+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Punatalk (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Western Lens vs Native Lens (/showthread.php?tid=14434)
RE: Western Lens vs Native Lens - 2liveque - 09-06-2014
PaulW -- You will never lose your property. Through my lens, it was never yours. it is Pele's, or the Volcano's if that term allows our dialogue to progress smoother. Western laws certainly say that it is in fact your property. You paid for it and you are entitled to protect it. given that context, folks in Royal Gardens still own their property too. It's just under some lava now. So with that said, one will never lose their property based upon my cultural beliefs.
RE: Western Lens vs Native Lens - PaulW - 09-06-2014
The whole of human history is a tale of humans bending nature to their will - look around you.
Dams seem to work just fine.
RE: Western Lens vs Native Lens - 2liveque - 09-06-2014
Given that logic, Dams do seem to work fine. But how fine did it work for the people who had to move or whose towns no longer exist because of the damming of a river? Also using your logic, how well has it worked for people "bending" nature in regards to Tsunami? Earthquake? Tornados?
In your above referenced post about what it would be like if the flow was threatening Hilo, I agree that there would probably be a lot of chatter regarding diversion. In the end however, same answer. Pele would win out. But I get your point and agree with you that HIlo functions under a different standard. Mainly because Hilo has a lot less Punatics. But that is a whole 'nudder discussion. I'm about to run out of my daily 5 posts. So with that said, I wish everyone well. And stand by my original assertion: Keep thinking you can stop lava. And when you do, sell your idea to the world. I'll be the first to buy stock in your company. Until then, my money is still on Tutu.
RE: Western Lens vs Native Lens - KeaauRich - 09-06-2014
I'd rather defer to the will of Pele/God/Mother Nature/Science or whatever other description one uses to describe the force behind lava flows than risk my future on unintended consequences of human intervention. Why do so many people feel that those who would attempt to manage the flow of molten lava would be any more effective than those who attempt to manage automobile traffic around here?
RE: Western Lens vs Native Lens - PaulW - 09-06-2014
I'm not that concerned about my property - I was thinking more about the (very small) chance that my house will burn down, but even then I have insurance. I'm sure I'm a lot less worried than many other people who have no insurance. Those born here may well number significantly in that group.
Does it really make sense to not even consider the possibility of saving thousands of people's houses just because you're afraid of angering something that may not even exist?
RE: Western Lens vs Native Lens - Mtviewdude - 09-06-2014
quote:
Originally posted by 2liveque
Western lens is highly influenced by Christianity and the belief that man claims dominion over just about everything. This has been indoctrinated in the thinking of many folks into believing that man can do anything "HE" puts his mind to. In short, if we can damn a river, fly to the moon, and explore the deepest recesses of the ocean, then by golly, we should be able to "divert" a freek'n lava flow! Arrogance often colors the western lens. And make no mistake about it, many non-westerners, have also subscribed to this ideology.
The Native lens speaks otherwise. While many of you may acknowledge the presence of the "host" culture and be so quick to drop Merrie Monarch reference or the name of Hawaiians who have either befrended you, or impregnated a family member, the truth of it all is that most (and I do emphasize most --if this dont' apply to you, then don't be offended), -- MOST transplanted folks sitting in the lava update meetings show that they could give a rats behind about Hawaiians and their tutu Pele. They may never admit it, but rest assured, body language and the eyes of the beholder tell the true story. Especially when the Hawaiians get on the mic. Kudos to that European lady who went up, made her feelings know about Hawaiians, and got booed off the mic. At least she had courage enough to say her true convictions. Unlike many others who keep their ethnocentric feelings under wraps. The native lens is a land/ocean/wind/sky NATURE based lens. Whether you chose to believe in Pele or not, the native lens allows for one to acknowledge the "godliness" of nature. Two very different ideologies at play in Puna and the rest of our state for that matter. I'm refraining from using the "H" word, as many seem to get too offended by the term. But make no mistake about it, all folks who continue to suggest diversion are in fact H____es. Transplants to Puna who have no true connection to the land beyond their 1-(insert your time in Puna here). As the years go by, many feel like they now have a say (AND A RIGHT!) to pretty much utter what they please. This certainly does not apply to all transplants, so please don't get offended if my observations don't apply to you. Those who I speak of come with an ideology that is very self-centered, based upon their own needs, and their own wants, their own "right," their own attorney, policies, laws, money. Money, which is a western God by the way, allows for folks to feel once again, like they the humans, can do as they please. Many come with continental-centric approaches that have them believing that they are 1) smarter than Hawaiians and locals, and 2) people should listen to them, because they are smart and they know more than these "experts" in Hawaii.
