05-19-2017, 05:53 AM
Hi Tink,
It's not that I want a ski lift, my question was based on the idea that if the TMT with all of its cultural value is contested than how is it ethical for me to go snowboarding there at all? If there is a risk of contamination then my puna based 4x4 would certainly add to it. Possibly more important, certainly more important to me, is the land claim issue.
Hey MarkD, sorry for going off topic a bit.
The possibility for the TMT to benefit Hawaiian culture seems to be undeniable to me. Polynesian travellers used stars for navigation in a way that never ceases to amaze me. The "what if" of Hawaiian youth being drawn into the dream of the stars and hopefully one day even space travel is wonderfully romantic. But, and this is an awfully big "but" to me, it reads to me that a large part of Hawaiian people see the TMT as something that is being forced upon them, not as a gift being offered.
An article posted by the CASCA (http://casca.ca/?p=6919) puts "statewide opposition" at " about 25%, with roughly 60% Native Hawaiians opposed". I have no idea where they were getting those stats from but if they are accurate than the TMT is not being received well by the people who have the strongest claim to the land the TMT, as well as the other telescopes, is built on.
It has been said by the pro TMT side "that it's an argument about returning to the stone age versus understanding our universe" (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonia...180955057/). What is unfortunately lacking in this view is the rights of indigenous people to control their own land.
So the crux of the issue seems to be if this is first nations land or not. That Mauna Kea is a site of significance to Hawaiian people is widely reported, as seen here, "The ahu Ka Uakoko once stood here and it represented the resurgence and the rebirth and the strengthening of our culture and our religion and our spirituality and our sovereignty"(http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/30031...-bulldozed). Why then, during the seven years of deliberation were these issues not faced? I have gone looking and so far the only form of consultation I can find evidence of is "a survey done with Cultural Surveys Hawaii, 18 people from the public were consulted, but no official cultural advisor."(http://bigislandnow.com/2016/11/17/tmt-h...testifies/). With no specific consultation with first nation Hawaiians and a woefully small sample size is it any surprise that there is a backlash from a people rediscovering their rights?
Perhaps the youth, of both genders, of Hawaiian descent should be focusing on becoming Lawyers and councillors? Then when that community was properly empowered they could go on to wanting other roles in our society than enforcement.
In these modern times of things like the Truth and Reconciliation Agreement and UNDRIP are we all not charged with open dialogue based in mutual respect?I believe that if this process was adhered to from the very beginning of the TMT's conception we would be experiencing a very different reaction from first nation Hawaiian people.
Hi HOTPE,
I wonder does your "parable" read any differently if the family discussed had built their house on someone else's land? Maybe even on the family graveyard? What if the first build took place in 1960 without owner consent and that consent for newer structures was only sought after charges were filed? What if, despite the charges the structure was built anyway? Would you be surprised if that family was disliked by the owners?
Anyway, MarkD you really opened my eyes with this thread so I thank you very much, Though I'm not as opposed to the TMT as I would be to a pipeline or copper mine the lack of consideration towards Hawaiian people during it's construction makes it difficult to support and certainly makes trespassing onto Mauna Kea absolutely ethically impossible for me. I know that there are some kind people who have been very welcoming to me who strongly support the TMT. It is only with reflection and respect to all that I make these comments. As much as I deeply value the need for the information that structures like the TMT can provide our culture, this value does not eclipse the need for the undoing of cultural wrongs historically experience by indigenous people. Perhaps things will be better managed in Chile or the Canaries when the lease expires. Luckily my opinion on the matter is irrelevant to the outcome as this is an amazingly convoluted issue for me.
With aloha,
Jim
p.s. Sorry TK, I do hope you see how hard I looked at this issue before disagreeing. I blame my enculturation, I have met so many FN cultures fighting injustice, and really "stone age"? Yikes.
It's not that I want a ski lift, my question was based on the idea that if the TMT with all of its cultural value is contested than how is it ethical for me to go snowboarding there at all? If there is a risk of contamination then my puna based 4x4 would certainly add to it. Possibly more important, certainly more important to me, is the land claim issue.
Hey MarkD, sorry for going off topic a bit.
The possibility for the TMT to benefit Hawaiian culture seems to be undeniable to me. Polynesian travellers used stars for navigation in a way that never ceases to amaze me. The "what if" of Hawaiian youth being drawn into the dream of the stars and hopefully one day even space travel is wonderfully romantic. But, and this is an awfully big "but" to me, it reads to me that a large part of Hawaiian people see the TMT as something that is being forced upon them, not as a gift being offered.
An article posted by the CASCA (http://casca.ca/?p=6919) puts "statewide opposition" at " about 25%, with roughly 60% Native Hawaiians opposed". I have no idea where they were getting those stats from but if they are accurate than the TMT is not being received well by the people who have the strongest claim to the land the TMT, as well as the other telescopes, is built on.
It has been said by the pro TMT side "that it's an argument about returning to the stone age versus understanding our universe" (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonia...180955057/). What is unfortunately lacking in this view is the rights of indigenous people to control their own land.
So the crux of the issue seems to be if this is first nations land or not. That Mauna Kea is a site of significance to Hawaiian people is widely reported, as seen here, "The ahu Ka Uakoko once stood here and it represented the resurgence and the rebirth and the strengthening of our culture and our religion and our spirituality and our sovereignty"(http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/30031...-bulldozed). Why then, during the seven years of deliberation were these issues not faced? I have gone looking and so far the only form of consultation I can find evidence of is "a survey done with Cultural Surveys Hawaii, 18 people from the public were consulted, but no official cultural advisor."(http://bigislandnow.com/2016/11/17/tmt-h...testifies/). With no specific consultation with first nation Hawaiians and a woefully small sample size is it any surprise that there is a backlash from a people rediscovering their rights?
Perhaps the youth, of both genders, of Hawaiian descent should be focusing on becoming Lawyers and councillors? Then when that community was properly empowered they could go on to wanting other roles in our society than enforcement.
In these modern times of things like the Truth and Reconciliation Agreement and UNDRIP are we all not charged with open dialogue based in mutual respect?I believe that if this process was adhered to from the very beginning of the TMT's conception we would be experiencing a very different reaction from first nation Hawaiian people.
Hi HOTPE,
I wonder does your "parable" read any differently if the family discussed had built their house on someone else's land? Maybe even on the family graveyard? What if the first build took place in 1960 without owner consent and that consent for newer structures was only sought after charges were filed? What if, despite the charges the structure was built anyway? Would you be surprised if that family was disliked by the owners?
Anyway, MarkD you really opened my eyes with this thread so I thank you very much, Though I'm not as opposed to the TMT as I would be to a pipeline or copper mine the lack of consideration towards Hawaiian people during it's construction makes it difficult to support and certainly makes trespassing onto Mauna Kea absolutely ethically impossible for me. I know that there are some kind people who have been very welcoming to me who strongly support the TMT. It is only with reflection and respect to all that I make these comments. As much as I deeply value the need for the information that structures like the TMT can provide our culture, this value does not eclipse the need for the undoing of cultural wrongs historically experience by indigenous people. Perhaps things will be better managed in Chile or the Canaries when the lease expires. Luckily my opinion on the matter is irrelevant to the outcome as this is an amazingly convoluted issue for me.
With aloha,
Jim
p.s. Sorry TK, I do hope you see how hard I looked at this issue before disagreeing. I blame my enculturation, I have met so many FN cultures fighting injustice, and really "stone age"? Yikes.
