Insofar as I'm aware, Arecibo is not a sacred site to indigenous Puerto Ricans. Nor was there any concern about barring local access to the site, which had been available for literally centuries (excepting, of course, the historic bans of all but the most senior members of Hawaiian society - again sacred site).
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.
I'm really torn about this. Mauna Kea is the best place on the entire planet to observe the galactic center; it has the best seeing (minimal humidity and low atmospheric turbulence) that's not matched in the northern hemisphere. The ESO already has an equivalent observatory planned in the southern hemisphere so there's less value in relocating the TMT down to Chile, so effectively either Mauna Kea or nowhere.
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.
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.
Thank you for correcting me on how things are right now. The uniformity of resistance to the TMT has not been clear to me.
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.
>Rather it's a question of trying to right a historic wrong
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.
If you compare what happened in Hawaii vs. a variety of e.g. African colonies, the crucial difference is the absence of blood in the final fall of native Hawaiian rule.
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.
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.
> Mauna Kea is sacred to the world’s scientists too
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.
Not at all. Pursuit of knowledge is sacred with many cultures. “Native Hawaiians” make up about 10% of the population, many of which of which support these kind of projects. They want their kids to live in a world that values knowledge like anyone else. There is always a vocal group that does not want change. And unlike like devastating resource destruction projects like mining, these facilities can be removed, just like the wind turbines so many complain about. Hawaii needs all the non-tourist projects we can get.
They're not monotheist - one god down is hardly enough.
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.
Is this supposed to be a joke? If so it’s not a very good one. How much do you know about Hawaiian beliefs? You seem to assume Hawaiian culture is based on a monotheistic religion but that’s not the only option and certainly not required for a site to be considered culturally sacred.
Ethnonationalism is disgusting, whether it's a European culture or an indigenous one, right?
If the group holding up the development of this telescope was white Christians claiming it would bring about the wrath of God, we would call them backwards, and barbaric, but because it's a non white culture, we wear kid gloves when talking about them.
I'm not sure that "conquered people still agitating as their former group, against their conquerors" qualifies as ethnonationalism. I think there have to be claims of ethnic superiority, deliberate exclusion of other ethnicities and nationalities, etc etc
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.
The Thirty-Meter Telescope is absolutely progress over the superstitions of a defunct agrarian society.
In my opinion, cultures that pursue deeper learning and understanding of the physical 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.
Whether or not a telescope is progress in general is debatable, but let's dig into "defunct agrarian society"
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.
> 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 societies 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.
I want to be clear here: there's a difference between colonization and just immigration. Colonialism is the deliberate practice of suppressing, supplanting, and ultimately eradicating the culture of the people living in an area that another culture immigrates to. Its pretty rare for the colonizer to see what they're doing as bad; typically they think the displaced culture is too primitive to do "what's best", and the colonizer is only acting in the displaced's best interests. That those best interests lead to massive profits for the colonizer and the total dissolution of the displaced, millenia-old culture rarely causes any cognitive dissonance in the colonizer.
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].
> 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.
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].
I think the difference is that Mauna Kea is uniquely suited for an observatory and happens to also be sacred. I’m not surprised a place with such clear views of the stars is sacred. Mt. Rushmore is different. There’s nothing that makes the Black Hills uniquely suited for a tacky sculpture. It was constructed out of spite and the site was chosen to prove a point.
You're not wrong re:Rushmore, but I think you overly privilege the perspective of the scientists who are displacing the native Hawaiians. From the native perspective, there's less difference between "monument to the greatness of the white colonizer" and "huge set of instruments that are used almost exclusively by transients that don't really contribute to the native community". The problem isn't the intent of the builders (there's a decent argument that spite and dominance were not on the agenda for Rushmore), it's that that nobody considered the people being displaced.
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.
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.