared in his warrior days and
ma ka noonoo ana, aole paha he
kanaka e noho ana ma na aina
puniole, a me na moku o ke kai i
ao ole i ke akamai o ke koa, a
hele e kaua e like me Hema, ka
mea ao ole ia. [485]
NO NALU.
Oia kekahi koa kaulana loa i ko
Kamehameha mau la, a he koa
akamai loa no hoi. Ua olelo ia, i
loko o kona mau la kaua, he hiki
no ia ia ke ku imua o ka lehulehu
e kaua ai me ka makau ole, ina
he nui, a he lehulehu kona mau
enemi ma kekahi aoao, he hiki
no ia ke pale aku. No ka mea, o
ka pololu a me ka ihe, ka elau,
ka newa, ka pahoa, a me ka
pikoi lua, he wai auau ia no
Nalu. Nolaila, ua makau loa ia o
Nalu i loko o kona mau la e noho
fighting in battles. No land
division chief would dare and
fight him; no warrior, no land, or
island 54 would dare and fight
Nalu, his great strength being
the source of fear among all.
Kamehameha was also
apprehensive of Nalu on account
of the latter’s accomplishments
in bravery and skill. [465]
ana i koa, a e hele ana i ke
kaua; aohe alii aimoku e aa ia ia,
a e kaua mai; aohe koa, aohe
aina, a moku e aa mai ia Nalu,
no ka mea ua makau loa ia kona
ikaika e na mea a pau loa. A ua
makau no hoi o Kamehameha ia
Nalu, no keia mea i ke koa a me
ke akamai o Nalu.

[486]

1 This somewhat historic series

unfortunately presents several
incidents in the life of Kamehameha not
borne out by facts in the case, notably
the account of his early arrival at and
conquest of Oahu, and the length of his
reign. Pihana and possibly other
celebrities are also tinged with like
inaccuracies. The collection, as
gathered, is therefore presented as
illustrative of Hawaiian narrative
literature pure and simple, irrespective
of wide variance from known facts,
without attempt to alter or amend such
to agree with the historical record. ↑
Kalaiopuu, known also as Kalaniopuu,
2 was the ruler of Hawaii at the time of

Cook’s discovery of the islands, in

1778. ↑
3 Kiwalao and Kamehameha were first
cousins. ↑
4 “Your lord” refers to Kiwalao. ↑
5 Kamehameha’s first battle for the
throne. ↑
6 This refers to Keoua of Kau and
Keawemauhili of Hilo, who
accompanied Kiwalao with the remains
of Kalaiopuu to Kona for burial. ↑
7 Keeaumoku was one of the four
principal chiefs of Kona at that
time. ↑
8 Kekuhaupio belonged to Keei, Kona,
and was reputed to be the greatest
warrior of his time. ↑
9 At this place, Honaunau, is the most
famous “city of refuge,” which is still
in a good state of preservation, its
temple and enclosure having been put
in repair some ten years ago. ↑
10 This first victim of an authorized
skirmish was placed in sacrifice
upon the altar at Honaunau by Kiwalao,
thereby assuming the responsibility of
the war. ↑
11 These four named, as also
Kamanawa, mentioned later, were
the most powerful chiefs of Kona, all of
whom espoused Kamehameha’s
cause. ↑
12 Leiomano, not leiomanu, was a
small shark-toothed weapon, termed
by some a dagger, though its use
seems to have been with more of a saw
purpose than a thrust. ↑
13 Kamehameha’s second battle, pitted
against the forces of Keoua of Kau
and Keawemauhili of Hilo, resulting
indecisively, was in the windward
section of Hawaii, not in the southern
district of Kau, for on his defeat
Kamehameha fell back upon
Laupahoehoe. ↑
14 Kaua awa is virtually “bitter war,” and
may or may not have been caused
by excessive rains, suggested by a
division of the word into the phrase ka
ua awa, though in fact this would be
misty rain. ↑
15 Kamehameha’s famous mamalahoa
law was given by him after recovery
from his serious situation and the
capture of his assailants, when he
