The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1903-04-06
PROTEST Of
A CHAPLAIN
A Kamehameha Man
Objects to an
Argument.

Editor ADVERTISER: 1t IS to be re
GREETED that Mr.. Armstrong. In his re,
cent articles on the Kamehamehs
Schools, has contributed but little thai
is of value for the discussion. His ref
erence to politics and the Organic Aci
lies outside the question. His remarks
on Indian and negro education. al
though interesting. are not so signifi-
cant as he supposes. for the Hawaii
ans are neither Indians nor negroes.
and most of his references to the native
race are as inappropriate as they are
unjustihed.
Mr. Armstroog's mode of reasoning
is like that of Socrates philosopher. .
Thrasymachus. who would ask "a per-
son what numbers make up twelve
taking care to prohibit him
from answering twice six. or three
times four. or six tines two. or four
time three
He first said that the Kamehameha
Schools should be removed to distant
island. When it is shown that such
reasoning would be irrational. he re-
plies that he is speaking "of the pure
native" Does he now seriously advo-
cate the isolation of the schools in
order to properly educate the pure ma
tives? That would seem to be absurd.
since they number only about 80 per
cent of the student body Assuming,
however, that such is his meaning, then
what is his position? The pure natives.
he says, should be segregated and yet |
kept under the influence of the best |
Christian civilization" This involves
a contradiction in terms. Perhaps Mr..
Armstrong would reply that he means .
only partial segregation. But par
tial" segregation is already secured. 1t
always is in every boarding school. !
AS last resort. I venture to suggest
that Mr.. Armstrong; educational policy
for the Hawaiians is like the agricul-
tural policy of the Irishman who plant
ed potato and dug it up every few
lays to see how fast it grew.
In his last. article Mr.. Armstrong
advances a step in his argument. He
declares that the natives have not
sand" This is clear as we'll as frank.
We must take the statement, however,
With a grain of salt, for the author of
t belongs to class of men who have
always acted as if they thought that
when the Lord made them he was
through, and that the rest of mankind
ust happened. Mr. Armstrong adduces
ONE evidence, at second hand, in sup
,ort of his view, but this is of little
moment when any one who pleases may I
ave at first hand abundant evidence
4 Contradictions it. That the Hawaii 5
ms lack sand is an entirely mistaken !
1ea What they do lack is that eco 8
omic element of human nature. and t
hat knowledge of the value of money
,hich commercial people have acquired +
through the experience of over a thou I
and years.
Most people will agree with Mr.. Arm =
trong when he says that the Hawa- a
ans cannot compete with the Japan a
Sc: and on that ground some may think I
hat there is basis for his opinion :
hat they lack staying power. But Il
rere I to reason as Mr.. Armstrong a
oes, 1 could "go him one better"
hould say that the Hawaiians cannot
ompete with Asiatics in the labor mar n
ct: and the Americans cannot compete G
18th the Asiatics in the labor market;
lerefore the Americans are as incom-
etent as the Hawaiians, and the Ha- t,
-aiians are equal in ability to the t
mericans 1 might. indeed, with some
how of argument contend that Ha- \
aiians have more sand than Amer
ans. For while the Hawaiian. ac-
1rding to the statement of Mr.. Arm
rong. has voluntarily thrown up his
ands on these islands in contact with
lie advanced races" the American has
oIuntarfIy thrown up his hands on
lese islands in contact with a lower
ice.
One point more. Mr. Armstrong as L
.rts. with manifest pride, that from
lie missionaries the native race re
lived an admirable political constitu-
on" on the Hawaiian islands wise
Tvs were made and administered, L
and more than that every native +
.ceived the gift of a homestead out Q.
/. which he could and did maintain ~
mself." 1 presume that here Mr. a
rmstrong means what he says And d
re. again beg to take issue with him. j.
is knowledge of Hawaiian history u
,es not seem to be accurate, or he o
ould not have said that Cook discov- r