Simultaneously, Hawaii has an ugly history of colonization that's not talked about enough. The area is sacred to native Hawaiians and indigenous people deserve say in how their ancestral land is used. The TMT is also a comparatively easy target for activists to push back on colonization compared to large corporations with continents of lawyers, or the tourism economy that provides revenue for the island. Folks know that chaining elderly folks across construction access works, and it would be a PR nightmare to forcibly remove them.
Scientific progress should be something that transcends politics but we're stuck with the legacy of colonization, and that makes us all a little poorer.
Mauna Kea is sacred to the world’s scientists too - it’s a perfect observing site; a spectacular volcano; a unique glacial environment; an isolated habitat for plant and animal life; it feels like there ought to be some way to share the gift of this improbable piece of land with the world.
But yes, the way things have been done in the past affect the relationships we can have now.
This is ugly phrasing given the history. I don’t think scientists use words like “sacred” to describe objective qualities. Its a false equivalence that undermines the real cultural damage.
the mountain is the dwelling place of the goddess Poli'ahu, it is associated with the Hawaiian deities Lilinoe and Waiau, and the summit is considered the realm of the gods.
In other words, a group of people whose internationally-recognised sovereignty was taken from them under threat of arms is not engaging in ethnonationalism by demanding that some portion of that sovereignty be restored. That's not the part of Nazi Germany that people object to, either.
Regarding the Native Hawaiian's say, they do. This is a liberal democracy, and their voice is heard, quite loudly, especially the fraction that support the sovereignty movement. If we start parceling out the use of public land by ethnicity, we go down a dark road. But from an electoral point of view, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs is an elected body, and in recent history those that are either pro or neutral on the TMT have been getting elected.
>The TMT is also a comparatively easy target for activists to push back on colonization compared to large corporations with continents of lawyers, or the tourism economy that provides revenue for the island.
That's true. They are picking on an easy target that is not harming them or their movement. They are delaying progress for an idea (sovereignty) that most of the people in Hawaii do not agree with. It's politics impeding science, yet again. But since it's done from the "right" side of politics, it seems to get a pass from people where it would not be in other instances.
I will say that I don't think it's a question of the "right" side. Rather it's a question of trying to right a historic wrong, and to practice what the US preaches. Absent all else, I'm pro-telescope. I worked with a bunch of people who collected data on Mauna Kea, and one of the few astrophysical publications I worked on used data collected at Keck. But the history of American colonization is much too recent to ignore, and I think every interaction with native Hawaiians is necessarily done in the shadow of that history.
A through line of American interventionism is the claim that small nations ought to be free to chart their own course (be it freedom from Spain, or communist Russia, or the concept of communism). I generally advocate for the US to practice what it preaches, because another through line is that the US almost always operates according to the idea that it's only self-determination free of foreign meddling if the small nation works in concert with American ambitions. Queen Liliʻuokalani was overthrown in the midst of a campaign to restore suffrage to her subjects. The colonizers had previously forced her brother to sign a constitution that stripped most native Hawaiians of the right to vote in their own country, and grant the vote to non-native, non-subjects with sufficient wealth and/or land holdings. That constitution is frequently called the Bayonet Constitution because of the circumstances surrounding Kalākaua signing it.
But blocking the TMT won't do anything to further that goal, as it has nothing to do with it.
> But the history of American colonization is much too recent to ignore
> The colonizers had previously forced her brother to sign a constitution that stripped most native Hawaiians of the right to vote in their own country, and grant the vote to non-native, non-subjects with sufficient wealth and/or land holdings. That constitution is frequently called the Bayonet Constitution because of the circumstances surrounding Kalākaua signing it.
I'm familiar with the Baynoet Constitution but I take issue with the blanket use of the term "colonizer". As far as I've seen, it's been used by the sovereignty movement and their (largely) progressive supporters to mean anyone at the time (and even today) that lived/s in Hawaii and is not Native Hawaiian. Many of those that were involved in the overthrow were subjects of the Kingdom. They and their families, not to mentions all the non-Hawaiian plantation workers - came there legally and were even encouraged. The sovereignty movement would have you believe that the story of Hawaii is exactly like the story of mainland tribes, but it's just not true. There was no colonization in the way that it happened on the mainland and the use of the Marines in overthrowing the Queen was illegitimate, even per the US government. A lot of the issues with Hawaii and Native Hawaiians can be traced back to the Kingdom times (but not all).
In any case, this is the major problem. People are trying to litigate past political issues by involving the TMT, a scientific project that has nothing at all to do with it, on a mountain that also had nothing to do with it and never really belonged to the public until after the monarchy.
Its kind of irrelevant that the Marine intervention was illegitimate, since the US government still accepted the new regime as legitimate. A lot like the US's eventual intervention in the Black Hills, after settlers ("colonists" if the parallel is too opaque) illegally entered the area and then required protection from the natives they were displacing. If my kid steals a toy from another kid, and all I do is say "gee, sweetie, that was mean", but I don't force my kid to return the toy, its still theft.
Its also irrelevant that the coup was led largely by Hawaiian subjects (6 subjects, 7 foreigners, according to wikipedia), since the committee of safety was, to a man, non-native, whose explicit intent was to disenfranchise native Hawaiians.
I also want to highlight this: > A lot of the issues with Hawaii and Native Hawaiians can be traced back to the Kingdom times (but not all).
