IHE: Conflicting Values and Who Wins

[polly_mer]

IHE has https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2019/08/02/thirty-meter-telescope-project-mauna-kea-raises-questions-about-academic-research

For those who want to know the research conducted on the facts for all sides: https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/mk/files/2017/09/882-BLNR-FOFCOLDO.pdf

I am very much interested in the question of how do we preserve cultural landmarks and land use while still making scientific progress in location-bound science like astronomy and geology.  This is something that comes up regularly at my employer and it's clear that each situation needs good faith on all sides to discuss possibilities and trade-off.

However, I do want to sigh heavily when one side puts forth the equivalent of "my side is all right and your side doesn't have a leg on which to stand.  Case closed" as was done in the IHE article.  For example, making the telescopes that already exist pay the rent they are supposed to pay and taking steps to protect other land use seem to be a realistic call to action as an ongoing process.  These jumped out at me because of the regular reminders by my employer of all the forms that must be filled out and reviewed that include protecting other land use to the point that a joint report with specific external stakeholders (often the surrounding tribal communities) is a typical step before approval to go forward.  That report will always include a plan for regular visits or other monitoring by the external stakeholders or agreed upon designates.

This issue also seems to me to be part of the bigger picture of why research universities are different entities with a different mission than other parts of higher ed and what academic freedom means in practice.  For example, it's unclear to me why someone who is employed as an assistant professor of higher ed at an institution thousands of miles away from the mountain who is of a different tribal people is being published instead of one of the actual experts in the relevant cultures (several are cited in the state's report) or one of the actual experts in astronomy about why a new telescope is needed and why it needs to go at this particular place. 

This is exactly the kind of behavior that makes a non-negligible fraction of the US population roll their eyes about out-of-touch ivory tower dwellers who are more interested in theories of identities in idealized societies than the practicalities of life with conflicting priorities and ranked values in any broad group of humans.

[Parasaurolophus]

Hawai'i is a sad state, and a sad place, precisely because of its recent colonial history, whose legacy is still on display everywhere you look. On the big island, in particular, almost all the land is owned by the largest ranch in the world (Parker), which operates a number of mining town-style townships, and which has pushed indigenous Hawaiians to the margins. (It's also worth noting that the legacy of who counts as an indigenous Hawaiian is also completely fucked up by the American overthrow of the monarchy and annexation of the islands; it was an entirely wealth-based determination.) I have some very small stake in this controversy, because my partner and her family come from there (although they aren't indigenous; they're the children of Portuguese fishermen, generations back).

I do think it's instructive to look at and learn from similar controversies on the mainland, however, and I think that's what Dr. Tachine is getting at in her article. Indigenous peoples have adopted the language of 'sacredness' and 'environmentalism' for dealing with colonial appropriations because that's pretty much the only language that gives us pause. There's little point talking about land claims or treaty obligations, because we just don't care enough to abide by them and, historically, we've been quick to override them in the name of the 'greater good' (which, it's worth saying, has largely been the greater good of white populations).

I think it's instructive, in this case, to consider the damming of the Moose River Basin. A few dams were built in the late 1920s and the 1960s. These dams were built without any consultation process with the Moose Cree, whose land they were built on. As a result, there was some local population displacement (not much, since it's mostly a travelled area, not a settled one), but there were significant impacts on those people who depended on that land for hunting, trapping, fishing, and so on, since all that wildlife was displaced, the access roads gave white people access to those same areas, the work crews engaged in their own hunting, trapping, and fishing, the construction silted some rivers and hatcheries downstream, etc. So, when Ontario Hydro proposed to expand the dams in 1990, they were met with significant opposition, mostly couched in terms of sacredness and environmentalism. But what indigenous people were really concerned about was the process which would result in the dams' expansion, which had once again involved no meaningful consultation with them (although it did propose some compensation for damages, and a few other measures to offset the harms of construction--which were determined without consulting the indigenous population).

