Hawaiian traditionalists against the Thirty Meter Telescope

[Derec]

I think you are right. Just saying we see this situation arising from giant projects all over the globe...and never adequately move to lessen the impact on indigenous people. They get treated as the enemy of all that is modern and good.

Well while TMT is large as far as optical telescopes go it is certainly not "giant" as far as global construction projects. Not even remotely close - it's smaller than many of the hotels that dot the coastline of the Hawaiian islands. And what impact does this construction project have on "indigenous" people anyway? There are already telescopes on the mountain and it's not like any buildings or other artifacts would have to be destroyed or moved in the course of construction. All we have is a vague claim of "sacredness" and the implied claim that another telescope would somehow cause unspecified injury to said "sacredness".

 

[Derec]

First off, we've got to get someone working on these names. "Extremely Large Telescope" is all well and good, but if built, the "Overwhelmingly Large Telescope" could only be topped by the "You've Gotta Be Kidding Me, Wow That Sucker's Huge" telescope.

Well the Subaru telescope is named after the Japanese name of the Pleiades star cluster, but corporate sponsorship might be an idea.

As an astronomy nerd, I want the biggest telescope possible to be built in the best location possible. As a fan of the Hawaiian islands, I understand the need to balance development with maintaining the natural beauty of the place. Spend a couple days in Honolulu, then head over to Kauai where they deliberately avoided over development to see the difference.

So far so good. I am certainly not in favor of overdevelopment. But the Big Island already contains nature reserve areas and even a national park. But the Mauna Kea summit area has been a site for telescopes for a long time now and is a specially designated "Astronomy Precinct" within the "Mauna Kea Science Reserve".
This is the view of the area. Other than the telescopes, the summit is pretty barren.

And while "sacred mountain" really means "not in my backyard," I can understand why this could be controversial. If the mirror is the size of a basketball court, then the whole complex could very well be the size of an arena.

Even smaller than than actually. And sited within an already very active astronomy site.

 

[dismal]

Apparently in our culture this is a sacred telescope ground.

 

[Derec]

Well, that's just it.
If the traditionalists say they hold it to be sacred, then that's as sacred as it gets.

But "holding sacred" does not confer ownership. It's a unilateral declaration of how somebody (individual or group) feels about something and no more than that.
I can hold West Paces Ferry Rd. sacred all I want, but I will still be prosecuted for trespassing (at the very least) if I enter any of the mansions there...

Unless Derec feels that this mountain is their version of the Invisible Pink Unicorn and they're just creating a fuss to create a fuss?

I do not think it's a joke religion. But at the same time I think that the claims of "sacredness" are likely overblown. How convenient that every time a telescope is to be built the mountain in question becomes "sacred" be it to Hawaiians or the Apache? And inevitably there is also some species claimed to be endangered by the telescope, be it a squirrel (Mt. Graham) or a bug (TMT) so that radical ecomentalists can get in on the obstructionist fun.

Or if he disparages their entire religion, and the 'sacred' of the primitives isn't as 'sacred' as, say, a Christin site?

Christin who?
But I guess you mean a Christian site? A Christian site would be owned by a church or a denomination, for example by the Diocese of Honolulu. If somebody wanted to build on that land they would have to negotiate a sale or some other agreement. The summit of Mauna Kea, however, is not owned by any religious group. I do not think Christians should be allowed to unilaterally declare random sites off limits either.

 

[tupac chopra]

How convenient that every time a telescope is to be built the mountain in question becomes "sacred" be it to Hawaiians or the Apache? .

Um...because mountains are often sacred places perhaps?

 

[Shadowy Man]

But at the same time I think that the claims of "sacredness" are likely overblown. How convenient that every time a telescope is to be built the mountain in question becomes "sacred" be it to Hawaiians or the Apache?

Do you believe that the Hawaiians did not consider the mountain sacred before telescopes were built up there?

 

[OLDMAN]

This project has already been held up by lack of funding by the Canadian Government, apparently it is an international affair.

 

[bilby]

Declaring something sacred is either irrelevant, or it is an attempt at theft.

If you own something, then you get to say how it is used whether or not it is 'sacred'.

If you don't own something, then declaring it sacred is an attempt to deprive the owner of the freedom to use it as he chooses, and is morally wrong.

Surprise, surprise - religion once again reverses the arrow of morality, and declares their wrongdoing to be a moral imperative

If these Hawaiians want to claim that the telescope(s) should not be on the mountain because it's their fucking mountain and they didn't give permission for telescopes to be built there, I would be happy to see a court, or even a legislature, consider that claim, and make an appropriate ruling or law to protect the rights of those with a reasonable claim to ownership. There are good reasons to re-visit ownership claims in many places around the world, where indigenous people have had their reasonable ownership claims ignored or unreasonably overruled.

