Jennifer Wada at 09:20, 24 April 2006

2006-04-24T09:20:39Z

Jennifer Wada at 23:10, 9 March 2006

2006-03-09T23:10:29Z

New page

Subject: Public Comments on Draft
Report of Findings of the Native
Hawaiians Study Commission
1. This replies to a request from your
office that we respond to public comments
to Part II.B., "The Fall of the
Monarchy and Annexation of Hawaii,"
which was researched and written in
this office at your request.
2. The written comments that you
forwarded to this office were
contained in letters and lengthy
memoranda from Native Hawaiians or
those who share their views. The
general tenor of these comments was a
critical reaction to the content and
sources used in researching and
writing the sub-chapter.
3^ When your request was received last
May, we responded within the guidelines
of that request, namely: that
within six to eight weeks we produce a
15 to 20 page, double-spaced report,
footnoted, on "what forces caused the
monarchy to fall and what forces led
to the annexation of Hawaii to the
United States as a Territory in 1898."
The request also stated that "reliance
on secondary sources will be
sufficient for our review."
4. The account we produced was
essentially a summary based on leading
secondary works and a limited number
of primary sources. Ralph
Kuykendall's The Hawaiian Kingdom:
The Kalakaua Dynasty (1967) was chosen
as a principal source, for it is a
well-balanced interpretation, based on
multi-archival research with careful
annotations. Printed primary sources
such as the multi-volume Blount
report, the Morgan report, and Lt.
Lucien Young's account were consulted
but were used carefully and sparingly,
with their biases taken into
consideration.
5. The types of critical comments
varied widely. Several respondents
sent accounts they considered more
accurate. These statements were
lengthy and detailed but the facts
presented did not contradict those i
our account. The response from the
Hawaiian State Statistician remarkec
that "...the demographic, statistica
and historical aspects of the study
have been handled reasonably well,
reflecting a satisfactory degree of
competence and objectivity." The mo
cogent criticisms argued that primar
source research in both public and
private archives was much to be
preferred to reliance on secondary
sources, and that several questions
regarding the fall of the monarchy ar
annexation should have been treated i
greater depth and detail. I concur
with these sentiments. Primary
sources are to be preferred in the
research and writing of any historica
account. Ideally, the scholar would
travel to all archival institutions
holding pertinent collections to see
if any new facts or fresh perspectives
could be found. Unfortunately, the
six to eight week time limit, the lac>
of funds for travel, and the fact that
this work was assumed for completion
in addition to other work normally
done by this office precluded any more
extensive treatment.
6. Some commentators objected to the
fact that federal historians were
asked to provide research on a subject
which involved the actions of the U.S.
Government and its armed forces. The
presumption here is that government
historians could not be unbiased in
the matter. Our report strove for
objectivity and made no attempt to
ignore or minimize the parts played by
the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps, or the
American Minister to Hawaii, John L.
Stevens. It is conceded, however,
that it would have been more
290

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 Report of Findings of the Native
 Hawaiians Study Commission
 . This replies to a request from your
 office that we respond to public comments
@@ Line 8: / Line 9: @@
 which was researched and written in
 this office at your request.
 . The written comments that you
 forwarded to this office were
@@ Line 17: / Line 19: @@
 sources used in researching and
 writing the sub-chapter.
-^ When your request was received last
 May, we responded within the guidelines
 of that request, namely: that
@@ Line 29: / Line 32: @@
 on secondary sources will be
 sufficient for our review."
 . The account we produced was
 essentially a summary based on leading
 secondary works and a limited number
 of primary sources. Ralph
-Kuykendall's The Hawaiian Kingdom:
+Kuykendall's <u>The Hawaiian Kingdom:
-The Kalakaua Dynasty (1967) was chosen
+The Kalakaua Dynasty</u> (1967) was chosen
 as a principal source, for it is a
 well-balanced interpretation, based on
@@ Line 45: / Line 49: @@
 with their biases taken into
 consideration.
 . The types of critical comments
 varied widely. Several respondents
@@ Line 52: / Line 57: @@
 presented did not contradict those i
 our account. The response from the
-Hawaiian State Statistician remarkec
+Hawaiian State Statistician remarked
-that "...the demographic, statistica
+that "...the demographic, statistical
 and historical aspects of the study
 have been handled reasonably well,
 reflecting a satisfactory degree of
 competence and objectivity." The mo
-cogent criticisms argued that primar
+cogent criticisms argued that primary
 source research in both public and
 private archives was much to be
 preferred to reliance on secondary
 sources, and that several questions
-regarding the fall of the monarchy ar
+regarding the fall of the monarchy and
-annexation should have been treated i
+annexation should have been treated in
 greater depth and detail. I concur
 with these sentiments. Primary
 sources are to be preferred in the
-research and writing of any historica
+research and writing of any historical
 account. Ideally, the scholar would
 travel to all archival institutions
@@ Line 74: / Line 79: @@
 if any new facts or fresh perspectives
 could be found. Unfortunately, the
-six to eight week time limit, the lac>
+six to eight week time limit, the lack
 of funds for travel, and the fact that
 this work was assumed for completion
@@ Line 80: / Line 85: @@
 done by this office precluded any more
 extensive treatment.
 . Some commentators objected to the
 fact that federal historians were
@@ Line 94: / Line 100: @@
 Stevens. It is conceded, however,
 that it would have been more
+{{p|290}}

Template:Nhsc-v1-290 - Revision history

Jennifer Wada at 09:20, 24 April 2006

Jennifer Wada at 23:10, 9 March 2006