SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Divisive giant telescope cleared for construction on Hawaiian peak
Last week, the state of Hawaii gave astronomers a green light to begin to build the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT), which would rise on the volcanic peak of Mauna Kea as one of the largest telescopes in the world. Project leaders say they are set to begin construction after a 4-year delay caused by sit-down protests and court challenges from Native Hawaiians opposed to structures on a site they consider sacred. But some astronomers worry the threat of disruptions and even violence will persist.
"These are passionate people," says Richard Ellis, an astronomer at University College London who helped develop the TMT concept. "They know that once it gets going their case is weaker." Others say the project should do more to engage with the protesters. "We need to talk with people who disagree with us," says Thayne Currie, an astrophysicist the NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California, who works on Japan's Subaru Telescope on Mauna Kea.
Although legal barriers are now removed, opponents say they can still try to block access to the road that leads up to the 4200-meter-high summit. "What other tools do we have, apart from having people arrested in large numbers?" asks Kealoha Pisciotta, founder of Mauna Kea Anaina Hou, one of the main opposition organizations. In 2015, 1000 protesters gathered on the mountain, but "there are way, way more people involved now," she says. The astronomers "may have won in the courts, but they haven't won the moral high ground."
Previously: Protests Temporarily Halt Thirty-Meter Telescope's Construction in Hawaii
Hawaiian Court Revokes Permit for Construction of Thirty-Meter-Telescope
Thirty Meter Telescope Considering Move as Hawaii Officials Open Hearing
Canary Islands Chosen as Backup Site for the Thirty-Meter Telescope
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday June 26 2019, @02:53PM (11 children)
There's little or no way they're going to convince (some of) the locals that they want this telescope to be built, it's similar to convincing Native Americans to allow a factory to be built on their reservation. They (again, some of the locals) don't care about what it's doing - except maybe to dislike it, they don't see any benefit to themselves, all they see is the invaders taking yet another piece of what little they have left of their ancestors' land.
If the locals want to sit on the road to the summit to protest, maybe they can find something productive for them to do while they are there and pay them for it? Road maintenance, cleanup and landscaping - preservation of native plants, security?
The other solution is to pray for big, rideable surf, that will reduce the number of protesters considerably.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @05:05PM (10 children)
You're despicable. Typical imperialist attitude.
You would be forgiven for preferring the telescope be built, but not the dismissive attitude towards the people and their land which was stolen from them. No wonder the US is so fucked right now, basic human decency has been replaced with the historically typical attitude of imperialists, "We're superior in every conceivable way so fuck those people and whatever they're complaining about. Hope they're washed away to die in the ocean."
I would typically throw in a "lawl" or something, but even cynical humor is losing its appeal these days.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday June 26 2019, @06:24PM
Did you see the movie 2009 movie Avatar [wikipedia.org] ?
Some primitive savages are resisting the kindly efforts of a developed technological race of visitors who would provide them with medicine, roads and other beneficial technology.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Freeman on Wednesday June 26 2019, @06:42PM (7 children)
. . . I thought Hawaii was acquired amicably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii [wikipedia.org]
So, not amicably, but there was no actual fighting / war. Seems like it was more of a corporate take over as opposed to anything else.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday June 26 2019, @10:40PM (6 children)
The way the US went about adding Hawaii to the Empire was pretty nasty, despite the lack of shooting.
Of course it did. Can't have the slaves voting.
Nice.
Who ensured labour rights were respected of course.
I suppose the Thirteenth Amendment only went so far.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 26 2019, @11:32PM (5 children)
The real story, of course, is "it's complicated." Hawaii had a king... who gained power, like most kings, through violence and genocide. Eventually the king died, and his wife succeeded him - she was the one mostly responsible for bringing in Christianity, more rights for women, and many Western traditions, including literacy. This cultural shift was irreversible and is what set Hawaii on the path toward eventual westernization.
