Reid Ginoza at 07:48, 27 July 2006

2006-07-27T07:48:56Z

Jennifer Wada at 12:25, 11 March 2006

2006-03-11T12:25:17Z

New page

* Summary Of Written Comments
Received By The Commission
The official comment period for the
Draft Report of Findings of the Kative
Hawaiians Study Commission (published
on September 23, 1982) ended on
January 23, 1983. The initial deadline
for comments on the Draft Report
was November 23, 1982, but it was
extended an additional 60 days at the
request of several native Hawaiian
groups and individuals. By May 1,
1983, the Native Hawaiians Study
Commission had received almost 100
written comments on its Draft Report
of Findings. All of these written
comments are reproduced in full, as
required by statute, in the next
section of this Appendix. Many of the
comments were used in revising the
text of the Commission's Draft Report;
these comments are referenced in the
text where they were used. This
summary specifically addresses those
comments received by the Commission
before February 10, 1983, that, while
they were taken into account in the
revision, were not specifically used
or referenced in the text of the Commission's
Final Report. Examples of
specific comments that illustrate the
points summarized here are given in
the footnotes of this section.
The Commission received numerous
comments from individuals and organizations
requesting an extension of
the Commission's original sixty-day
deadline for public comments. \J
Comments cited problems of limited
access and availability. To accommodate
those who wished to comment,
while at the same time meeting its
statutory deadline for submission of
the Final Report, the Commission
extended the deadline for public
comment by an additional 60 days, as
noted above.
In general, the Commission's Draft
Report received mixed reviews. Some
commenters called for a "second
opinion," 2/ labelled the report a
"cursory statement" that should be put
on hold, 3/ or called for the report
to be rewritten in its entirety. On
the other hand, others thought that at
least parts of the report were fairly
well researched, very informative, 4_/
and exhibited a satisfactory degree of
competence and objectivity. 5/
One criticism that reappeared
several times had to do,with "bias."
Some writers commented that the
descriptions of Hawaiian culture and
history had been written from a
Western perspective and were therefore
biased. 6/ Use of statistics in the
report was also thought to be biased
by some commenters. 7/ Others stated
that because it is a politicallyappointed
body, the Commission may not
be totally objective. 8/ Several
comments also noted that the Government
"responsible" for the present
native Hawaiian situation could not
objectively recommend a resolution. 9_/
One comment 10/ suggested that to
obviate this bias, the Commission
should have a majority of native
Hawaiian members with the remainder
from the non-government sector. [It
should be pointed out that Public Law
96-565 specifically states that "not
more than three" of the nine commissioners
may be residents of the State
of Hawaii.] Still another comment
suggested that a "mini non-governmentmember"
commission be created to deal
with the issue of reparations to be
composed of representatives of the
minority races of the United States.
Other comments dealing with the
bias issue criticized the "kid-glove"
treatment King Kalakaua received in
the Draft Report. 12/ Many comments
alluded to white racism against native
Hawaiians and at least one 13/
remarked that the report should
490

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-* Summary Of Written Comments
+=* Summary Of Written Comments Received By The Commission=
 The official comment period for the
-Draft Report of Findings of the Kative
+Draft Report of Findings of the Native
 Hawaiians Study Commission (published
 on September 23, 1982) ended on
@@ Line 32: / Line 31: @@
 points summarized here are given in
 the footnotes of this section.
 The Commission received numerous
 comments from individuals and organizations
 requesting an extension of
 the Commission's original sixty-day
-deadline for public comments. \J
+deadline for public comments. <u>1</u>/
 Comments cited problems of limited
 access and availability. To accommodate
@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 comment by an additional 60 days, as
 noted above.
 In general, the Commission's Draft
 Report received mixed reviews. Some
 commenters called for a "second
-opinion," 2/ labelled the report a
+opinion," <u>2</u>/ labelled the report a
 "cursory statement" that should be put
-on hold, 3/ or called for the report
+on hold, <u>3</u>/ or called for the report
 to be rewritten in its entirety. On
 the other hand, others thought that at
 least parts of the report were fairly
-well researched, very informative, 4_/
+well researched, very informative, <u>4</u>/
 and exhibited a satisfactory degree of
-competence and objectivity. 5/
+competence and objectivity. <u>5</u>/
 One criticism that reappeared
-several times had to do,with "bias."
+several times had to do with "bias."
 Some writers commented that the
 descriptions of Hawaiian culture and
 history had been written from a
 Western perspective and were therefore
-biased. 6/ Use of statistics in the
+biased. <u>6</u>/ Use of statistics in the
 report was also thought to be biased
-by some commenters. 7/ Others stated
+by some commenters. <u>7</u>/ Others stated
-that because it is a politicallyappointed
+that because it is a politically-appointed
 body, the Commission may not
-be totally objective. 8/ Several
+be totally objective. <u>8</u>/ Several
 comments also noted that the Government
 "responsible" for the present
 native Hawaiian situation could not
-objectively recommend a resolution. 9_/
+objectively recommend a resolution. <u>9</u>/
-One comment 10/ suggested that to
+One comment <u>10</u>/ suggested that to
 obviate this bias, the Commission
 should have a majority of native
@@ Line 84: / Line 86: @@
 may be residents of the State
 of Hawaii.] Still another comment
-suggested that a "mini non-governmentmember"
+suggested that a "mini non-government-member"
 commission be created to deal
 with the issue of reparations to be
 composed of representatives of the
 minority races of the United States.
 Other comments dealing with the
 bias issue criticized the "kid-glove"
 treatment King Kalakaua received in
-the Draft Report. 12/ Many comments
+the Draft Report. <u>12</u>/ Many comments
 alluded to white racism against native
-Hawaiians and at least one 13/
+Hawaiians and at least one <u>13</u>/
 remarked that the report should
+{{p|490}}

Template:Nhsc-v1-490 - Revision history

Reid Ginoza at 07:48, 27 July 2006

Jennifer Wada at 12:25, 11 March 2006