TMT - Contested Case Hearing Status - Hilo

[Guest]

Jimmy Hoffa

[Guest]

4 years ago they talking about it: http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy...ferometer/

" But it is also sacred to the Hawaiian people, and the stark, other-worldly summit — known locally as wao akua ("realm of the gods") is dotted with shrines, altars, and hidden burial grounds. Although professional astronomy is a strong driver of the Big Island's economy, lots of Hawaiians are nonetheless unhappy about having their sacred mountain peppered with gleaming observatory domes."

[PunaMauka2]

"A complete hot mess. All of it. SMH.

We shall see, if what transpires, will be in our best interest (ALL of us).

Tired of the rhetoric from both sides..."


Yeah, yeah, yeah. Posturing as neutral and above the fray while ignoring your own extensive history of completely biased self serving rhetoric. Whatever.

Anyway, if the incident proves to be accurate it would fit right in with the tactic of hastily constructing sacred ahu blocking access to and on the TMT site, dishonestly setting up the circumstances to express outrage as the victim of some construed desecration or atrocity. This would just take the strategy up a notch towards the extreme.

[geochem]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomK

Well, this is a turn-up for the books:

"State Investigating Placement Of Human Remains At TMT Site"

---

Not at all surprised by this. I am personally familiar with a similar (although not as offensive) situation at another protected cultural site. An activist, who demanded caretaker status for the site, claimed that he had ancestors buried there. When an archaeologist investigated the alleged burials, it was clear that some of the burials were very recent and when the bones were analyzed, they were found to be animal bones arranged to look like human ones.

Not surprised by DLNR's response either: they have a history of protecting the interests of a "favored" party over those not so favored - whoever that might be or whichever direction the political winds are blowing. Both of which discredit the agency's ability to make decisions in the best interest of all residents. But it also encourages acts like this because the perpetrators recognize that, as favored parties, they likely won't be prosecuted if they're caught.

[MarkP]

I know that this could just be essentially an urban myth, one of those things that gets perpetuated because it is so juicy scandal-wise and spreads on the internet so easily, but I would still expect to see comments from both sides in the comments section. I'm not making any grand point here, just an observation. I have seen other topics where I have noticed the same phenomenon and I have wondered how it can be. How can supposedly freely made comments on an open access site be so stratified? One possibility is bias on the part of those who administer the site. Human nature being what it is we all take sides. I agree with the comments critical of the alleged disinterment and on some level it could be said that I am glad to see "my side winning" although it is a petty emotion. The more objective part of me detects a possible slant. Or it could be some phenomenon where people are incited to comment more when their viewpoint is affirmed by the presence of similar comments. It's more of a psychology question than anything.

[geochem]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkP

I know that this could just be essentially an urban myth, one of those things that gets perpetuated because it is so juicy scandal-wise and spreads on the internet so easily, but I would still expect to see comments from both sides in the comments section.

---

I can't agree: if the alleged action did in fact occur, it is completely indefensible - at best, if it was an act by a single individual, then the TMT opponents should be condemning it. But if it was a group act, the best thing they can do is to say nothing. If they deny it and then it comes out that it was a group act, their support will completely evaporate. (I'm not implying which of those may be true given how little information is being released.)

[leilanidude]

Just thinking here on the whole burial site issue that keeps coming up.

With the reality of what the ancient Hawaiians did with the Kapu system; putting tens of thousands of people to death for various offenses over the centuries, and assuming that those people that were put to death were not exactly put into the normal and proper burial sites that were used at the time... are there not going to be bones of people all over the place? It was a brutal society for centuries. What is the difference between a true burial site for the revered and a place of murder (punishment?) where the body was just left to decompose or thrown into the nearest hole in the lava?
--
On a side note, the EIS for the TMT site did not find evidence of burials/bones or temples, etc., where it is to be built. Maybe the remoteness of that site compared to the rest of the summit area simply didn't interest them?

[MarkP]

With all the "Burial of our ancestors is so sacred to Hawaiians" I do remember wondering who climbed down the Pali to reverently retrieve and bury all those warriors that Kamehameha's forces drove over the cliffs at spear point. Ditto for Battle of Kepaniwai where the corpses blocked Iao Stream. During the battles at sea many, many bodies must have disappeared into the ocean without proper burial. Granted those are unlikely to turn up and falsely be deemed sacred burials but it seems like there must have been countless opportunities on land for bodies to have fallen at the hands of Hawaiians which were not reverently interred and therefor should not now automatically be deemed sacred. There was clearly a place in Hawaiian culture for not giving a damn about other Hawaiian burials or lack thereof. I am not saying "Aw, bulldoze 'em. Who gives a rip". I am saying that requiring me to view every bone as sacred when traditional Hawaiians could not have is not going to win me over. Rather the opposite in fact.

[pahoated]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkP
I am saying that requiring me to view every bone as sacred when traditional Hawaiians could not have is not going to win me over.

---

You keep demonstrating you have no inclination to learn about the Hawaiian culture and want to stick with your white-is-right opinion.

The bones and meat were considered to contain mana, spirit power is about the closest English can get. The highest regarded enemies killed in battle were boiled until the meat fell off the bones, some meat was eaten to take the enemies mana, and the clean bones were passed to the ali'i, kahuna and koa, the warriors. By never being buried, the enemy would spend eternity in pulekakoli. This is very similar to the US and MIA bodies, the families seeking to put their family member to eternal rest. In the Hawaiian culture, those properly buried would go to pulekakoli but the kahuna could bid the 'alala to carry the ha to the top of Mauna Kea to return to the aina of Kane. This was only for ali'i, kahuna and koa. The makaaina'na go to the aina of Wakea or Milu for the pilau.

Desecration of the grave site means the 'alala can't find the ha and it stays in pulekakoli.

What is going to be your reaction to go to a funeral of a relative, then as you are leaving, one of the "guests" is digging up the corpse to take the ring, watch, and shoes from the corpse? Not give a frick, right?

*Japanese tourist on bus through Pahoa, "Is this still America?*

[geochem]

Very interesting discussion on burial beliefs and practices Ted. But to get back to the most recent issue under discussion: the state, for better or worse, has a procedure for handling modern or ancient burials that, at first glance, seems to respect those traditions (the Burial Council and all that...). Did the self-appointed protectors follow those procedures or not? Did they independently respect those traditions, or not? Or do they get to make things up as they go along comfortable in the knowledge that they won't be challenged because they are "special".