This thread is a perfect example of Scientism, which I guess is strong enough to overrule some poster's otherwise progressive beliefs.
I think these discussions are healthy but some of the nuance in the current TMT situation is not being communicated.
The TMT project has been in the works for over 15 years, but Mauna Kea was selected as the site back in 2009. Since that time, it has undergone a rigorous environmental impact study and it worked extensively to accommodate the concerns of the local community. For example, the TMT construction site is not located on the exact summit of Mauna Kea, but at a position over a mile away to the NNE. Archeological studies have shown no previous cultural activity or burials at this location, and no species will be impacted by TMT's presence there. Also, the telescope enclosure will not be visible from lower elevations at that location. I believe it will also be painted to blend into the surroundings.
Mauna Kea is arguably the best astronomical observing location on Earth. It is a false equivalence to say it can be just moved to the Canary Islands. Moving TMT there would mean a lesser instrument, one that may not even warrant construction given the cost. Indeed, the weather on La Palma is poorer than on Mauna Kea, meaning fewer clear nights and worse image quality, and the lower elevation of La Palma means some projects, particularly studying exoplanets in the mid-infrared, will not be possible. Management of Mauna Kea has improved dramatically over the years that observatories have been there, with great deference and respect to native Hawaiian concerns. For example, all construction activities are accompanied by further activities to return any disturbed land to its natural state. This includes the decommissioning of telescopes, even TMT, in the future. Note also that the observatories are on public land, and their presence has not restricted access to the summit area to the public.
The native Hawaiians who are currently protesting have a right to do so. The protestors who were arrested were cited for illegally blocking a public road, not because they were protesting. The arrests were done on the third day of protest, after they were asked repeatedly to not block the road. Those who were arrested, especially the elders, were handled very respectfully and soon released - there was no violence. The arresting officers were from local police. The National Guard was called up, but not to interact with the protestors but instead to provide logistical support to the local police effort.
Though Hawaii has had an unfortunate history where native concerns have not been considered by those in power (to put it mildly), the TMT project has tried to work differently. It recognized from the very beginning that native community engagement is important. For example, TMT will be funding the THINK program, providing up to $1M / year to support education within the local community. In addition, it has begun a Workforce Pipeline Program to steer Hawaiians into science and technology jobs. I believe it is also the aim of the project to staff the facility with locals. The project will be an economic benefit to the local community.
TMT followed the rules laid down by the State of Hawaii, including affirmation of its building permit by the Hawaii Supreme Court. It has not acted unilaterally in its development without regard to native concerns. Hopefully, the project will continue to engage with the protestors to communicate its net benefits to Hawaii and its native community. The project and its international backers, however, can only do so much. Ultimately, it will be up to Hawaiians themselves to decide if the project will go forward there.
For further details on the TMT project, see http://www.maunakeaandtmt.org.
Oh noes, scientism.This thread is a perfect example of Scientism, which I guess is strong enough to overrule some poster's otherwise progressive beliefs.
Sounds like something a colonizer would say.I think these discussions are healthy but some of the nuance in the current TMT situation is not being communicated.
The TMT project has been in the works for over 15 years, but Mauna Kea was selected as the site back in 2009. Since that time, it has undergone a rigorous environmental impact study and it worked extensively to accommodate the concerns of the local community. For example, the TMT construction site is not located on the exact summit of Mauna Kea, but at a position over a mile away to the NNE. Archeological studies have shown no previous cultural activity or burials at this location, and no species will be impacted by TMT's presence there. Also, the telescope enclosure will not be visible from lower elevations at that location. I believe it will also be painted to blend into the surroundings.
