|Previous Page||Next 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 program 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
|Previous Page||Next Page|