But Hawaii faced constant invasions - in those days mostly by France, but later on by Britain and it was threatened by Spain and Japan, so they asked for American military support. Then the Americans brought in plantations (though not slave plantations) that exported sugar. Much of the profits of the sugar went to the plantation owners, but most of the profits of everything always go to the owners. Native Hawaiians didn't want to work on sugar plantations, so foreign workers were imported. But it turned out the Hawaiians still actually wanted the sugar trade, because it still brought in lots of money for the then-country. They had to sell Pearl Harbor to the Americans in order to keep their favored trade status, but the deal wasn't made under any kind of threat. But then the Spanish-American War happened, and Americans started buying sugar from the Caribbean instead. And then the Hawaii was threatened by imperial Japan (which would, of course, have treated their citizens and customs with the utmost respect). Hawaii was declining, vulnerable, and strategically located. It was going to be occupied or annexed by somebody. The only real question was whether it would be the US, Britain, or Japan. Hawaii, sensibly, chose the one that they already had close ties to, and that was going to actually respect their citizens and culture (so long as they got their military bases and trade profits).
Yes, the Bayonet Constitution existed, and it did favor American businessmen, but it was only brought in after the last member of the Kamehameha dynasty died (of natural causes), leaving the country in a state of civil war. American military forces had to be called in to stop the violence, so naturally they expected a constitution to be written (and it was a democratic constitution). Most of the people disenfranchised by it were actually Japanese, not Hawaiian. In those days, there were more Japanese people living in Hawaii than native Hawaiians.
Hawaii was treated with a great deal of respect by the United States, was never militarily occupied, was not politically meddled with as long as they had a viable native government, and the only colonial concession Hawaii ever had to make was Ford Island (Pearl Harbor) - which the natives had stopped using for its original rituals and converted into a sugar plantation. Agitators today like to pretend Hawaii was (or IS) oppressed. It's not, and it never was. History happened, that's all.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday June 27 2019, @01:10AM (4 children)
Wow. That is really ignoring a lot of history, right there.
So, yes, the US did ccupy Hawaii, that was in 1874.
Another military occupation not even 20 years later, also a coup. Not really "treated with a great deal of respect by the United States" after all.
I suppose we can pretend that is not slavery. I wonder why those labor practices were prohibited in many States? Probably too close to slavery.
Here is some of the Wikipedia article on Hawaii. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday June 27 2019, @02:29AM (3 children)
The US was no angel of mercy to Hawaii, but if we hadn't at least protected them, some other imperialist nation would have come in instead. This was the reality of the 1800s, none of the imperialists were strong enough to declare a Bush style "new world order" and demand that valuable independents be left independent, so as an independent, you were lucky if you got taken over by the imperialist of your choosing.
As an imperial power, the only way to hold a territory like Hawaii was to exploit it as was done with sugar cane, etc. Otherwise, it would need to be sold off or traded away to another imperial power who could exploit it more fully - arbitrage, writ large with cannons and slow ships.
If you think that I think that this was "good for" the natives, you have completely missed the sarcasm. It sucked for the American indigenous, and it sucked for the Pacific islanders, but if any one or two imperial nations had tried to leap forward 100 years in diplomatic posturing, they'd just have been hurting themselves and not significantly helping the lesser (in terms of military power) nations that they might have attempted to protect. The story of Hawaii, from first contact with Europeans through statehood is filled with sadness and injustice, perhaps even more sad than the North American natives because most of the Hawaiians lived through the ordeal and accurately told the tales to their children.
So, now, the Europeans/Americans want another big telescope on the King's nature preserve - and when viewed from the perspective of the world, or even just the state government of Hawaii, building it is a good thing to do. But, when viewed from the perspective of the natives who live in Puna, just down the road, it's just more pissing on their heads - even if we are nice enough to try to tell them it's rain.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday June 27 2019, @02:59AM (2 children)
Oh. Yes I did miss that.
I was answering the A/C above who seems to have swallowed the US history propaganda completely and does even know that the US had a policy of Empire building at all.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Thursday June 27 2019, @02:24PM (1 child)
In one sense, the US was no worse than the rest of the world at the time - perhaps even in the better half.
In another sense, the whole imperialist world of the 1800s were a bunch of nasty bastards - but, given a choice between being one of the nasty bastards or one of the victims, at least by playing the role of nasty bastard the US was able help lead things to a better place.
Assuming civilization survives until 2100, I'm fairly sure they'll be saying the same about this era.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday June 27 2019, @07:57PM
Oh yes, absolutely.
The Hawaiians were bloody lucky Belgium didn't have much of a navy.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday June 27 2019, @01:25AM
Conquered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cm29uMQiOyk [youtube.com]