In her influential book, Nānā i ke Kumu, preeminent 20th century Native Hawaiian scholar Mary Kawena Pukui wrote: “Members of the ʻohana, like taro shoots, are all from the same root. With Hawaiians, family consciousness of the same ʻroot of origin’ was a deeply felt, unifying force, no matter how many offshoots came from offshoots.”
Traditionally, our moʻokūʻauhau (genealogies) establish us as Kānaka ʻŌiwi – the Indigenous people of Hawaiʻi. It is from this foundation of moʻokūʻauhau that we have pilina to our ancestors, to this ʻāina, and to one another; an identity established by bloodlines, lineage, and connection.
It was not until the 1921 Hawaiian Homes Commission Act was passed by the U.S. Congress, with language defining “natives” as those individuals having 50% or more Hawaiian blood, that the idea of “blood quantum” to determine our Hawaiian-ness was introduced into the consciousness of our people and began to redefine how we saw ourselves.
A tool of dispossession
The idea of blood quantum to determine indigeneity is an invention of settler colonial governments designed to dispossess Native Peoples from their lands.
In Canada, the 1876 Indian Act, still in effect today, determines who receives “status” from the government. “Status Indians” must be 50% or more Indigenous and are eligible for a variety of benefits not available to the rest of the population. Whether or not a person identifies as Indigenous, or practices Indigenous culture and traditions, is irrelevant to the designation.
Mi’kmaq attorney and professor Pamela D. Palmater writes: “There is a long-term effect of this type of legislation: that every single First Nation in Canada effectively has an extinction date, a day when that Nation’s last registered Indian is born.”
In the Americas, blood quantum first shows up in 1705 in Virginia when the colony adopted an “Indian Blood Law” limiting the rights of Native Americans with 50% (or more) Indigenous ancestry and affording greater rights to those with less than 50% ancestry.
Then in 1887, Congress passed the General Allotment Act (the “Dawes Act”) which gave the U.S. president the power to break up communally held tribal lands into parcels of about 160 acres that were then “allotted” to individuals – typically heads of households. The law was designed to push Native Americans from tribal land ownership to private land ownership, ostensibly to encourage independent farming and economic prosperity.
At the time, an estimated 138-150 million acres were under Tribal authority and control. According to the Native Governance Center, under the Dawes Act “the federal government used blood quantum to determine allotment eligibility and also granted Native people with lower blood quantums the ability to sell their allotments. Any unallotted ʻsurplus’ land [in the end about 90 million acres] was sold to non-native buyers. The federal government used this strategy to further strip Native nations of their land base.”
In other words, the government “gave” portions of land already controlled by the Native Nations to their individual members and when there were no more tribal members “eligible” to receive a land allotment based on blood quantum, the government kept the rest (about 65% of the original acreage) and sold it to non-natives.
The “Indian Reorganization Act” of 1934 ended the forced allotment of tribal lands as the federal government changed its policy to one of recognition of tribal governments and the promotion of self-government – so long as they conformed to an American model. However, it also formalized blood quantum as the federal tool for defining Native American identity and tribal membership, replacing kinship-based membership systems.
“Blood quantum emerged as a way to measure ʻIndian-ness’ through a construct of race. So that over time, Indians would literally breed themselves out and rid the federal government of their legal duties to uphold treaty obligations,” explained Dr. Elizabeth Rule (Chickasaw) an assistant professor at American University in a 2018 NPR interview.
According to the Native Governance Center, the Indian Reorganization Act resulted in many Native nations adopting “boilerplate constitutions” developed by the federal government that included using – for the first time – blood quantum as the basis for tribal citizenship.
Deciding who is Hawaiian
According to Dr. J. Kēhaulani Kauanui, a professor of Indigenous Studies at Princeton University, “the blood quantum rule operates as a technique of state craft that undergirds dispossession” noting that “U.S. governmental bodies have used blood quantum classifications both historically and in the present to appropriate Native lands and promote cultural and biological assimilation to the advantage of whiteness.”
Her 2008 book, Hawaiian Blood: Colonialism and the Politics of Sovereignty and Indigeneity, focuses on the U.S. imposition of blood quantum on Hawaiians codified in the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA) of 1921.
As her research documents, the legislation initially proposed by Hawaiʻi’s Congressional Delegate, Prince Jonah Kūhiō Kalanianaʻole, defined Native Hawaiians as all Hawaiians “in whole or part.” Members of Congress, however, were uncomfortable with an all-inclusive definition of Native Hawaiian and pushed for a new definition. Eventually, 1/32 became a hypothetical example and later, the newly proposed standard.
Kūhiō saw the HHCA as “belated justice” and emphasized in his testimony before Congress that Hawaiian dispossession, depopulation and economic marginalization had to be remedied. Its purpose, therefore, was rehabilitative and inclusive.
