...a debate endures about Cook's reputation and his death [at the hand of native Hawaiians]. Did he die a hero or a murderer of native peoples? Were his accomplishments a catalyst for scientific progress and economic prosperity or a death knell of an established Pacific culture: the introduction of venereal disease, exploitation, and evangelical missionaries intent on transferring their beliefs and values [?} (emphasis mine).
I was struck by this passage due to the equivalency it seemed to assert between the evils of venereal disease and exploitation on the one hand and "evangelical missionaries" on the other. It appeared to me to be yet another expression of the common trope that narrow-minded (and probably hypocritical) Christian missionaries have been responsible for the destruction of indigenous cultures throughout the world. This is not to say that there isn't a slight element of truth in this notion. Sadly, at various times and in various places, Christian missionaries have been guilty of having an attitude of cultural superiority toward the people they were working among, and may have (whether consciously or not) abetted colonialism and imperialism. However, this was (and is) not true of a large percentage of missionaries. Perhaps because I am living in China at the m0ment, the famed English missionary to China Hudson Taylor comes immediately to mind--Taylor made a point of living among the Chinese and even wearing Chinese dress (which, at the time, distinguished him from some of his colleagues). Moreover, many missionaries made (and make) great personal sacrifices while carrying out their work--facing loneliness, deprivation, disease, and even death.
Furthermore, a little research on the Internet about Hawaiian history made it clear to me that Ms. Berg had failed to take into account the positive contributions the early American missionaries made to Hawaiian society--they created a means of writing the Hawaiian language, set up schools throughout the islands, and introduced Western medicine. Nor were the missionaries largely responsible for the destruction of traditional Hawaiian religion. In fact, just before the first missionaries arrived in 1820, the Hawaiian king had ordered the destruction of traditional shrines and idols and had even done away with long-standing taboos (infractions of which were punished by death), like the prohibition on men eating with women. Consequently, when the missionaries arrived, the Hawaiians were facing a religious vacuum and many eagerly embraced Christianity. And lest anyone think that native Hawaiian religion had been some sort of benign worship of the (supposed) spirits of Nature, it needs be pointed out that it sometimes involved human sacrifice!
To be fair, it is my understanding that some of the missionaries in Hawaii or at least some of their descendants may have benefited economically and/or socially from the esteem they came to be held in by the Hawaiians, but I doubt this was true for all (or even most) of them.
In short, Berg's reference to the alleged adverse impact of "evangelical missionaries" on native Hawaiian culture seems unwarranted. Moreover, I can't help wondering if it reflects a bias on her part against present-day evangelical Christians--although I might be mistaken. Still, the choice of the word "evangelical" appears somewhat odd, otherwise. Why not just say "Christian"?
Finally, it seems to me at least that criticism of the efforts of missionaries to convert indigenous peoples to Christianity reflects an assumption that the Gospel is untrue (or that all religions are basically the same). Otherwise, why would it not be praiseworthy that missionaries, whatever the shortcomings of their approach to their work, are trying to bring the hope of eternal life to those who otherwise would perish? Certainly this illustrates dramatically the difference between the Christian and non-Christian mindset.
Image: Hawaii's first Christian church, photographed by John Fischer, from about.com.