Are we making them recognizable, having them respond as we think Europeans would, by flying off the handle? I don't have an answer, but the debate between these two historical anthropologists brings up something that we need to keep in mind. Very often in history, we make statements about people who haven't written their own story, whether it's Hawaiians or Native Americans or working class people. And we try to imagine that we're seeing the world as they have seen it, but the best we can really do is offer an approximation. So is it really possible to present a Hawaiian version of Captain Cook's death? Or is the exercise inherently condescending and paternalistic? And most importantly, is our inability to escape our biases a good excuse for not even trying?