Mauna Kea is arguably the best astronomical observing location on Earth. It is a false equivalence to say it can be just moved to the Canary Islands. Moving TMT there would mean a lesser instrument, one that may not even warrant construction given the cost. Indeed, the weather on La Palma is poorer than on Mauna Kea, meaning fewer clear nights and worse image quality, and the lower elevation of La Palma means some projects, particularly studying exoplanets in the mid-infrared, will not be possible. Management of Mauna Kea has improved dramatically over the years that observatories have been there, with great deference and respect to native Hawaiian concerns. For example, all construction activities are accompanied by further activities to return any disturbed land to its natural state. This includes the decommissioning of telescopes, even TMT, in the future. Note also that the observatories are on public land, and their presence has not restricted access to the summit area to the public.
The native Hawaiians who are currently protesting have a right to do so. The protestors who were arrested were cited for illegally blocking a public road, not because they were protesting. The arrests were done on the third day of protest, after they were asked repeatedly to not block the road. Those who were arrested, especially the elders, were handled very respectfully and soon released - there was no violence. The arresting officers were from local police. The National Guard was called up, but not to interact with the protestors but instead to provide logistical support to the local police effort.
Though Hawaii has had an unfortunate history where native concerns have not been considered by those in power (to put it mildly), the TMT project has tried to work differently. It recognized from the very beginning that native community engagement is important. For example, TMT will be funding the THINK program, providing up to $1M / year to support education within the local community. In addition, it has begun a Workforce Pipeline Program to steer Hawaiians into science and technology jobs. I believe it is also the aim of the project to staff the facility with locals. The project will be an economic benefit to the local community.
TMT followed the rules laid down by the State of Hawaii, including affirmation of its building permit by the Hawaii Supreme Court. It has not acted unilaterally in its development without regard to native concerns. Hopefully, the project will continue to engage with the protestors to communicate its net benefits to Hawaii and its native community. The project and its international backers, however, can only do so much. Ultimately, it will be up to Hawaiians themselves to decide if the project will go forward there.
For further details on the TMT project, see http://www.maunakeaandtmt.org.
Too many words, not enough feels!
Why are you even posting in this topic when you showed you clearly dont give a damn an just want to mock people addressing a serious issue
A "misguided sense of righteousness" because few people would have legitimate reasons to support these Native Hawaiian protestors?This is a beautiful post, thank you for taking the time to write all this out.
Unfortunately I think a lot of posters in this thread already have their mind made up because of some misguided sense of righteousness.
I'm not going that far.
Some people seem to think that the info from the TMT site negates everything that was said. Even though it was already talked about earlier in the topic that they were contributing to the economy, schools and other programs for the indigenous population. Yet amongst that group there is still a lot of opposition. I guess we moved on from saying that it was a majority of native Hawaiians supporting it since the latest survey didn't show that.Whyar you even posting in this topic when you showed you clearly dont give a damn an just want to mock people addressing a serious issue
Some people seem to think that the info from the TMT site negates everything that was said. Even though it was already talked about earlier in the topic that they were contributing to the economy, schools and other programs for the indigenous population. Yet amongst that group there is still a lot of opposition. I guess we moved on from saying that it was a majority of native Hawaiians supporting it since the latest survey didn't show that.
I can at least say for myself that one of the first things I did was to look at the project's website when people mentioned their efforts before. One of the major differences between the contention of native Hawaiians and the project working with organizations is that just because you partner with nonprofits, it doesn't mean they accurately represent the views of the people they wish to serve.I do not think anyone has said that information negates the concerns raised in here. It just highlights that the project has had a lot of considerations and planning to minimize negative impacts on the land, and in fact will help the people who live near the observatory economically. A lot of the discussion has been framed from a point of view of this telescope being a forced venture, which it clearly has not, this post dispels that notion. It is clear that this is a project that simply needs more dialog and concessions by both sides to go ahead, but people on both sides of the issue here do not seem to realize the nuance at hand.
This is the second time I've seen her speak up for Indigenous peoples. Maybe it is a serious part of her campaign....on Sunday, Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard visited activists at Mauna Kea.
Gabbard said, "what is happening here is about so much more than just a telescope," adding that it's about maintaining sacred spaces.
Searched to see if any of the Democratic primary candidates have spoken on this issue.
Gabbard was there last Sunday.