As in, the Kingdom times that started less than a century prior with the unification of the Hawaiian islands? The same era that coincided with the first century of European contact with Hawaiians? Even if the modern problems are directly related to the policies of the Kingdom, saying that its just the Kingdom is like saying that Titanic sank because of low quality metal in the hull, while completely omitting the iceberg.
Also, Mauna Kea is arguably unique in US territory for seeing conditions, but it's by no means unique in the world. A lot of the same people I worked with who had collected data at Mauna Kea also did so at Cerro Tololo and other telescopes in the Atacama desert. But it's definitely unique to the Hawaiians. In that sense, it and Rushmore are very similar.
In my opinion, cultures that pursue deeper learning and understanding of the world are superior to those which do not. I think perspectives other than this are harmful to humanity.
“Culture” should not be a veto over human progress and the ability to have your superstitions respected by others or even your culture survive is not a human right.
The Hawaiian Kingdom fell to a coup, because some white guy thought that the native Hawaiians were too primitive to govern themselves, and that that was why he and his friends were not allowed to setup sugar plantations on the scale they wanted to, and to own the land outright. The story of the US annexing Hawaii is unambiguously the story of a colonizer telling the indigenous people that their priorities (whatever they are) are childish or superstitions or what have you. And when the indigenous people didn't immediately acquiesce to the colonizer's (patronizing) demands, the colonizer resorted to violence. The queen makes it explicit in her document of surrender that the only reason she is doing so is because of the explicit threats of violence made by (all white) insurgents and the US Navy.
There's some implied sexism thrown in for good measure, although it's not clear to what extent it mattered that the white insurgents overthrew a queen and not a king.
Dismissing, I dunno, the Sarmations as a "defunct society" is one thing. Whatever society destroyed them is almost certainly destroyed themselves. But there are people alive today whose grandparents remember living in the independent Kingdom of Hawaii. The conquerer of Hawaii is very much still alive and kicking.
This all happened in 1898 or something, didn't it?
And Hawaiian Kingdom was itself not even 100 years old at the time, itself being the product of a (native) military conqueror who took over the Hawaiian islands and displaced whatever local societies there were.
I just reject the premise that colonialism was bad and that we are automatically obligated to preserve, respect or maintain these ancient cultures just because they...existed?
Modern democratic societies are healthier, wealthier, safer, more just, and more equal than the native cultures they replaced. We shouldn't restrain our progress because old superstitions mean someone doesn't want us building scientific instruments on top of some dirt. This is a value judgement and I'm not afraid to make it.
Obviously I feel pretty strongly about this. But I don't know how to convince you that colonialism is bad. But on the off-chance you're willing to be convinced, read on.
The unification of Hawaii was a military conquest by the natives from one Hawaiian island onto the other Hawaiian islands. Those islands were settled by Polynesians about 1000 years previously, and the culture was pretty uniform, even as it was a collection of kingdoms. This is less "Norway conquers England" and more "unification of England".
Moreover, the unification of Hawaii happened 17 years after first contact with Europeans, and the kingdom era basically coincided with the era of whalers, foreign plantations, and foreign immigration. Which makes the "unification of England" metaphor more apt, when you consider the role Scandinavian immigrants/colonists played in the unification of England.
To be super clear, the issue with colonization has never EVER been "we should let less advanced cultures develop at their own rate". The issue is that whatever development occurs does not happen in collaboration with the "less advanced" culture. Its always "I have guns, so therefore I have superior moral knowledge in all things". Its barring natives from voting, because they don't own enough property, when the concept of property ownership is less than a century old in the "less advanced" culture (and was forced on them by the "more advanced" culture). Its forcibly removing children from their families and even barring them from speaking the language of their parents [0].
0. https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2022/06/23/congressional-heari...
I'm sorry but this is completely not true.
Firstly, Maunakea never belonged to the Native Hawaiian people as a whole. It really belonged to the monarchy. Mass access to the mountain didn't really happen until the astronomers put in the access road.
Secondly, there are no "colonists" like there were on the mainland. People did not come in and forcibly remove people. Immigration from all over happened during the monarchy and was even encouraged by it due to the needs of the plantations.
Thirdly, no one is saying the claims of the Native Hawaiians that are protesting the telescope are less legitimate. Great care was taken to make sure community concerns were addressed and that the TMT is not actually on the summit or near and spots that are broadly and historically considered sacred [1] (interesting fact, Liluokalani's book doesn't mention Maunakea, and mentions only Mauna Loa as really sacred; Native Hawaiian historian David Malo mentions it, but only is passing as an adze quarry).
Reference 1 are the findings of the hearing officer representing the Board of Land and Natural Resources regarding the permit to build (CDUP), which was subsequently upheld by the Hawaii Supreme Court [2].
1. https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/mk/files/2017/09/882-BLNR-FOFCOLDO.p... pg. 59, beginning with 322 of section k.
2. https://law.justia.com/cases/hawaii/supreme-court/2018/scot-...
I'm generally pro-telescope, and I've worked with people who have spent a lot of time at Mauna Kea (Keck, especially). But the more I learn about this, the more the Mauna Kea telescopes feel an awful lot like Mt. Rushmore: colonists moving in and saying that the natives' claim to a place is less legitimate than whatever "progress" the colonists have planned.