04-07-2015, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by rainyjim
What I've taken from this thread:
- 'You' should / shouldn't do what 'I' say because of my religion/skin color/place of birth.
- 'I' get to have an opinion about 'XYZ' because of 'XYZ' issues but you don't get one.
Oh and if 'You' disagree with me you obviously don't know what Aloha means, dumb haole - LOL go back to the mainland!!
Anything I missed here?
I've been reading a lot of the discussion about Mauna Kea & TMT and much of it has a similar tone to it. I've come to see it as an exercise in group definition, a drawing of boundaries between an us and a them. For some, this is racial (and often racist), for some it's nationalistic and includes decedents of previous citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom. In either case, the emphasis is on creating and reinforcing group cohesion, not on finding common ground or a solution based on compromise.
Most interestingly there is a strong emphasis placed on who is saying something, over what is being said. Therefore, statements have more weight or validity simply because of who says them irrespective of the content. This helps explain the invalidation of opinions or the double-standard to tolerate objectionable language, based simply on the source, of which we've seen plenty here.
The use of Mauna Kea for basalt mining, or even astronomy, may be seen very differently based on who is making those decisions and whether they are inside or outside of your group. This is especially true when you don't recognize the validity of any laws from the outside occupying force.
http://www.bigislandvideonews.com/2015/0...n-kingdom/
IMHO, the Mauna Kea protection efforts are a win-win situation for the Hawaiian Kingdom movement regardless of the outcome. Any delay (such as the week long stoppage the developers just agreed to) demonstrate some power to influence the process, and any coverage draws attention and often support for the wider issues.
What I've taken from this thread:
- 'You' should / shouldn't do what 'I' say because of my religion/skin color/place of birth.
- 'I' get to have an opinion about 'XYZ' because of 'XYZ' issues but you don't get one.
Oh and if 'You' disagree with me you obviously don't know what Aloha means, dumb haole - LOL go back to the mainland!!
Anything I missed here?
I've been reading a lot of the discussion about Mauna Kea & TMT and much of it has a similar tone to it. I've come to see it as an exercise in group definition, a drawing of boundaries between an us and a them. For some, this is racial (and often racist), for some it's nationalistic and includes decedents of previous citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom. In either case, the emphasis is on creating and reinforcing group cohesion, not on finding common ground or a solution based on compromise.
Most interestingly there is a strong emphasis placed on who is saying something, over what is being said. Therefore, statements have more weight or validity simply because of who says them irrespective of the content. This helps explain the invalidation of opinions or the double-standard to tolerate objectionable language, based simply on the source, of which we've seen plenty here.
The use of Mauna Kea for basalt mining, or even astronomy, may be seen very differently based on who is making those decisions and whether they are inside or outside of your group. This is especially true when you don't recognize the validity of any laws from the outside occupying force.
http://www.bigislandvideonews.com/2015/0...n-kingdom/
IMHO, the Mauna Kea protection efforts are a win-win situation for the Hawaiian Kingdom movement regardless of the outcome. Any delay (such as the week long stoppage the developers just agreed to) demonstrate some power to influence the process, and any coverage draws attention and often support for the wider issues.