This is the second time I've seen her speak up for Indigenous peoples. Maybe it is a serious part of her campaign.
Protecting Indigenous sacred spaces is also part of Williamson's campaign and is stated clearly on her campaign website. She tweeted about TMT a few weeks back.
Couldn't find any others with a quick search. Anyone know if any other Democratic candidates have spoken on this?
I'm not really sure. She's not one of the candidates I follow. I think she's running as one of the anti-establishment candidates.Isn't she candidate that's more of a conservative than a democrat, but running like a democrat? I don't remember all these candidates.
LOLZ...This looks like it was written by the PR team.I think these discussions are healthy but some of the nuance in the current TMT situation is not being communicated.
The TMT project has been in the works for over 15 years, but Mauna Kea was selected as the site back in 2009. Since that time, it has undergone a rigorous environmental impact study and it worked extensively to accommodate the concerns of the local community. For example, the TMT construction site is not located on the exact summit of Mauna Kea, but at a position over a mile away to the NNE. Archeological studies have shown no previous cultural activity or burials at this location, and no species will be impacted by TMT's presence there. Also, the telescope enclosure will not be visible from lower elevations at that location. I believe it will also be painted to blend into the surroundings.
Mauna Kea is arguably the best astronomical observing location on Earth. It is a false equivalence to say it can be just moved to the Canary Islands. Moving TMT there would mean a lesser instrument, one that may not even warrant construction given the cost. Indeed, the weather on La Palma is poorer than on Mauna Kea, meaning fewer clear nights and worse image quality, and the lower elevation of La Palma means some projects, particularly studying exoplanets in the mid-infrared, will not be possible. Management of Mauna Kea has improved dramatically over the years that observatories have been there, with great deference and respect to native Hawaiian concerns. For example, all construction activities are accompanied by further activities to return any disturbed land to its natural state. This includes the decommissioning of telescopes, even TMT, in the future. Note also that the observatories are on public land, and their presence has not restricted access to the summit area to the public.
The native Hawaiians who are currently protesting have a right to do so. The protestors who were arrested were cited for illegally blocking a public road, not because they were protesting. The arrests were done on the third day of protest, after they were asked repeatedly to not block the road. Those who were arrested, especially the elders, were handled very respectfully and soon released - there was no violence. The arresting officers were from local police. The National Guard was called up, but not to interact with the protestors but instead to provide logistical support to the local police effort.
Though Hawaii has had an unfortunate history where native concerns have not been considered by those in power (to put it mildly), the TMT project has tried to work differently. It recognized from the very beginning that native community engagement is important. For example, TMT will be funding the THINK program, providing up to $1M / year to support education within the local community. In addition, it has begun a Workforce Pipeline Program to steer Hawaiians into science and technology jobs. I believe it is also the aim of the project to staff the facility with locals. The project will be an economic benefit to the local community.
TMT followed the rules laid down by the State of Hawaii, including affirmation of its building permit by the Hawaii Supreme Court. It has not acted unilaterally in its development without regard to native concerns. Hopefully, the project will continue to engage with the protestors to communicate its net benefits to Hawaii and its native community. The project and its international backers, however, can only do so much. Ultimately, it will be up to Hawaiians themselves to decide if the project will go forward there.
For further details on the TMT project, see http://www.maunakeaandtmt.org.
LOLZ...This looks like it was written by the PR team.
I'd say that if people are still willing to get arrested over this, the matter isn't as settled as you may think.
Do you? I have plenty of posts in this thread already.
Excellent post. You get it.There's an important aspect some posters here are missing.
I think it's presumptuous, arrogant even, to act like the protestors would not be aware of the promised benefits of the TMT, and its promises of Native Hawaiian engagement and better environmental conservation. What most of us here know is cursory information, and even as someone who stands to gain a lot in his line of work from the TMT (as someone studying to be an astrophysicist) it's easy for me to tell that this issue is far more important to Native Hawaiians than a few posters on Resetera. I think we can trust them to do the research better than any of us.