uttered this decree to protect them and
their people against the penalty, of the
then law, of stoning to death. ↑
16 This refers to the famous saying,
“The old men and women and
children shall lie in safety on the
highway,” which antedates the
mamalahoa decree several
generations. ↑
17 The incident here referred to is given
in the sketch of Hema, a few pages
further along. ↑
18 There had been raids on Maui by
Kamehameha’s forces on two or
three occasions previous to this battle
of Iao valley. ↑
19 Kalaikupule, known also as
Kalanikupule, a son of Kahekili. ↑
20 Kepaniwai, the water dam. ↑
21 Kauwaupali, the precipice
climbers. ↑
22 Alexander’s Brief History says of this
war with Keoua that “two bloody but
indecisive battles were fought near
Paauhau, Keoua falling back to Hilo,
while Kamehameha recruited his losses
at Waipio.” On Keoua’s return to Kau
from this engagement, by way of
Kilauea, a large portion of his army was
destroyed by a volcanic eruption of
cinders and sand. This took place in
November, 1790. ↑
23 Koapapaa, parched warriors. ↑
24This famous heiau, which takes the
name of its location, was finished in
1791. ↑
25The two emissaries sent on this
mission were Keaweheulu and
Kamanawa. ↑
26 The native historian Kamakau says
Keoua was killed by Keeaumoku
with a spear as he was leaping ashore
to greet Kamehameha. ↑
27Keoua and others were said to have
been offered up as sacrifices at the
Puukohola heiau, in celebration of
Kamehameha’s victory. ↑
28 This was a sea fight from a fleet of
canoes and one or two small vessels
off the Hamakua coast in which
Kamehameha’s men, aided by some
foreigners, with firearms and a mounted
gun, won the day over the combined
Maui and Kauai invaders. The flame
from the mouth of the cannon in this
action gave the name of “the red-
mouthed gun” to the battle. ↑
29 Kahekili, king of Maui and Oahu, and
Kaeo, king of Kauai, had joined
forces for the invasion of Hawaii to
overcome Kamehameha’s rising power.
Not being under the sway of Hawaii’s
king they could not be termed
“rebels.” ↑
30 This is an error. Kaieiewaho is the
name of the channel between the
islands of Oahu and Kauai. The battle
that was fought on Oahu that ended at
the pali, is known as the Battle of
Nuuanu. This occurred in 1795. ↑
31 Kauai was not a conquered island
and did not come under the sway of
Kamehameha by this Oahu victory, for
the following year he was twice
thwarted in his intended invasion of
Kauai, first by the refusal of Captain
Broughton in the Providence to assist
him with arms and ammunition; and
again, two months later, in attempting
to cross the channel a storm arose
which wrecked many canoes and drove
the rest back to Waianae. Kauai was
ceded to Kamehameha by Kaumualii in
1810. ↑
32 This account precedes the Battle of
Nuuanu. ↑
33 Kapua, at Diamond Head point,
Waikiki. ↑
34 Ten warriors to oppose an army of
three hundred and twenty men,
shows this to be very much of a
partisan story. ↑
35 Puowaina, Punchbowl hill. ↑
36 Maemae, above Judd hill, Nuuanu
valley. ↑
37Waolani is that section of Nuuanu
valley on the north side, above the
Country Club. ↑
38“A pau kuu auau ana i ka laau a
Hawaii” is the figurative expression
again of “bathing” enjoyment in
exercising with weapons. ↑
39 Four months after the Kauai failure
Kamehameha was called to Hawaii
by the Namakaeha rebellion, which he
quickly subdued, capturing the rebel
chief whom he sacrificed on the altar of
the heiau at Piihonua, Hilo. ↑
40These were the four principal chiefs
of Kona that espoused
Kamehameha’s cause at the outset.