Well my friends, if the shoe fits -- Tutu Pele will remind you of how HOT the ground will get underneath you. 'Eo Tutu. Mahalo for presence.
Do you honestly believe this crap? I know we tend to only remember the good times and down play the bad. I would put most alii as brutal and dominating as any european king.
Look into how the common people were treated and how most of what they produced were taken by the alii. The alii couldn't cut down the sandalwood forests down fast enough so they could live it up at the expenses of the commoners.
I am not defending Europeans they did they share of evil s***, but this romanticized bull**** of native life needs a realty check.
Hawaiian culture, religion and language were killed by the kings and queens of hawaii. Kamehameha's wife and son were the ones who scrapped most of it. Heck, Kamehameha himself was the one who change the old ways to allow women and men to eat together.
The main reason for the Merrie Monarch Fesitval and King Kalakaua was called the Merrie Monarch was based he restored a lot of the cultural traditions.
That is why I laugh and cry on the inside with all the lawsuits about "cultural traditions and sensitivity". The fact is the State of Hawaii has done more to preserve the cultural, language and people of Hawaii then the Kingdom of Hawaii ever has. At least with the state you have a voice and freedom, with the Kingdom of Hawaii you would have been executed for speaking against the monarch.
I really wish you would actually learn the history of hawaii instead of this romanticized noble native lens crap.
RE: Western Lens vs Native Lens - PaulW - 09-06-2014
In some cases, dams were made to prevent flooding. they have done their job very, very well. Yes, some people had to move.
Better than thousands dying every few years. That's progress.
We haven't tried to control tsunamis or earthquakes yet, but that will come.
The 5-post-a-day limit is an average, by the way.
RE: Western Lens vs Native Lens - KeaauRich - 09-06-2014
And for every "human intervention" success story like dams and shoreline, there are other examples like albizia trees and mongoose introductions.
Bottom line: its not nice to fool mother nature...
RE: Western Lens vs Native Lens - 2liveque - 09-06-2014
See! He dropped a Merrie Monarch reference. The only crap I hear is coming from a Mt. View guys' courageous keyboard. You are so smart, and we should listen to you.
RE: Western Lens vs Native Lens - punafish - 09-06-2014
No argument that man can and has bent nature. But one could also argue that we've bent and stressed nature to its limit (but only if you believe in climate change), and that in the long run, nature always wins. Hey, even dams have unintended consequences. What may look like a viable benefit in the short-term can potentially have adverse, long-term consequences down the road.
Sorry, I can't envision bending Kilauea to our will. Man just isn't that good.
But just for fun, here's one possible unintended consequence that comes to mind:
First, my guess is that the county is looking at opening up Chain-of-Craters road because it's literally the "high road" above the approaching flow. It's not an ideal option but it's a solid back-up plan. My other guess is that they'll open a road downhill too, perhaps the coastal road, perhaps Railroad. Now, let's suppose the flow keeps going down to the ocean (don't think it'll happen but it could). We've still got our back-up route on CoC road.
But if we blow a hole in Kilauea's south flank with a smart bomb, and that action fails to stop the flow coming through Pahoa, then we've also cut off our plan B route because CoC road will now be covered in lava, a self-inflicted wound.
That's just off the top of my head. No doubt we're capable of screwing things up much more.