Yes, TMT would be inferior if built anywhere else. That would mean that the telescope didn't reach its full potential. I care about the TMT. I sincerely want it to succeed and become a pioneer of astrophysical observation for decades to come, and that's precisely one of the reasons why I don't want its legacy to be tainted with the knowledge that every single pixel it records was taken without the certain consent of the Native Hawaiian community.
The TMT's promises change nothing about the Native Hawaiian community's right to determine what happens to a mountain central to their culture. (Yes, Native Hawaiians who support the TMT do exist, but my point is that there's no consensus among the Natives in favor of its construction.)
If it were my culture; if it were my mountain, as it were, I would support the TMT, but that doesn't matter either, because the Hawaiian people are the ones with the right to decide.
And this might be presumptuous, but I would not be surprised if after seeing telescopes installed on the mountain without heed to the Native population's worries, desires or interests for decades, the telescopes themselves became a sign of oppression and cultural erasure.
As a consequence, the presence of the TMT would still cause pain, even if it delivered on all of its promises.
Delivering on all of them is basically impossible, by the way. You can't build a telescope directly against the wishes of many the Native local population and then claim you're listening to Native voices. No amount of monetary contribution or 'community engagement' will really remedy the fact that it was (well, would be) installed there with police used to dispel protests and the Coast Guard called in against Hawaii's own people. You're not listening to someone if you're actively silencing or ignoring them.
I can't blame Native Hawaiians for not wanting the TMT on Maunakea--even if it's environmentally friendly, even if the particular place it'll be on isn't technically 'the summit' or is without significant cultural/historical artifacts put at risk or is not visible from most of the Island. People are trying to paint anti-TMT activism as some sort of 'unfair' stance (for lack of a better term) because the benefit the TMT would provide to science is seen as more valuable and significant than whatever cultural impact Native Hawaiians would suffer--- well, I'm pretty sure that disregarding the value of Hawaiian culture (even if you're talking about a location that's 'not technically the summit' or 'not containing cultural artifacts') is what got us to this point.
It does, ultimately, tie into colonialism on Hawaii, and what can I fucking say? It does suck that the TMT not being on Maunakea will mean we'll miss out on tons of data, it's a shame, but astronomy is rather far down the list of things harmed severely by colonialism on Hawaii.
Yep this is a fantastic post, no matter what if they build it there it will always be seen as a negative symbol direct opposite of that they are going for.There's an important aspect some posters here are missing.
I think it's presumptuous, arrogant even, to act like the protestors would not be aware of the promised benefits of the TMT, and its promises of Native Hawaiian engagement and better environmental conservation. What most of us here know is cursory information, and even as someone who stands to gain a lot in his line of work from the TMT (as someone studying to be an astrophysicist) it's easy for me to tell that this issue is far more important to Native Hawaiians than a few posters on Resetera. I think we can trust them to do the research better than any of us.
Yes, TMT would be inferior if built anywhere else. That would mean that the telescope didn't reach its full potential. I care about the TMT. I sincerely want it to succeed and become a pioneer of astrophysical observation for decades to come, and that's precisely one of the reasons why I don't want its legacy to be tainted with the knowledge that every single pixel it records was taken without the certain consent of the Native Hawaiian community.
The TMT's promises change nothing about the Native Hawaiian community's right to determine what happens to a mountain central to their culture. (Yes, Native Hawaiians who support the TMT do exist, but my point is that there's no consensus among the Natives in favor of its construction.)
If it were my culture; if it were my mountain, as it were, I would support the TMT, but that doesn't matter either, because the Hawaiian people are the ones with the right to decide.
And this might be presumptuous, but I would not be surprised if after seeing telescopes installed on the mountain without heed to the Native population's worries, desires or interests for decades, the telescopes themselves became a sign of oppression and cultural erasure.
As a consequence, the presence of the TMT would still cause pain, even if it delivered on all of its promises.