I don't know the details of how this particular area came to be owned by whatever entity is the current legal owner; if some unlawful or immoral act was involved, then it might be reasonable for a court to consider changing the current ownership of the land. But that has fuck all to do with sacredness, and everything to do with establishing lawful possession. "It is sacred to me" is not a reasonable basis for a claim of ownership.

 

[Shadowy Man]

...everything to do with establishing lawful possession.

It depends on how you define "lawful possession". I'm not fluent in Hawaiian history, but my understanding is that the islands were essentially usurped by the United States, so it's easy for the US to now claim "lawful possession" of something they took because they are now enforcing their own laws on the land. But I'm happy to be educated on the matter.

However, I do believe that Waikiki is more a blight on the islands than the Mauna Kea observatories.

 

[Malintent]

It's hard to grasp when one holds nothing to be sacred I guess.
Derec where are you coming from? What are you trying to say?

what does sacred mean to you? Derec shared an article with us for discussion. If you would like to discuss what is sacred, then please tell us what that means to you.

I think sacred means, "very important to me because I am emotionally impacted by it"

 

[arkirk]

I think you are right. Just saying we see this situation arising from giant projects all over the globe...and never adequately move to lessen the impact on indigenous people. They get treated as the enemy of all that is modern and good.

Well while TMT is large as far as optical telescopes go it is certainly not "giant" as far as global construction projects. Not even remotely close - it's smaller than many of the hotels that dot the coastline of the Hawaiian islands. And what impact does this construction project have on "indigenous" people anyway? There are already telescopes on the mountain and it's not like any buildings or other artifacts would have to be destroyed or moved in the course of construction. All we have is a vague claim of "sacredness" and the implied claim that another telescope would somehow cause unspecified injury to said "sacredness".

Your idea of starting all reckoning of time with this morning is disingenuous. It is like telling a man who has been repeatedly whipped...."So what, you already have scars on your back. This is just a little bit more." I am sure all of the invasions of the "sacred" territory were opposed. I am not against huge telescopes. I am against failing to deal fairly with indigenous people. Your argument essentially says...."We didn't respect these savages in the past. Why should we bother now?" You look down your nose at them for YOUR OWN FAILURE TO RECOGNIZE any need they feel they might have. The telescope is just a case in point.

 

[ronburgundy]

Or maybe it's hard to grasp if there's no way to tell a sacred object from an otherwise identical but non-sacred object, except from the fact that someone says it's sacred.

Well, that's just it.
If the traditionalists say they hold it to be sacred, then that's as sacred as it gets.

Exactly, which means that something being sacred or not is rather meaningless and not something reasonable people should care about beyond someone saying "I like that".
If we wouldn't change the plan for someone saying "I like the mountain like it is", then we shouldn't care that they are saying its "sacred".

Unless Derec feels that this mountain is their version of the Invisible Pink Unicorn and they're just creating a fuss to create a fuss?

Its not at all implausible that activists with other motives claim religious "sacredness" as a b.s. excuse because they know the US gives special treatment and undue rights to dumb or self-serving ideas, the moment that a "religion" label can be applied.

Or if he disparages their entire religion, and the 'sacred' of the primitives isn't as 'sacred' as, say, a Christin site?

Derec isn't a bastion of consistency, but has he ever indicated an affection for Christian religion? He should disparage their and all religion at least in the sense dismissing it as anything that reasonable government should give special consideration to or treating claims of "sacredness" as nothing more than "we likey that".

The public's general interest in this mountain as a place of natural beauty is the only sense in which their complaint should be considered in the same way we'd consider it if putting a telescope in Yellowstone, regardless of whether any special group claimed "sacredness".

 

[arkirk]

It's hard to grasp when one holds nothing to be sacred I guess.
Derec where are you coming from? What are you trying to say?

what does sacred mean to you? Derec shared an article with us for discussion. If you would like to discuss what is sacred, then please tell us what that means to you.

I think sacred means, "very important to me because I am emotionally impacted by it"

Malintent: That is right what you are saying as far as it goes. It also means an entire culture or society is emotionally impacted by it. I detest the Catholic church, but have no plans nor would I have plans if I were empowered to tear down all the Catholic churches and replace them with parking garages. There would be, speaking figuratively of course, HELL TO PAY. Cultures with false beliefs need to be disassembled in a fabian manner. Marching over an entire people's beliefs with hob nailed boots gets you things like we are seeing in Iraq, Palestine, Egypt, Afghanistan. etc.

For a culture to adjust to new conditions without society as a whole precipitously falling into chaos takes a gentle hand. Blowing apart the beautiful mosques and churches of the past is not the way to struggle with the church. It would be far better to work on social relationship values and lead very backward people out of their fog with a trail of breadcrumbs rather than smack them in the head. Our society has its own flaws and our capacity for extremely destructive actions in foreign lands is our greatest international liability.