See note 11. ↑
41 Mamalahoa, known as
Kamehameha’s beneficent law. See
note 15. ↑
42 Maumae was also the name of a
heiau that stood on the right hand, or
southern, side of Palolo hill at entrance
of the valley. ↑
43 Iliahi, sandalwood (Santolum
freycinetianum). ↑
44 This is a grave error. Kamehameha’s
reign, from his victory over Kiwalao
in the battle of Mokuohai, in 1782, till
his death in 1819, was thirty-seven
years. ↑
45 Kamehameha I died May 8th,
1819. ↑
46 Liholiho came to the throne on the
death of his father as Kamehameha
II, at the age of twenty-two years. ↑
47 The Kekuaokalani rebellion was in
defense of the ancient kapu system
which the new king had thrown down
with the abolition of idolatry. ↑
48 Aikapu was not only the eating apart
by husband and wife, but it included
restrictions upon women on many
articles of food which the men were
free to indulge in. ↑
49 Ainoa was to eat free from all
restraint; a release from kapu. ↑
50 Kaahumanu, the favorite queen of
Kamehameha I, and appointed
premier of the kingdom shortly before
his death. ↑
51Narrow quarters this for an
encounter of forty or more men
against two. ↑
52 In this as in other incidents the
decree of a death penalty seems to
have been applicable only to the
common people, for in many cases, as
here, it states that if a chief be the
culprit he shall lose his lands as the
penalty, thus making one law for the
rich and another for the poor. ↑
53 Gloried is given here as a definition
for the phrase he wai auau ia,
literally, “it was bath water,” i.e.,
something he fully enjoyed, or delighted
in. ↑
54 “No land, or island,” refers to a
collective body of men of a land
division, or of an island. ↑
[Contents]
Famous Men of Early
Days.
Of Kekuawahine.
Kekuawahine was a master
hand at deceiving and falsifying;
he could turn an untruth into a
reality; from correct to incorrect,
and so forth. When
Kamehameha was residing at
Pakaka, 1 Kona, Oahu (that is the
place where “White man Jim”
lives), at the time that the islands
from Hawaii to Niihau were
subjugated by him, he was living
with his wife, Kaahumanu.
Kanaihalau was an uncle of
Kaahumanu, whom she placed
Poe Kaulana o ka Wa i
Hala.
No Kekuawahine.
He kanaka maalea loa o
Kekuawahine i ka pahele, a me
ka hoopunipuni. He hiki ia ia ke
hoolilo i ka oiaio ole i oiaio, i ka
pololei i pololei ole, a pela aku
no. I ka wa e noho ana o
Kamehameha ma Pakaka,
Kona, Oahu (oia kahi a Kimo
haole e noho nei), i ka wa i puni
ai na aina ia Kamehameha mai
Hawaii a Niihau, e noho ana ia
me kana wahina o Kaahumanu.
O Kanaihalau, he makuakane ia
no Kaahumanu, hoonoho aku la
in power over Hamakua,
Kawaihae and Waimea. These
lands are on Hawaii, and of
course, Kanaihalau became very
much favored by his niece,
Kaahumanu. On this account
Kekuawahine and all the chiefs
were very envious of him, and
could not get along together at
Waimea and Kawaihae.
Therefore Kekuawahine
meditated on a plan of action.
Kanaihalau was then with his
deputy, superintending the lands.
There were two of them,
however, Kanaihalau and
Malaihi, who were chiefs over
Hamakua, Waimea and
Kawaihae. Malaihi was at Oahu,
residing with Kekuawahine, and
while thus living together,
Kekuawahine said to Malaihi:
“Let us go until we come near to
the presence of Kamehameha;
you will then stay behind, and I
will go forward and have
conversation with Kamehameha,
while you will watch me talk.”
After this conference they set
forth, and when they were near
o Kaahumanu ia Kanaihalau
maluna o Hamakua, Kawaihae,
Waimea. O keia mau aina, aia
ma Hawaii, lilo aela o
Kanaihalau i punahele imua o
kana kaikamahine o
Kaahumanu. Ma keia lilo ana o
Kanaihalau i punahele, ua
huahua loa o Kekuawahine a me
na ’lii a pau loa, a ua pono ole ko
lakou noho ana ma Waimea a
me Kawaihae, nolaila, noonoo
ihola o Kekuawahine i kana mea
e hana ai.