Delivering on all of them is basically impossible, by the way. You can't build a telescope directly against the wishes of many the Native local population and then claim you're listening to Native voices. No amount of monetary contribution or 'community engagement' will really remedy the fact that it was (well, would be) installed there with police used to dispel protests and the Coast Guard called in against Hawaii's own people. You're not listening to someone if you're actively silencing or ignoring them.
I can't blame Native Hawaiians for not wanting the TMT on Maunakea--even if it's environmentally friendly, even if the particular place it'll be on isn't technically 'the summit' or is without significant cultural/historical artifacts put at risk or is not visible from most of the Island. People are trying to paint anti-TMT activism as some sort of 'unfair' stance (for lack of a better term) because the benefit the TMT would provide to science is seen as more valuable and significant than whatever cultural impact Native Hawaiians would suffer--- well, I'm pretty sure that disregarding the value of Hawaiian culture (even if you're talking about a location that's 'not technically the summit' or 'not containing cultural artifacts') is what got us to this point.
It does, ultimately, tie into colonialism on Hawaii, and what can I fucking say? It does suck that the TMT not being on Maunakea will mean we'll miss out on tons of data, it's a shame, but astronomy is rather far down the list of things harmed severely by colonialism on Hawaii.
I did. You even quoted it. If you something to say, then say it instead of trying to be coy.Just thought you might have had something more to add to what Stargazer said than "LOLz."
LOLZ...This looks like it was written by the PR team.
I'd say that if people are still willing to get arrested over this, the matter isn't as settled as you may think.
That's pretty easy to say after the fact and if you've never been arrested or had to sit in a jail cell. I have and that's the risk you take.That's a poor argument. Specially since these "arrests" are toothless and no real, serious charges are being filed against them.
Nobody is saying the benefits of the TMT "negate" the native Hawaiians' concerns. Most people supporting the TMT at least acknowledge that it's a nuanced issue.Some people seem to think that the info from the TMT site negates everything that was said. Even though it was already talked about earlier in the topic that they were contributing to the economy, schools and other programs for the indigenous population. Yet amongst that group there is still a lot of opposition. I guess we moved on from saying that it was a majority of native Hawaiians supporting it since the latest survey didn't show that.
There's an important aspect some posters here are missing.
I think it's presumptuous, arrogant even, to act like the protestors would not be aware of the promised benefits of the TMT, and its promises of Native Hawaiian engagement and better environmental conservation. What most of us here know is cursory information, and even as someone who stands to gain a lot in his line of work from the TMT (as someone studying to be an astrophysicist) it's easy for me to tell that this issue is far more important to Native Hawaiians than a few posters on Resetera. I think we can trust them to do the research better than any of us.
Yes, TMT would be inferior if built anywhere else. That would mean that the telescope didn't reach its full potential. I care about the TMT. I sincerely want it to succeed and become a pioneer of astrophysical observation for decades to come, and that's precisely one of the reasons why I don't want its legacy to be tainted with the knowledge that every single pixel it records was taken without the certain consent of the Native Hawaiian community.
The TMT's promises change nothing about the Native Hawaiian community's right to determine what happens to a mountain central to their culture. (Yes, Native Hawaiians who support the TMT do exist, but my point is that there's no consensus among the Natives in favor of its construction.)
If it were my culture; if it were my mountain, as it were, I would support the TMT, but that doesn't matter either, because the Hawaiian people are the ones with the right to decide.
And this might be presumptuous, but I would not be surprised if after seeing telescopes installed on the mountain without heed to the Native population's worries, desires or interests for decades, the telescopes themselves became a sign of oppression and cultural erasure.
As a consequence, the presence of the TMT would still cause pain, even if it delivered on all of its promises.
Delivering on all of them is basically impossible, by the way. You can't build a telescope directly against the wishes of many the Native local population and then claim you're listening to Native voices. No amount of monetary contribution or 'community engagement' will really remedy the fact that it was (well, would be) installed there with police used to dispel protests and the Coast Guard called in against Hawaii's own people. You're not listening to someone if you're actively silencing or ignoring them.
