Following yesterday’s post regarding the origin of the Hawaiian flag, one of the first comments was from Steve Laudig.

I did not approve the comment, but later decided to share it. Here’s his comment, in full:

Carpetbagger is a term that comes to mind here if he was not a Hawaiian National. He was a loyal servant, and patronage employee of the US occupation government. A flunky, some could easily say. If he was a Hawaiian National he could be called a Quisling.

This is the kind of comment that just isn’t useful or helpful, in my view. The comment seems more likely to cut off discussion rather than promote exchange of ideas, unless one is in already in agreement with Laudig’s historical-political assumptions.

I also considered it inappropriate because the topic of the post is the research note on the flag’s history. Laudig’s comment is, instead, a dismissal of the author for historical-political reasons that readers may or may not agree with, and in any case involve a whole different set of issues. It seemed to me a classic ad hominem attack, addressing the person’s supposed personal characteristics rather than the substance of what they have written.

Another frequent commenter here, Ken Conklin, has an equally strong but polar opposite historical interpretation. But he has generally been a useful participant here by providing specific references to document his interpretations, an approach which opens the door to further debate.

I also find it odd when today’s dissenters believe that they would have been ardent monarchists in that earlier era, or at least appear to reject the idea that there could have been legitimate reasons for opposing the Kingdom’s constitutional monarchy.

And so it goes on this Monday morning.