Isn't the Morgan Report racist?

Many, if not all of the witnesses presenting testimony at the Morgan Report hearings, were undeniably bigoted. Even the most generous of them clearly considered kanaka maoli inferior to whites, led only into grace by the good works of Christian missionaries and white advisors.

For example, in the testimony of Peter Cushman Jones, Senator Gray is surprised that the kanaka maoli are considered intelligent and educated:

Senator Gray. I did not know that they were so far advanced as that. How long has education been general among the native population?

Mr. Jones even disparages kanaka maoli in regards to their truthfulness, as if they were still children who told lies:

Senator Gray. Are they treacherous; have they the characteristics of our North American Indians?

Mr. Jones. No; but they are untruthful—not what we would call treacherous; I would hardly call them treacherous; but sometimes they are untruthful.

And even though Mr. Jones seems willing to give kanaka maoli the same voting rights he would enjoy, he clearly sees them as unable to govern themselves:

Senator Frye. Are they capable of self-government?

Mr. Jones. I should say not; although I should be willing to give the same privileges to them that I would ask for myself in the way of voting.

Throughout the entire testimony, one can find statements that are shocking to modern morals. Statements of people who fought on the Confederate side of the Civil War. Statements of people thoroughly convinced of the superiority of the white race. Statements that we look upon today with disdain, disgust, and a fair bit of shame.

However, regardless of the personal bigotries of the parties, which may indeed have influenced their ideas and behaviors both during the time in question as well as during testimony, the facts to which they testify to are still compelling argument, and firm rebuttal to factual assertions on the part of the Blount Report. For example, in regards to the troop locations of the soliders from the Boston, P.C. Jones gives some relevant facts:

Senator Frye. Do you know where the troops were located and why they were located and how ?

Senator Gray. Of your own knowledge.

Mr. Jones. Oh, yes. I know that there was a squad stationed at the American minister's, and another one at the American consul's, and the balance of them at Arion Hall.

These facts certainly have nothing to do with Mr. Jones' opinions of race relations, and should not be dismissed out of hand because of his anachronistic mores.

The world of 1893 was filled with people who thought whites were superior. The world of 1893 was filled with people who thought men were superior. The world of 1893 was filled with people who thought Christianity was superior. And you can see clearly by the open and candid testimony that they did not find their bigotry in the least bit shameful.

Although we can surely be outraged at the bigotry of the past, it is not fair to assert that bigotry made a person inherently untruthful, or that bigotry made a person less capable of giving testimony in good faith. To assert such blanket stereotypes against these white men of 1893 is just as bad as the stereotypes they held against the kanaka maoli.

The ad hominem attack on the speaker's background or personality in order to discredit their logical reasoning is a common, yet flawed technique of argument. In the debate over the issues surrounding the overthrow and annexation, this tactic is rightly condemned by anyone searching for the truth. Valuable eyewitness reports about what happened during the Hawaiian revolution of 1893, presented under oath and subjected to cross-examination; and historical documents presented by witnesses; should not be casually dismissed merely because those witnesses had personal opinions which we today, with more enlightened values, consider reprehensible.

So is the Morgan Report racist? Absolutely. But does that make it completely wrong? Absolutely not.