03-10-2017, 08:31 AM
Kealoha Pisciotta and her ahu
Let's suggest another example.
It's a few years in the future. The Protector community has stopped all construction of everything above 9000 feet in elevation on Mauna Kea, except Native Hawaiian ahus. With social media Hawaiian families are able to easily gather together, drive truckloads of rocks up from the lowlands, build new ahus, and send photos to realatives on Facebook.
One day, Kealoha builds another ahu in a location of her choosing. Another Hawaiian family sees it and says - - wait a minute, that's the historical site of our ancient family shrine. Because the matriarch of the offended family has a shark for an amakua, she is unable to control her emotions and actions, and texts all the young men of the family to drive up the mountain to physically protect their territory, in a way even the police are unable to restrain. Watching the TMT hearings, you can see this is not too far fetched.
Now, how do you see this playing out? What burden of proof would you require between Hawaiian families to stake a claim for their ahu? Oral tradition? Physical remains from a previous ahu? What if none of that is available?
Of course this is just a hypothetical example, and it's the type of disagreement that could happen between two or more families anywhere in the world. But I think it's a good example of how the kind of proof you expect the TMT to provide, when applied equally might prevent anyone, even Hawaiians from building their family ahu on Mauna Kea.
You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
Let's suggest another example.
It's a few years in the future. The Protector community has stopped all construction of everything above 9000 feet in elevation on Mauna Kea, except Native Hawaiian ahus. With social media Hawaiian families are able to easily gather together, drive truckloads of rocks up from the lowlands, build new ahus, and send photos to realatives on Facebook.
One day, Kealoha builds another ahu in a location of her choosing. Another Hawaiian family sees it and says - - wait a minute, that's the historical site of our ancient family shrine. Because the matriarch of the offended family has a shark for an amakua, she is unable to control her emotions and actions, and texts all the young men of the family to drive up the mountain to physically protect their territory, in a way even the police are unable to restrain. Watching the TMT hearings, you can see this is not too far fetched.
Now, how do you see this playing out? What burden of proof would you require between Hawaiian families to stake a claim for their ahu? Oral tradition? Physical remains from a previous ahu? What if none of that is available?
Of course this is just a hypothetical example, and it's the type of disagreement that could happen between two or more families anywhere in the world. But I think it's a good example of how the kind of proof you expect the TMT to provide, when applied equally might prevent anyone, even Hawaiians from building their family ahu on Mauna Kea.
You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
“We do this thing not because it is easy, but because we thought it would be easy.”