07-27-2019, 05:40 AM
In another thread:
http://www.punaweb.org/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=26339
I noted the Hawaiian monarchy outlawed all aspects of Hawaiian cultural and religious practices in 1819.
Let's fast forward 200 years and see what's different in the present day. I think we all agree there are sites on Mauna Kea held sacred by practitioners where rituals and observance took place. Over time these practices may have changed, adapted, even expanded to other areas of the mountain as trails, roads and speed of transportation improved accessibility.
I believe we can also agree that the Office of Mauna Kea Management may not have performed all of their responsibilities adequately in the past. So they proposed new regulations. Many Native Hawaiian groups opposed the first draft which included restrictions on:
* parking
* flashlights
* cell phones
* hiking on undesignated trails
Objections included a "one size fits all" policy. (http://www.kahea.org/blog/kahea-testimony-on-omkm-rules) But how would a "two size fits all" policy work? I.D. checks? Practitioner licenses? Designated areas? It seems like it could become personally invasive for visitors on the summit if stopped and asked for "your papers please." In what way can it be determined a practitioner is in fact Native Hawaiian?
The objections by Native Hawaiian groups and individuals were acknowledged and the proposed rules revised. A second draft with fewer restrictions was written.
So where are we now?
At the moment, Hawaiian practitioners cannot observe their traditional practices beyond the Mauna Kea Access Road turnoff. This creates an even more repressive crackdown than any regulation proposed by OMKM or the presence of the observatories.
This situation was not created by law enforcement, or construction of the TMT with slow moving construction vehicles driving up the mountain in first gear. It's a consequence of multiple Hawaiian groups, each with their own agenda, choosing to block the access road for everyone. Including Hawaiian practitioners.
Is it acceptable when Hawaiians are prevented from reaching the summit, even if it's Hawaiians who stop them? The importance of access to the summit has been repeated throughout the TMT's approval process, in testimony and hearings. Is the Mauna Kea Access Road turnoff an acceptable alternate location for observances? Are leaders of different factions within the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement repressing religious and cultural practice, perhaps not banning it outright as in 1819, but certainly using their role as arbiters for the whole, without knowing who and how many they represent, and whether their actions affect Native Hawaiians they don't represent?
Have present day Hawaiian Sovereignty leaders implemented conditions in which “It Was Necessary to Destroy the Village in Order to Save It?”*
* Ben Tre, Vietnam, 1968
http://www.punaweb.org/Forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=26339
I noted the Hawaiian monarchy outlawed all aspects of Hawaiian cultural and religious practices in 1819.
Let's fast forward 200 years and see what's different in the present day. I think we all agree there are sites on Mauna Kea held sacred by practitioners where rituals and observance took place. Over time these practices may have changed, adapted, even expanded to other areas of the mountain as trails, roads and speed of transportation improved accessibility.
I believe we can also agree that the Office of Mauna Kea Management may not have performed all of their responsibilities adequately in the past. So they proposed new regulations. Many Native Hawaiian groups opposed the first draft which included restrictions on:
* parking
* flashlights
* cell phones
* hiking on undesignated trails
Objections included a "one size fits all" policy. (http://www.kahea.org/blog/kahea-testimony-on-omkm-rules) But how would a "two size fits all" policy work? I.D. checks? Practitioner licenses? Designated areas? It seems like it could become personally invasive for visitors on the summit if stopped and asked for "your papers please." In what way can it be determined a practitioner is in fact Native Hawaiian?
The objections by Native Hawaiian groups and individuals were acknowledged and the proposed rules revised. A second draft with fewer restrictions was written.
So where are we now?
At the moment, Hawaiian practitioners cannot observe their traditional practices beyond the Mauna Kea Access Road turnoff. This creates an even more repressive crackdown than any regulation proposed by OMKM or the presence of the observatories.
This situation was not created by law enforcement, or construction of the TMT with slow moving construction vehicles driving up the mountain in first gear. It's a consequence of multiple Hawaiian groups, each with their own agenda, choosing to block the access road for everyone. Including Hawaiian practitioners.
Is it acceptable when Hawaiians are prevented from reaching the summit, even if it's Hawaiians who stop them? The importance of access to the summit has been repeated throughout the TMT's approval process, in testimony and hearings. Is the Mauna Kea Access Road turnoff an acceptable alternate location for observances? Are leaders of different factions within the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement repressing religious and cultural practice, perhaps not banning it outright as in 1819, but certainly using their role as arbiters for the whole, without knowing who and how many they represent, and whether their actions affect Native Hawaiians they don't represent?
Have present day Hawaiian Sovereignty leaders implemented conditions in which “It Was Necessary to Destroy the Village in Order to Save It?”*
* Ben Tre, Vietnam, 1968
"I'm at that stage in life where I stay out of discussions. Even if you say 1+1=5, you're right - have fun." - Keanu Reeves