This telescope matter is the result of the same type of empire thinking as the other conflicts in the world. The only difference is that the Hawaiian natives are an extremely conquered, extremely displaced people. It would be very smart to work on some kind of compromise with these natives in the matter of the telescope and would not cost all that much.

 

[fromderinside]

Those looking at beads on Long Island back in the day. I want that. Its sacred. Give it to me.

 

[Nexus]

I'm pro-telescope yet acknowledge the Hawaiian's were totally swindled out of their sovereignty. I don't know their history well enough to say whether that barren mountain top was sacred or not. I have my doubts however. They do have sacred sites where temples remain and those are in easily accessible and beautiful locations so its unlikely anyone would have wanted to trek up to that patch of rock to sacrifice and cannibalize some prisoners.

 

[bilby]

...everything to do with establishing lawful possession.

It depends on how you define "lawful possession". I'm not fluent in Hawaiian history, but my understanding is that the islands were essentially usurped by the United States, so it's easy for the US to now claim "lawful possession" of something they took because they are now enforcing their own laws on the land. But I'm happy to be educated on the matter.

Indeed. I don't know enough to say how good any claim to ownership might be - I am just saying that such claims are neither helped nor hindered by claims of sacredness.

'Sacred' is a red herring - either the people involved have rights, or they don't. If they do, then they do whether the mountain is sacred or not. If they don't, then no amount of sacredness (short of direct personal intervention by an actual God) makes any difference to anything.

 

[ronburgundy]

what does sacred mean to you? Derec shared an article with us for discussion. If you would like to discuss what is sacred, then please tell us what that means to you.

I think sacred means, "very important to me because I am emotionally impacted by it"

Malintent: That is right what you are saying as far as it goes. It also means an entire culture or society is emotionally impacted by it.

Cultures don't have emotions or beliefs, only individual organisms do as a product of having particular types of brains. And what is claimed to be the feelings of the members of a "culture" virtually never applies to all its members, at best its a majority and more an authoritarian minority, and often not even that, just authorities lying about how "we all feel" for the sake of some other motive.

I and thousands of scientists and likely millions of people feel emotionally attached to the knowledge that the telescope will bring. Thus the telescope being there is "sacred". Whose sacredness should "win"?

 

[Shadowy Man]

'Sacred' is a red herring - either the people involved have rights, or they don't. If they do, then they do whether the mountain is sacred or not. If they don't, then no amount of sacredness (short of direct personal intervention by an actual God) makes any difference to anything.

Depends what you mean by "rights". If I take something from you, then I write a law that says it's ok that I took it from you, I can claim that I am in lawful possession of what I took from you. I don't know the history to know what kinds of rights the Hawaiians may have retained to their islands, but I do know that the United States does not have a good history of respecting agreements with the natives of lands that it has taken over the centuries even if they did give some rights in those agreements.

 

[bilby]

'Sacred' is a red herring - either the people involved have rights, or they don't. If they do, then they do whether the mountain is sacred or not. If they don't, then no amount of sacredness (short of direct personal intervention by an actual God) makes any difference to anything.

Depends what you mean by "rights". If I take something from you, then I write a law that says it's ok that I took it from you, I can claim that I am in lawful possession of what I took from you. I don't know the history to know what kinds of rights the Hawaiians may have retained to their islands, but I do know that the United States does not have a good history of respecting agreements with the natives of lands that it has taken over the centuries even if they did give some rights in those agreements.

I use the word in its broad sense - legal, moral or ethical.

If their moral rights have been unethically denied, then that is a reasonable thing for them to claim.

If, for example, they have a two hundred year old treaty with the U.S. govt., and they claim that this treaty was signed under duress by their ancestors; or that their ancestors were misled about its content or effect; or that the govt. did not uphold their part of the agreement, then all of those are reasonable arguments that the land in question should be theirs, regardless of what the law currently says.

Notice, however, that the word 'sacred' adds nothing to any such arguments - unless there is a treaty or contract that specifically grants only 'non-sacred' land to the government or some other entity. Even then, you would hope that the treaty or contract would be more specific than just referring to the excluded land as 'the sacred bits'; if they have a piece of paper that transfers land "Except the mountain of Mauna Kea which is held to be sacred", then the mountain is theirs due to that bit of paper - and their claim would be equally strong if it read "Except the mountain of Mauna Kea which is not included in this sale".

 

[Derec]

The Hawaiian creationist kooks are at it again, blocking construction.
Protesters just blocked the construction of a revolutionary scientific instrument — again

Only a handful of blockaders were arrested - many more should have been. Your right to protest does not include blocking others from engaging in lawful activities.

To reiterate: This telescope is to be built in an area which has been a reserved astronomical area for the last 50 years and is dotted with a number of telescopes. This area is, however, a small portion of the mountain and is thus in no way impeding any spiritual activities traditional Hawaiians want to pursue.