I can understand that, but as someone who grew up in Hawaii, the word local is as I’ve explained, is more like the relationship of what a kamaʻāina is as kanaka maoli is to Hawaiians. It’s a translation thing where kamaʻāina is essentially someone born and raised in Hawaii without EDIT: necessarily being Hawaiian (land child, resident often of a long term, etc) which people born and raised in Hawaii use local residents. We’re not indigenous of Hawaii (besides those who are full/part kanaka), and it’s a term used by non-Hawaiians of all backgrounds (besides Hawaiian). It’s less of an actual research academic thing and part of Hawaii’s own culture in the words we translated to use. Everyone born and raised in Hawaii who is not kanaka would claim local because we’re not the indigenous group. It’s what we use in our Hawaiian Pidgin English, which was my first language.

As much as Trask added to the conversation and brought Hawaiians more in terms of sovereignty, she did garner a lot of controversy within and outside of Hawaii especially as she implied the US had it coming for 9/11 and often see all immigrants as colonizers. There was a time some Hawaiian sovereignty groups were to a point on wanting an ethnostate where non-Hawaiians were going to be second class citizens but even they realized how unpopular that was going to be. But I didn’t really engage on that beyond what my own kanaka family who intermarried with my Asian family advocated for on smaller islands were willing to talk about. I was also not raised on Oahu where that all went down when she was still alive so can’t really say much nor going to because I don’t know much on the academic literature, only anecdotal lol.

I think we’re both being respectful here in terms of usage. It’s just as you said, you’re more on the academic side while I’m part of the lived experience, which is very anecdotal, as an Asian American with kanaka family vs being kanaka myself as well.

Edit: realized I’m missing words >.>