I can't blame Native Hawaiians for not wanting the TMT on Maunakea--even if it's environmentally friendly, even if the particular place it'll be on isn't technically 'the summit' or is without significant cultural/historical artifacts put at risk or is not visible from most of the Island. People are trying to paint anti-TMT activism as some sort of 'unfair' stance (for lack of a better term) because the benefit the TMT would provide to science is seen as more valuable and significant than whatever cultural impact Native Hawaiians would suffer--- well, I'm pretty sure that disregarding the value of Hawaiian culture (even if you're talking about a location that's 'not technically the summit' or 'not containing cultural artifacts') is what got us to this point.
It does, ultimately, tie into colonialism on Hawaii, and what can I fucking say? It does suck that the TMT not being on Maunakea will mean we'll miss out on tons of data, it's a shame, but astronomy is rather far down the list of things harmed severely by colonialism on Hawaii.
Nobody is saying the benefits of the TMT "negate" the native Hawaiians' concerns. Most people supporting the TMT at least acknowledge that it's a nuanced issue.
Conversely it's the other side dropping glib drivebys about colonizers, 'white people' and cultural ignorance, who refuse to acknowledge that there is any balance to this equation.
As for your comment about the data, I can only laugh. Nobody has 'moved on' because you managed to dig up an outlier poll which contradicts all other data available on the issue.
Why should we put the onus on the oppressed to sacrifice even more than they already have? They owe us NOTHING. We systematically stole their land, destroyed their culture, exterminated their people, and broke promises like we always do. They said no and it needs to be respected. It's not hard people.Thanks for everyone's comments. Funyarinpa, I hope you did not find my earlier post to be arrogant or presumptuous. I intended to provide further information about the TMT situation to the posters here, and not speak for the protestors themselves. It is an interesting point to raise about who has the right to decide about the mountain though. Note again that the project received the go-ahead from the highest court in the State of Hawaii which serves all the people of Hawaii, natives included. Cultural significance certainly gives a community considerable leverage in a discussion but I don't believe it alone gives it a right to determine how any resource is used.
The project is currently in a "wait and see" posture. It is not putting the protestors in danger by advancing construction equipment. No protestors have been arrested since that third day of protest. There has been no violence. It is simply not going forward in the face of widespread protest in Hawaii, possibly for the reasons Funyarinpa articulated. As I said earlier, it will be up to Hawaiians to decide among themselves if they want this project to proceed. My hope is that the protestors can be convinced of its benefits by their brethren, as many of have been. Rather than seeing TMT (or any observatory) as a source of pain, I hope the protestors will see the scientific, economic, and cultural benefits of sharing the mountain with it.
Define 'they', because at absolute most, maybe half of native Hawaiians have 'said no'.They said no and it needs to be respected. It's not hard people.
Thanks for everyone's comments. Funyarinpa, I hope you did not find my earlier post to be arrogant or presumptuous. I intended to provide further information about the TMT situation to the posters here, and not speak for the protestors themselves. It is an interesting point to raise about who has the right to decide about the mountain though. Note again that the project received the go-ahead from the highest court in the State of Hawaii which serves all the people of Hawaii, natives included. Cultural significance certainly gives a community considerable leverage in a discussion but I don't believe it alone gives it a right to determine how any resource is used.
The project is currently in a "wait and see" posture. It is not putting the protestors in danger by advancing construction equipment. No protestors have been arrested since that third day of protest. There has been no violence. It is simply not going forward in the face of widespread protest in Hawaii, possibly for the reasons Funyarinpa articulated. As I said earlier, it will be up to Hawaiians to decide among themselves if they want this project to proceed. My hope is that the protestors can be convinced of its benefits by their brethren, as many of have been. Rather than seeing TMT (or any observatory) as a source of pain, I hope the protestors will see the scientific, economic, and cultural benefits of sharing the mountain with it.
Why should we put the onus on the oppressed to sacrifice even more than they already have? They owe us NOTHING. We systematically stole their land, destroyed their culture, exterminated their people, and broke promises like we always do. They said no and it needs to be respected. It's not hard people.