O Kanaihalau, aia no oia e
hooponopono ana i ka aina me
kona hope. Elua nae laua, o
Kanaihalau, o Malaihi, oia na ’lii
maluna o Hamakua, Waimea,
Kawaihae. O Malaihi, ma Oahu
nei no ia kahi i noho ai me
Kekuawahine. Ia laua e noho pu
ana, olelo aku la o Kekuawahine
ia Malaihi: “E hele kaua a
kokoke aku i ke alo o
Kamehameha, noho iho oe,
owau ke hele aku e kamailio pu
me Kamehameha, alaila, nana
ae oe i ku’u kamailio.” Mahope o
keia kamailio ana, hele aku la
laua a kokoke, noho ihola o
Malaihi.
enough, Malaihi remained
behind.
As Malaihi did so, Kekuawahine
spoke as follows: “I am now
going to have a talk with
Kamehameha. Keep your eyes
on me, and do not wander,
because on this day we will seal
Kanaihalau’s death. If I stretch
out my hand, that is the signal
for Kanaihalau’s death. If I bow
down and nod back toward here,
then that is a sign for you to go
and kill Kanaihalau. So you
remain and watch while I go and
talk with Kamehameha.”
Kekuawahine then proceeded to
the outside of Kamehameha’s
fence and stood there watching
Kamehameha chatting with the
chiefs. And while they were
talking Kekuawahine stretched
his arm toward the sea, and
afterwards looked to the rear and
nodded. After performing these
movements, he returned to
Malaihi.
When he had come before
Malaihi, he said: “Well, you saw
me perhaps stretch my hand
Ma keia noho ana a Malaihi,
olelo aku o Kekuawahine, penei:
“Eia au ke hele nei a kamailio
me Kamehameha, e nana pono
ko maka ia’u, mai lalau oe, no ka
mea, o ka la keia make o
Kanaihalau ia kaua. Ina i kuhi
ku’u lima o ko Kanaihalau make
ia, ina i kulou ku’u poo a kunou i
hope nei, alaila o ko kii ia a
pepehi ia Kanaihalau. Nolaila, e
noho oe e nana, e hele au e
kamailio me Kamehameha.”
Hele aku la o Kekuawahine a
hiki ma waho o ka pa o
Kamehameha, ku aku la nana i
ke kamailio a Kamehameha me
na ’lii. Ia lakou e kamailio ana,
kuhi aku la ko Kekuawahine lima
i kai, a pau ia, nana maila ihope
nei a kunou maila, a pau keia
mau mea ia ia i ka hana, hoi
maila ia a hiki imua o Malaihi.
A hiki o Kekuawahine imua o
Malaihi, i aku la ia ia Malaihi:
“Ea, ua ike ae nei no paha oe
toward the sea?” Malaihi
answered: “Yes.” “And you saw
me nodding my head to the rear
here?” Malaihi answered: “Yes.”
Then Kekuawahine said to
Malaihi: “You go back to Hawaii
today, and when you arrive kill
Kanaihalau.”
After these instructions Malaihi
went back to Hawaii, and landed
at Kawaihae. He then went up
and passed Waimea, arriving at
Hamakua. He found Kanaihalau
residing at Eleio, in Waikoekoe.
Kanaihalau was then murdered,
the bones were stripped of the
flesh and bundled up in mats,
hence the expression
“Kanaihalau Paahu” [488]to this
day. The death of Kanaihalau
was reported to Kaahumanu in
Oahu, who thereupon began to
wail until she came into the
presence of Kamehameha, and
when Kamehameha heard of the
occurrence, he commanded that
Malaihi be killed. Thus died
those chiefs.
ia’u i ke kuhi o ku’u lima i kai?”
“Ae” aku o Malaihi, “ae.” “A ua
ike ae nei no oe ia’u i ke kunou o
ku’u poo i hope nei?” “Ae” mai o
Malaihi, “ae.” Alaila, olelo aku o
Kekuawahine ia Malaihi: “E hoi
oe i Hawaii i keia la, a hiki oe,
pepehi oe ia Kanaihalau a
make.”
Mahope o keia mau olelo, hoi la
o Malaihi a hiki i Hawaii, a pae
ma Kawaihae, pii aku la ia a hala
o Waimea, hiki i Hamakua, loaa
o Kanaihalau e noho ana ma
Eleio i Waikoekoe. Pepehi ia
ihola o Kanaihalau a make,
holehole ia na iwi a wahi ia i ka
ahu moena, nolaila kela inoa,
“Kanaihalau Paahu,” a hiki i keia
la. Ma keia make ana [489]o
Kanaihalau, ua lohe o
Kaahumanu i Oahu nei, nolaila,
makena oia a hiki i ke alo o
Kamehameha, a lohe o
Kamehameha kena aku la ia e
kii e pepehi ia Malaihi, pela i
make ai ia mau alii.