The greatest opposition to the HHCA came from Hawaiʻi’s wealthy corporate plantation and ranch owners. They sent their representatives to Washington, D.C., to voice their dissent to Kūhiō’s proposed legislation. Unwilling to give up their access to trust lands, they proposed “full-blood Hawaiian” as the most appropriate definition.
Kauanui asserts that the blood quantum criterion emerged as a way to avoid recognizing Hawaiian entitlement to the lands desired for the homestead program. “Key players in the HHCA hearings redefined ʻneed’ in racial terms by using blood quantum as an indicator of social competency, where those defined by the 50% rule were deemed incapable to look out for themselves,” she said.
“Hence, in the quest to control Hawaiian land and assets, blood quantum classification emerged as a way to undermine Kānaka Maoli sovereignty claims – not only by explicitly limiting the number who could lay claim to the land, but also by reframing the Native connection to the land itself from a legal claim to one based on charity.”
This was evident in the testimony of attorney William B. Pittman at the Congressional hearings in December 1920 on behalf of Raymond Ranch (now Ulupalakua Ranch) and other interests.
Arguing that the legislation should only apply to full-blooded Hawaiians Pittman said, “I do not believe the delegate [Kūhiō] will object to that – that it be confined to the full blood instead of the half blood – because he knows and everybody knows that any part Hawaiian is capable of taking care of himself and does not need any rehabilitation.”
To which Kūhiō replied, “I would like to see everybody get the benefit of it in Hawaiʻi. For years past and up to the present time, the Hawaiians have never received any benefits.”
The proposed legislation continued to use a 1/32 blood quantum to define Native Hawaiians at least through April 1921. However, after the proposal was rejected by Congress for an unrelated reason and sent back to the territorial legislature for revision, 1/8 became the new standard being debated.
By the time the proposal went back to Congress, however, Native Hawaiian was defined as 50%, “a compromise made between Kūhiō and Hawaiʻi Sen. John H. Wise (also Kanaka Maoli) with the elite ʻMerchant Street gang’ in Honolulu,” Kauanui said.
She posits that “had there been an abiding focus on Hawaiian land entitlements, rather than a shift to a welfare discourse of Hawaiian neediness, genealogical descent could have remained as the way to determine Kānaka Maoli eligibility for homesteading, since as descendants of the kingdom, Kānaka Maoli could claim an equitable right to the land as their inheritance.”
However, she adds, “neither the island representatives serving the interests of the sugar corporations, nor the U.S. government intended to bolster Hawaiian claims, especially those that would call U.S. occupation into question.”
Kūhiō’s call for Hawaiian rehabilitation focused on Indigenous mortality and the HHCA was originally premised on recognition of citizenship under the Hawaiian Kingdom as Hawaiians grappled with unresolved land rights, “but the problem was in articulating that awareness of these historical claims within the confines of American law, citizenship and racial categories,” said Kauanui.
Blood quantum and identity
Until 1921, Hawaiians were simply Hawaiians. After foreign contact began in 1778, the mixed race children of Hawaiian mothers and (mostly) European fathers were raised Hawaiian and fully integrated into Hawaiian society.
Hawaiian identity was based on lineage and cultural norms rather than racial reckoning, thus many Hawaiian children of mixed ancestry were not even aware of their mixed ancestry – especially if they were hānai.
Today, despite the imposition of blood quantum on the Hawaiian psyche for the past 100 years, in most instances one’s appearance or estimated blood quantum is not an exclusionary social factor because of the importance of genealogy and pilina within the Hawaiian community. Indeed, nearly every Hawaiian family today includes members who qualify (and don’t qualify) as Native Hawaiian under the federal definition.
Reflecting on the negative impacts of blood quantum on our lāhui, Papa Ola Lōkahi CEO Dr. Sheri Daniels observed that it becomes a “have or have not” question. “I think when we talk about blood quantum, people get really stuck around ʻwhat does it mean for me? How do I benefit?’” She acknowledges that we need spaces, as ʻŌiwi, to talk through the ʻeha (pain) associated with the blood quantum label and the ways it has divided us.
“We come from strong people so why are we still focused on how disparate we are? We know our moʻokūʻauhau. It is about having koko (blood). If someone tells me they are Kanaka, I’m going to take that at face value. I’m not going to ask to see their documents.”
As it suits their needs
In discussing blood quantum as a colonial invention used to acquire land, wealth and power, it is important to point out the glaring contradiction between the imposition of blood quantum policies on Indigenous Peoples as distinct from Black Americans.
While the federal government has consistently imposed minimum blood quantum requirements on Indigenous Peoples to establish them as “native,” any amount of African blood was enough to establish someone as Black.
