hokuula
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.
That is exactly what they are doing. It is a condition of the conservation district use permit [1] and has already begun [2].
1. https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/mk/files/2017/09/882-BLNR-FOFCOLDO.p..., p. 30, sec. E; p. 66 #351
2. https://www.hawaii.edu/news/2023/08/28/removal-of-caltech-te...
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'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-...
Only a portion of the community still actively talks about the overthrow. Many Native Hawaiians also support the TMT.
>but that doesn't mean I want another country to invade and then build it.
A lot of the people who overthrew Queen Liliuokalani were subjects of the Kingdom [1]. It's a common propaganda point of the sovereignty movement to just label them as Americans, to imply they were some foreigners that just came in and overthrew the Queen. The calling in of the Marines wasn't really sanctioned by the US and later on the US attempted to give Hawaii back to the monarchy.
The sovereignty movement like to play it like the US just invaded, took over the land, and forced out the Native Hawaiians, just like they did with tribes on the mainland. But that's really not true at all. More importantly, it has nothing to do with Maunakea, as the mountain itself never really belong to the people.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Safety_(Hawaii)
You can get a sense from polling http://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/03/25/hawaii-news/support...
>My instinct is that a large amount of this particular protest springs forth from the students of the University of Hawaii.
You're partially right. The protests are fueled largely by sovereignty activists, some of whom are trained as sovereignty activists in the University of Hawaii School of Hawaiian knowledge, which is sort of a de facto sovereignty training camp. The dean is a vocal sovereignty activist.
> If Hawaiians block the one road up the mountain, and are willing to get arrested on a daily basis, its hard to imagine that any politician would back the continued construction.
Not true. This is exactly what happened with the solar telescope on Maui, and for the exact same reasons. The protesters were arrested in the streets and construction continued. There has been no decrease in support.
The HSC held that Native Hawaiian rights would not be substantially impacted by the TMT, which was an issue in the administrative hearing that took place from 2016-2017, and what was being appealed in this HSC case.
What was procedural was the previous administrative hearing was ruled invalid because BLNR granted the permit before convening the hearing, so those that wanted to voice their grievances weren't given a real opportunity to. HSC said that violated due process and remanded the case for a second administrative hearing. It is this second hearing, regarding the TMT building permit, that this court case deals with.
The judge in the administrative hearing, a retired state judge, found that there would be no substantial impacts to natural resources, most importantly water resources, but also cultural and archaeological resources. The University of Hawaii brought in a hydrologist with expertise in local (Big Island) water resources to demonstrate why and the hearing officer (the administrative judge) accepted that based on the hydrologists scientific expertise in local water issues. It was then found to be a valid conclusion when appealed to the HSC.
If you want to read the conclusion of the hearing officer in the administrative hearing, her findings of fact and conclusions of law can be read here https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/mk/files/2017/07/783-Hearing-Officer... (long: 305 pages). This was what BLNR used to grant the permit. And as a matter of it being so thorough and as a matter of everyone being a chance to voice their opinion, the HSC upheld the permit and the conclusions of the hearing officer.