 OF MAKAIOULU.
Makaioulu was one of
Kamehameha’s celebrated
warriors in the war between
Oahu and Kamehameha, at
Nuuanu. Kaalamakaoikuwa was
the warrior of Oahu, and resided
at Luahenewai, Waikiki-kai.
Makaioulu with a companion
warrior, Naaimokuokama by
name, came and met
Kaalamakaoikuwa. Instantly
Makaioulu was seized and held
prisoner, while Naaimokuokama
ran away. And while he was
running, Makaioulu called after
him: “Do you run away and leave
me?” When Naaimokuokama
heard this he stopped.
Makaioulu then said: “Hurl that
spear that you hold in your hand
straight to my navel.”
Naaimokuokama did so, and at
the same time that he did,
Makaioulu dodged to one side,
the spear striking
Kaalamakaoikuwa and killing
him. Makaioulu escaped, and
they went thence to Puowaina.
NO MAKAIOULU.
Oia kekahi koa kaulana o
Kamehameha, i ke kaua ana
Oahu nei me Kamehameha ma
Nuuanu. O Kaalamakaoikuwa ko
Oahu nei koa, e noho ana ia ma
Luahenewai, ma Waikiki kai.
Hele maila o Makaioulu me kona
hoahele, he koa no, o
Naaimokuokama, a halawai laua
me Kaalamakaoikuwa, ia wa,
hopu ia maila o Makaioulu a
paa, holo o Naaimokuokama. Ia
Naaimokuokama e holo ana,
kahea mai o Makaioulu: “O ka
holo ka kau, haalele oe ia’u?” ia
kahea ana, ku o
Naaimokuokama. Olelo aku o
Makaioulu, “O ko ihe e paa ala i
ko lima, pahu oe a pololei i ku’u
piko.” Ia wa, pahu o
Naaimokuokama i kana ihe. Ma
keia pahu ana, e alo ae ana o
Makaioulu loaa o
Kaalamakaoikuwa i ka ihe, a ku
ihola, a make loa, pakele aku la
o Makaioulu, a hele aku la laua
mai laila aku, a hiki ma
Puowaina.
Here were ten soldiers, who
when they saw the two, pointed
their ten spears at them at the
same time. And while they were
doing this, Makaioulu turned
rearward and said to his
companion: “Say, if they hurl
their spears to my front, you
stand sideways; and if they hurl
at my side you stand at my right.
Do not wink or you will be hit.”
Makaioulu then faced about and
went forward. And when he
came near to the ten men they
hurled spears at him. He dodged
and the spears missed him. As
their spears missed him,
Makaioulu made a sweep with
his war club which caught six
men, four escaping.
They went thence to Niuhelewai
where Kupaka was stopping. He
was a celebrated warrior of
Kahahana, the great chief of
Oahu, before the reign of
Kalaikupule. When the two
arrived at the place, Kupaka
made a lunge with his spear at
Makaioulu without result;
Makaioulu, however, had a
narrow escape from death,
Ilaila e noho ana he umi koa, ike
maila lakou ia laua, hou like
maila lakou i na ihe he umi. Ia
lakou e hou ana, huli ae la o
Makaioulu i hope, a olelo aku i
kona kokoolua: “E! hou lakou la i
ku’u alo, kunihi oe; i hou lakou i
ku’u aoao, ma ka akau oe o’u e
ku ai, mai imo oe o ku oe.”
Alaila, huli aku la o Makaioulu
hele imua, a hiki ia io lakou la he
umi, ia lakou e hou ana, alo ae
la o Makaioulu hala, a hala ka
lakou ihe, e huelepo iho ana o
Makaioulu i kana laau palau,
loaa eono kanaka, pakele aku
eha.
