Kalofa e, i gai o’u kasegi mai kuā..hahahaaa!
I couldn’t help but mull the significance and/or implication of “kuā” in the story. I think I know, having been born and raised in “kuā” myself.
Unless the word has gone through amelioration, it still carries the stigma that it had when I was growing up. For those not in the know, “kuā” (kooh-ah) is a Samoan word that means “outback”, “back country” etc. It connotes backwardness, from the bush, boonies, destitution, inferiority, etc. I believe this is how kuā is used in the story – intentional or not. The poor and backward context is compounded and made more compelling by the vivid, offsetting and contrasting description of the city/town (Apia) and the rich lifestyle of “corporate existence” (air-conditioned office, massive window panes, thickly-pleated curtains, afternoon tea break, etc.). If that’s not enough, the fact that the ladies were fighting over a “three tala Christmas hat” which was “probably made in China” amplifies the stigma of the poor and penniless people of “kuā” fighting over cheap stuff.
Tourism may help in ameliorating the word (from a pejorative to an approbative) through its association with modern resorts, beautiful beaches and accommodations in the villages (kuā). However, the insinuations such as those in the story only serve to rekindle and resurrect the stigma.
What would have made the story a lot more profound, beautiful, more meaningful and “Christmassy”, however, would be a redemption (pun intended) of the kuā ladies. This can be done by mentioning the rustic, poor, humble, lowly and inferior conditions in which the Savior was born, and then liken those to the similar conditions in kuā – poor, inferior, lowly and humble. Jesus may very well have been born in “kuā” in other words.
And as for me, even while I now live in the richest country in the world, I still, personally, would rather spend Christmas in the simple, lowly, poor, rustic village in kuā. And definitely not in Apia either.
… ia fai aku ai fo’i!





