Not the same way.Define 'they', because at absolute most, maybe half of native Hawaiians have 'said no'.
Do the other half - and possibly a majority - who have said yes also need to be respected?
I already qualified my statement and we're still waiting for you to explain this:Define 'they', because at absolute most, maybe half of native Hawaiians have 'said no'.
Do the other half - and possibly a majority - who have said yes also need to be respected?
You can help the native inhabitants without building a telescope. Again, why should the oppressed have to be the bigger people? You're arguing that white people don't have to do the heavy lifting despite being the ones that continually prop up a system of oppression. Why are the oppressors entitled to understanding while the oppressed must allow continued oppression? That's bullshit.The telescope affects other inhabitants of Hawaii, aswell. People who did not partake in the colonization of the land. These people could be greatly aided by the programs laid out, and would also consider the island their home and part of their culture. These diverse interests are represented by local and state entities and have given their approval. Ultimately do they not get a say on anything related to their own homes? I mean the culture of a place is not static, it evolves with the people than inhabit the land. I will never condone the way in which Hawaii was colonized and how new cultures and ideas were forced on them, but we can't place the burden of that on a generation that did not partake in that forever. Ultimately the question is about coexistence and I think that there is room for that on a project like this, which is taking effort to ensure that the existing culture and beliefs are not impacted. In the end I think the people who are affect should get a vote on what to do. Please do not take my words as a repudiation of the importance and history that native Hawaiian's culture, but merely a point of understanding the broader impact of the telescope .
Not the same way.
Perhaps a stunted analogy, but think of how bodily consent works. You don't have to be saying "no" to be answer to be "no". Any absence of "yes" is a "no".
A similar case applies here. The choice isn't between two different choices, it's between an action and inaction, and since whether or not you commit to the said action (construction of the TMT) is something that's in people's hands, making the change has to be the choice that needs to be justfied and not the other way around.
I already qualified my statement and we're still waiting for you to explain this:
You can help the native inhabitants without building a telescope. Again, why should the oppressed have to be the bigger people? You're arguing that white people don't have to do the heavy lifting despite being the ones that continually prop up a system of oppression. Why are the oppressors entitled to understanding while the oppressed must allow continued oppression? That's bullshit.
It's ok, have the locals vote on it, and if the majority is against then don't build it and move the money to something else. Simple.
The end.
I said in a previous post that if we really wanted to help people that need it the most, we should be taxing the power elite to subsidize and stabilize the material conditions of said people.My point is that a lot of the discussion here is equating the parties who are not the native Hawaiian's with being white imperialist oppressors, and not as being other inhabitants of a very diverse region. There is a cost to not building the telescope to those other parties in the form of economic incentives (native Hawaiian's who support of the telescope also fall under this). The equation then is not as one sided once you realize that you would be depriving of a very tangible benefit to those people. You could argue that they should provide the stimulus with no strings attached, but the committee in charge of this telescope does not have any obligation to do that and it makes no sense to have that expectation of them.
The local government and the state government have already ratified it, and the supreme court has also ratified it. Theres not much more you can do as a representative democracy than that.
I said in a previous post that if we really wanted to help people that need it the most, we should be taxing the power elite to subsidize and stabilize the material conditions of said people.
And you're side-stepping the question of why the oppressed should allow themselves to be further oppressed. I'm well aware of the racial demographics of Hawaii and how it got that way.
That is indeed a horrible analogy.Not the same way.
Perhaps a stunted analogy, but think of how bodily consent works. You don't have to be saying "no" to be answer to be "no". Any absence of "yes" is a "no".
A similar case applies here. The choice isn't between two different choices, it's between an action and inaction, and since whether or not you commit to the said action (construction of the TMT) is something that's in people's hands, making the change has to be the choice that needs to be justfied and not the other way around.
You could do a referendum, but that would effectively have the same problems people already have with the process anywayThe local government and the state government have already ratified it, and the supreme court has also ratified it. Theres not much more you can do as a representative democracy than that.