Malaila aku laua o ka hele ana a
hiki i Niuhelewai, e noho ana o
Kupaka ilaila, he koa kaulana no
Kahahana, ke ’lii nui Oahu nei
mamua aku o Kalaikupule. A hiki
laua ilaila, hou maila ia ia
Makaioulu i kana ihe, aole i ku,
aka, pakele nae o Makaioulu mai
make, no ka mea, ma ka lima
hema kana laau. A make ihola o
Kupaka ia Makaioulu.
because he had his club in his
left hand. Kupaka was, however,
killed by Makaioulu.
The two continued on to
Kalauao, at Ewa, where they met
with a large number of warriors
who surrounded Makaioulu. He
considered a way for his escape
from the hands of these people,
and at last found it. He said to
them: “If you all were to fight me,
it will be to your shame. The best
way is that one of you engage
me, that is right; but if you mob
me you will be ashamed,
because I am only one.” They
consented and stood up one by
one. By so doing they were all
killed by Makaioulu.
When Makaioulu left Ewa, he
went toward Waianae. At the hill
of Kapolei, on its western side,
he met a robber who was sitting
on the edge of the road, with a
kuia 2 stick in his hands, a war
weapon of Hawaii nei. When he
came up to the man Makaioulu
uttered his greetings, but the
other would not respond.
Makaioulu turned and proceeded
Hele aku la laua a hiki ma
Kalauao i Ewa, ilaila i halawai ai
laua me ka poe koa he nui loa, a
puni o Makaioulu, alaila, noonoo
ihola ia i mea nona e pakele ai i
loko o ka lima o ka lehulehu, a
loaa ihola. I aku o Makaioulu ia
lakou: “Ina oukou e kaua me a’u,
alaila, he mea hilahila ia no
oukou, eia wale no ka pono, i
hookahi o oukou i hookahi a’u,
alaila, pono, aka, ina e alu oukou
ia’u, alaila, hilahila oukou, no ka
mea, he hookahi a’u.” Ae lakou,
ia wa ku pakahi, ma ia hana ana,
ua pau loa lakou i ka make ia
Makaioulu.
A haalele o Makaioulu ia Ewa,
hele aku la ia ma Waianae a ka
puu o Kapolei, ma kona aoao
komohana, halawai oia me
kekahi kanaka poa, e noho ana
ma kapa alanui, he kanaka me
ka laau kuia, kekahi mea make o
Hawaii nei. A hiki o Makaioulu i
mua o ua kanaka ala, aloha aku
la keia, aole oiala aloha mai, huli
aku la o Makaioulu hele. E pahu
on his way. The man then hurled
his kuia which Makaioulu noticed
by the shadow which passed
over his head. He parried the
kuia with his club and then
turned and said: “Here, I am
going to kill you; for I greeted
you with love and you did not
respond, and I see that murder
was on your mind.” Just then the
man [490]started to run with all
speed. Makaioulu chased after
until he caught him, grabbed him
by the neck, turned the face
upward and killed him. Then
Makaioulu went from that place
till he came to Makua, 3 where he
met two women who understood
the art of breaking bones, and
where he came near being killed;
but because of his own skill and
knowledge of the art himself he
escaped death, and the women
were killed by him.
OF MAKOA.
aku ana ua kanaka ala i ke kuia,
ike o Makaioulu ma ke aka, i ka
malu ana iho o ke aka maluna o
ke poo. Ia wa o Makaioulu i pale
ai i kana laau, a hala ae la,
alaila, huli ae la o Makaioulu a
olelo aku la penei: “E! make oe
ia’u, no ka mea, ua olelo aku au
ia oe ma ke aloha, aole oe i
aloha mai, eia ka he make kou
manao.” Ia wa, [491]holo ua
kanaka nei me kona mama loa,
alaila, hahai o Makaioulu a loaa,
hopu ihola ma ka ai, a lole aela i
ke poo iluna, a pepehi ihola a
make loa. Alaila, hele aku la o
Makaioulu malaila aku a hiki i
Makua, ilaila he mau wahine
akamai i ka lua, mai make o
Makaioulu ilaila, aka, no kona
ike a me ka akamai, ua pakele ia
i ka make, a ua make na wahine
ia ia.
NO MAKOA.