Reid Ginoza at 07:59, 27 July 2006

2006-07-27T07:59:57Z

Jennifer Wada at 12:25, 11 March 2006

2006-03-11T12:25:46Z

New page

mention more of the "good" that the
white people have contributed to
Hawaii.
The Commission attempted to address
these charges of bias as the report
was re-drafted. Considerable
revisions were made in the text to
reflect "both sides of the story,"
based on written comments received by
the Commission and citing specific
comments where appropriate.
The sources used in preparing the
Commission's Draft Report were also
criticized. Some comments criticized
authors used as "sympathetic to the
white side" 14/ and others criticized
the limited use of primary sources of
information. 15/ To address this
problem, sources suggested by comments
were used in revising the report where
possible. In addition, a
comprehensive list of references has
been included in the Commission's
Final Report 16/ to assist readers of
the report in further study of the
issues presented here.
The Commission received many
comments discussing the omission of
the culture and religion sections from
the Draft Report. 17/ Other comments
voiced concern about the protection of
native Hawaiian religious rights. 18/
The Commission's Final Report does
contain sections on culture and
religion, written by native Hawaiian
authors.
The Commission received a great
number of comments discussing the
historical basis for the Commission's
legal findings. Many writers disputed
the Draft Report's historical
analysis, stating that it:
• Contained inaccuracies; 19/
• Did not give sufficient weight
to the native Hawaiian side of
the story; 20/
• Failed to emphasize the
importance of the role of U.S.
military force in the overthrow
of the monarchy; 21/ and
• Minimized the role of U.S.
Minister John Stevens. 22/
Other comments discussed the
statements and actions of President
Graver Cleveland after the overthrow
as a basis for U.S. Government
culpability. 23/
Writers cited the above issues 24/
and others, including present
deficiencies of native Hawaiians, 25/
to justify the payment of some type of
restitution or reparations to the
native Hawaiian people. 26/ Some
comments stated that if there is no
legal right to such claims under
present law, the U.S. Congress should
pass legislation creating such a
right. 27/
Comments received by the Commission
present a wide variety of ideas on how
a progran of restitution could be
implemented. With regard to return of
lands, the Commission received 18
newspaper cut-outs from the Hawaiian
News (October 1982) asking the Commission
to: "Please demand that the
U.S. Congress return all of the
144,000+ acres of ceded lands
(according to Public Law 88-2 33) to
the State of Hawaii immediately!• 28/
Among the proposals received on types
of restitution are that:
• There be no monetary payment,
the Federal Government should
purchase parcels of land in
Hawaii, turn them over to the
State, which would use some of
the land for State parks and •
entrust the larger parcels to
the Office of Hawaiian Affairs
to be kept as wildlife
sanctuaries. 29/
• Compensation should consist of
reparations in the form of
return of all Crown lands, and
restitution in the form of
restoring the sovereignty of
491

@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 white people have contributed to
 Hawaii.
 The Commission attempted to address
 these charges of bias as the report
@@ Line 10: / Line 11: @@
 the Commission and citing specific
 comments where appropriate.
 The sources used in preparing the
 Commission's Draft Report were also
 criticized. Some comments criticized
 authors used as "sympathetic to the
-white side" 14/ and others criticized
+white side" <u>14</u>/ and others criticized
 the limited use of primary sources of
-information. 15/ To address this
+information. <u>15</u>/ To address this
 problem, sources suggested by comments
 were used in revising the report where
@@ Line 22: / Line 24: @@
 comprehensive list of references has
 been included in the Commission's
-Final Report 16/ to assist readers of
+Final Report <u>16</u>/ to assist readers of
 the report in further study of the
 issues presented here.
 The Commission received many
 comments discussing the omission of
 the culture and religion sections from
-the Draft Report. 17/ Other comments
+the Draft Report. <u>17</u>/ Other comments
 voiced concern about the protection of
-native Hawaiian religious rights. 18/
+native Hawaiian religious rights. <u>18</u>/
 The Commission's Final Report does
 contain sections on culture and
 religion, written by native Hawaiian
 authors.
 The Commission received a great
 number of comments discussing the
@@ Line 41: / Line 45: @@
 the Draft Report's historical
 analysis, stating that it:
-• Contained inaccuracies; 19/
-• Did not give sufficient weight
+* Contained inaccuracies; <u>19</u>/
-to the native Hawaiian side of
+* Did not give sufficient weight to the native Hawaiian side of the story; <u>20</u>/
-the story; 20/
+* Failed to emphasize the importance of the role of U.S. military force in the overthrow of the monarchy; <u>21</u>/ and
-• Failed to emphasize the
+* Minimized the role of U.S. Minister John Stevens. <u>22</u>/
 importance of the role of U.S.
 Other comments discussed the
 statements and actions of President
 Graver Cleveland after the overthrow
 as a basis for U.S. Government
-culpability. 23/
+culpability. <u>23</u>/
 Writers cited the above issues 24/
 and others, including present
-deficiencies of native Hawaiians, 25/
+deficiencies of native Hawaiians, <u>25</u>/
 to justify the payment of some type of
 restitution or reparations to the
-native Hawaiian people. 26/ Some
+native Hawaiian people. <u>26</u>/ Some
 comments stated that if there is no
 legal right to such claims under
 present law, the U.S. Congress should
 pass legislation creating such a
-right. 27/
+right. <u>27</u>/
 Comments received by the Commission
 present a wide variety of ideas on how
-a progran of restitution could be
+a program of restitution could be
 implemented. With regard to return of
 lands, the Commission received 18
-newspaper cut-outs from the Hawaiian
+newspaper cut-outs from the <u>Hawaiian News</u> (October 1982) asking the Commission
 to: "Please demand that the
 U.S. Congress return all of the
 ,000+ acres of ceded lands
 (according to Public Law 88-2 33) to
-the State of Hawaii immediately!• 28/
+the State of Hawaii immediately!" <u>28</u>/
 Among the proposals received on types
 of restitution are that:
-• There be no monetary payment,
-the Federal Government should
+* There be no monetary payment, the Federal Government should purchase parcels of land in Hawaii, turn them over to the State, which would use some of the land for State parks and entrust the larger parcels to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to be kept as wildlife sanctuaries. <u>29</u>/
 purchase parcels of land in
-Hawaii, turn them over to the
+* Compensation should consist of reparations in the form of return of all Crown lands, and restitution in the form of restoring the sovereignty of
-State, which would use some of
+{{p|491}}

Template:Nhsc-v1-491 - Revision history

Reid Ginoza at 07:59, 27 July 2006

Jennifer Wada at 12:25, 11 March 2006