I said in a previous post that if we really wanted to help people that need it the most, we should be taxing the power elite to subsidize and stabilize the material conditions of said people.
And you're side-stepping the question of why the oppressed should allow themselves to be further oppressed. I'm well aware of the racial demographics of Hawaii and how it got that way.
You could do a referendum, but that would effectively have the same problems people already have with the process anyway
You should get your facts straight and go through my post history in this thread before you throw out accusations of a particular "bias" or at least have the guts to say it straight. Either way, richer states in the country have also been subsidizing poorer states for a couple hundred years and the last time I checked, Hawaii isn't a territory of the US, but a state.No, you said specifically only subsidize and stabilize native hawaiiners. After saying that asian immigrants to Hawaii were also colonizers in the same vein as white americans, so already I can tell that you have a bit of bias going on. And no, taxing the "rich" of the big island isnt going to solve the problem, as a whole most of the island is rather poor outside of kona and hilo that make all their money from tourism. The rich elites that you are thinking about are the family that controlled most of the plantations on Oahu, and spread their influence through generations with their absurd amount of money and control.
I am an astronomy PhD student and this is my stance as well.There's an important aspect some posters here are missing.
I think it's presumptuous, arrogant even, to act like the protestors would not be aware of the promised benefits of the TMT, and its promises of Native Hawaiian engagement and better environmental conservation. What most of us here know is cursory information, and even as someone who stands to gain a lot in his line of work from the TMT (as someone studying to be an astrophysicist) it's easy for me to tell that this issue is far more important to Native Hawaiians than a few posters on Resetera. I think we can trust them to do the research better than any of us.
Yes, TMT would be inferior if built anywhere else. That would mean that the telescope didn't reach its full potential. I care about the TMT. I sincerely want it to succeed and become a pioneer of astrophysical observation for decades to come, and that's precisely one of the reasons why I don't want its legacy to be tainted with the knowledge that every single pixel it records was taken without the certain consent of the Native Hawaiian community.
The TMT's promises change nothing about the Native Hawaiian community's right to determine what happens to a mountain central to their culture. (Yes, Native Hawaiians who support the TMT do exist, but my point is that there's no consensus among the Natives in favor of its construction.)
If it were my culture; if it were my mountain, as it were, I would support the TMT, but that doesn't matter either, because the Hawaiian people are the ones with the right to decide.
And this might be presumptuous, but I would not be surprised if after seeing telescopes installed on the mountain without heed to the Native population's worries, desires or interests for decades, the telescopes themselves became a sign of oppression and cultural erasure.
As a consequence, the presence of the TMT would still cause pain, even if it delivered on all of its promises.
Delivering on all of them is basically impossible, by the way. You can't build a telescope directly against the wishes of many the Native local population and then claim you're listening to Native voices. No amount of monetary contribution or 'community engagement' will really remedy the fact that it was (well, would be) installed there with police used to dispel protests and the Coast Guard called in against Hawaii's own people. You're not listening to someone if you're actively silencing or ignoring them.
I can't blame Native Hawaiians for not wanting the TMT on Maunakea--even if it's environmentally friendly, even if the particular place it'll be on isn't technically 'the summit' or is without significant cultural/historical artifacts put at risk or is not visible from most of the Island. People are trying to paint anti-TMT activism as some sort of 'unfair' stance (for lack of a better term) because the benefit the TMT would provide to science is seen as more valuable and significant than whatever cultural impact Native Hawaiians would suffer--- well, I'm pretty sure that disregarding the value of Hawaiian culture (even if you're talking about a location that's 'not technically the summit' or 'not containing cultural artifacts') is what got us to this point.
It does, ultimately, tie into colonialism on Hawaii, and what can I fucking say? It does suck that the TMT not being on Maunakea will mean we'll miss out on tons of data, it's a shame, but astronomy is rather far down the list of things harmed severely by colonialism on Hawaii.