The notorious “one drop” rule originated after slavery ended in 1863 and was entrenched during the “Jim Crow” era, a period of legalized racial discrimination in America, primarily in southern states. It persisted until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Rooted in white supremacy and slavery, the “one drop” rule was intended to keep the white race “pure” and to prevent individuals with any amount of African blood from accessing the privileges of whiteness in America. Meanwhile, Indigenous persons of mixed race were not only permitted to assimilate – they were encouraged to do so.
Dr. Brian W. Dippie is a professor emeritus of U.S. cultural history at the University of Victoria in British Columbia. In his 1982 book, The Vanishing American: White Attitudes and the U.S. Indian Policy, he writes, “The situations of the Negro (sic) and the Indian were not really analogous … one was earmarked for a segregated, menial existence, the other for full participation in white civilization.”
Expanding on this idea he notes, “The native population was small – just an infinitesimal fraction of the whole American population – and while a massive infusion of Indian blood might pollute the national type, the limited amount available could do no harm and might even do some good.”
For the U.S. government, assimilation of Indigenous Peoples had several benefits. For one thing, absorption of Indigenous Peoples into the dominant white American culture negates pesky Indigenous land and sovereignty claims, and reduces the number of individuals who can qualify for federal benefits as people intermarry.
Indigenous People have also been fetishized in American culture in ways that Black Americans have not. Take, for example, the romanticized “noble savage” trope or the sexualized “hula girl” of the territorial era. These stereotypes make native peoples more palatable and even inspire dubious claims of Indigenous ancestry.
Impossible to measure
Blood quantum as a concept for determining our Hawaiian-ness has become entrenched over the past century. As a result, many of us think of ourselves and our Hawaiian identity in terms of fractions.
However, blood quantum is impossible to quantify and cannot be measured using birth certificates. The reason? Science.
Children inherit half of their DNA from their mother and half from their father. But unless they are identical twins, siblings do not inherit the exact same DNA. That is why children from the same family can look quite different.
A child receives 23 sets of chromosomes from each parent – so 46 altogether – which makes up their DNA. When joined, these chromosomes commingle and swap genetic information resulting in even more variations.
According to biotech company Sano Genetics, there are more than 8 million possible DNA combinations from just 23 chromosome sets, and research has shown that full siblings can share as little as 37% or as much as 65% of their genetic variants.
So while siblings receive 50% of their DNA from each parent, they don’t receive the exact same 50%. It is the reason why siblings who take DNA tests often get very different results. Thus blood quantum is an unscientific western construct without substance or merit.
Reconciling and moving forward
In contrast to genealogies and lineage which connect people to each other and to the land, the use of blood quantum to determine “Hawaiian-ness” attempts to classify ʻŌiwi into disparate groups of Hawaiians, which has divided families and communities for generations.
As intermarriage created new family dynamics and the 50% blood quantum requirement threatened HHCA descendants with dispossession from the land they were raised on, to its credit the State of Hawaiʻi was able to get Congressional approval to decrease the blood quantum requirement for successorship from 50% to 25% more than 20 years ago.
More recently, in 2017, the State of Hawaiʻi signed Act 80 into law further decreasing the HHCA successorship requirement to 1/32 Hawaiian – much closer to the original vision of Prince Kūhiō. However, implementation requires Congressional approval and it has been languishing in Washington, D.C., since 2022.
Ultimately, as is the case among First Nations Peoples, many ʻŌiwi object to the 50% blood quantum designation – not because they desire federal benefits – but because it is inherently divisive and undermines Indigenous self-identity and political claims. “Hawaiian kinship and genealogical modes of identification allow for political empowerment in the service of nation-building because it is inclusive,” Kauanui said.
“Not only is the genealogical approach more wide-reaching, it is embedded in Indigenous ontologies (realities) whereby peoplehood is rooted in the land. This inclusivity is especially true in the face of non-Hawaiian political opposition to Native Hawaiian entitlements and the sovereignty movement.”
While blood quantum continues to be a controversial topic, it does not need to be a divisive one. “We may not see eye-to-eye,” Daniels said. “But, at the end of the day, if we all collectively say that our North Star is being Hawaiian – and we practice being the best Kanaka we can be – then everything else is just noise.”
Author’s note: Mahalo nui to Dr. J. Kēhaulani Kauanui, who generously shared her extensive research on blood quantum for the purposes of this article. Dr. Kauanui is an author, professor and expert on settler colonialism, self-determination, decolonization, international law, race, gender and sexuality. To learn more about Act 80 and to track changes to the HHCA visit: doi.gov/Hawaiian/hhca-amendments.
This article is reprinted with permission from OHA's Ka Wai Ola newspaper: "Designed to Divide: Understanding Blood Quantum" by Puanani Fernandez-Akamine, in its March 2026 issue, Vol. 43 No. 3. Read more at kawaiola.news.
For the latest news of Hawai‘i, sign up here for our free Daily Edition newsletter.
