Hacker News Reader

Comment by dekhn | Hacker News Reader

Very insightful analysis of the asymmetry in this situation. I also conclude defeat is the only option. It's too bad TMT couldn't have cast this in some sort of positive light, emphasizing how the observatory is a tribute to the spirit of native hawaiians, how the mountain is providing again to the people of Hawaii, but in the form of scientific results instead of water, food, or whatever it provided before.

I also wonder how much of the protest is in truly good faith versus wanting to show indirect displeasure with the conditions Hawaiian natives are currently living in. I don't really have insight into this, but it feels like this is more a protest against mainstream US culture, than it is against the scopes themselves.

View on HN

The TMT and its supporters did try, many times, to show how research in Astronomy could be considered a continuation of the traditions of Native Hawaiians, who navigated the Pacific astronomically (at least in part). Some Hawaiians agree with this argument. But there is a core group of Native Hawaiians for whom arguments about the merits of the TMT are irrelevant. They don't want more construction on Mauna Kea, full stop.

If something like this controversy involved a Native group on the US mainland, things might be simpler. There would probably be a native government for the Navaho, or Souix, etc that the TMT could negotiate with. If the TMT got the go ahead from the native government, then that government would deal with protestors among their own people, if the TMT did not get permission from the native government, then it would know that it could not proceed. But there is no widely recognized Native Hawaiian government. There's nobody for the TMT to negotiate with that all the protestors would obey. So the TMT negotiated with the state government, but many Native Hawaiians do not acknowledge the legitimacy of the state.

There was a recognized native Hawaiian government once. The US overthrew it with military force to satisfy business interests.

Well, my point was that there is no entity now that the TMT could negotiate with, which would be seen as legitimate by all Native Hawaiians.

I think his point is that it's the fault of the people who, ironically, would be at less of a disadvantage now if they'd been less imperialistic in the past. Native Hawaiians had a government that was dismantled by force; it's not their fault that they don't currently have a government.

> show indirect displeasure with the conditions Hawaiian natives are currently living in

Is that indirect? This thing is well funded, and obviously people feel like their interests are more important.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com