Europeans, so they were wild beasts. The facts of the actual event were being flooded over by theEuropean superiority.Western Historians have given all their time and effort into glorifying Christopher Columbus as a good man and when he was said to be evil for narrowing a tribe of 100, 000 people to mere hundreds they say he was just following orders. Something like this is specifically what Trask argues against. The people of her tribe being uncivil and savage just because they are far less developed than other counties is something that she does not want to seehappen but sadly it repeats over and over. There are western Historians stand on the side of history that does not look at the intentions of a race or what they do and hold them accountable for it as if it was their fault. In this sense, Trask’s argument about the writings of Western Historians are true. The nationalistic methods of getting what they want and making themselves seem like the good guys in history ignoring the factual documentation that goes against these points. The case of Trask being that they tell stories of the natives as if they know both sides though they don’t.Trask, a Hawaiian woman who fights for historical equality and justice, has all good intentions of her arguments making sure that she can reach an audience of western historians to expose them to the truth. The end of the one-sided historical documents seems to be her goal along with the accurate history of the Hawaiians becoming more well known. She writes in this document so that people may get the insight of someone who is from the island, knows the language and knows firsthand accounts of the history, not someone who just studies that land andmakes ignorant conclusions about it. A short version of these statements in my eyes are, if one doesn’t respect the history, then they should not provide their input on it. There are too many
inaccurate histories in the world, hopefully Trask has motivated more interest in the knowledge of truth amongst everyone.