The point is just that they weren't actually opposed to the development of the hydroelectric project. What they were opposed to was the way in which it was being conducted, which left them almost entirely out of the process, even though the land was nominally theirs. For them, this was just another instance of colonial land appropriation, of the government not honouring its legal obligations to indigenous peoples. The project was ultimately scuppered, until the Ontario government took it over in 2005. And at that point, the government recognized what had gone wrong before, and was committed to involving local indigenous populations in the decision-making and planning processes, as well determined to consider their interests and input in the construction and post-construction phases. And as a result, the dams were finally expanded. The difference was that this time, local indigenous populations were significant stakeholders in the project, and had a chance to help decide how compensation for damages should be determined and allocated.

To my mind, the controversy over Mauna Kea and its telescopes looks pretty similar. Indigenous Hawaiians have adopted the language of sacredness and environmental impact because they've learned that these are surefire ways to be heard, and that they're ways of speaking to which the courts will pay attention. That's not to say those concerns are nonexistent; they're real, but they're somewhat beside the point. The real issue seems to be the use of what was once Crown Land, which is now part of what's called Ceded Land (which, it's worth noting, was never actually ceded) and is held in trust by the state government for the benefit of the indigenous population and the public. UH pays a nominal rent of $1 for its telescope land, even though state law requires the payment of fair market-level rent for the use of Ceded Lands. If UH and the state want the support of the indigenous population for their building projects, then they need to actively include them in the planning and construction phases, and take their concerns seriously. The fact that they didn't do so when they built the original observatory just compounds the problems they face now, because it's undermined the local population's trust in them.

[ciao_yall]

To my mind, the controversy over Mauna Kea and its telescopes looks pretty similar. Indigenous Hawaiians have adopted the language of sacredness and environmental impact because they're learned that these are surefire ways to be heard, and that they're ways of speaking to which the courts will pay attention. That's not to say those concerns are nonexistent; they're real, but they're somewhat beside the point. The real issue seems to be the use of what was once Crown Land, which is now part of what's called Ceded Land (which, it's worth noting, was never actually ceded) and is held in trust by the state government for the benefit of the indigenous population and the public. UH pays a nominal rent of $1 for its telescope land, even though state law requires the payment of fair market-level rent for the use of Ceded Lands. If UH and the state want the support of the indigenous population for their building projects, then they need to actively nclude them in the planning and construction phases, and take their concerns seriously. The fact that they didn't do so when they built the original observatory just compounds the problems they face now, because it's undermined the local population's trust in them.

This.

Who benefits from the telescope? Who gets good-paying union jobs building it and the surrounding buildings? Who gets scholarship opportunities that come from the telescope? Who benefits from the policy implications that arise from the science discovered?

[spork]

Hawai'i state government was, and probably still is, a democratic machine in which state construction contracts are  handed to union shops in exchange for votes from union members. So yes, the construction jobs will pay union wages.

As noted in the report, a majority of the technical and administrative jobs (not the astronomers) required for operating the telescope will go to locals who possess the requisite capabilities, in part because few mainlanders who get jobs in Hawai'i stick around very long. So right off the bat you're looking at > 500 of the estimated 1,000 permanent jobs created by the telescope going to locals. And this ignores multiplier effects on the local economy from the presence of a new tech-intensive facility.

Educational benefits: according to the report, a nonprofit organization formed by native Hawaiians that support the pursuit of educational
opportunities for children of Hawai'i favors construction of the telescope. The TMT will be used for educational programming at the elementary and high school levels on the Big Island, and have connections to both the undergraduate and graduate programs of UH.

I would say everyone benefits from the scientific discoveries made possible by the telescope because they represent an advancement in human knowledge.

The report states that the proposed telescope site was not historically used for ceremonies or resource extraction by indigenous Hawaiians -- there is no evidence that the specific site is what would be termed "culturally significant."

I doubt the author of the editorial knows much about Hawai'i.

All of the above said, Hawai'i is the typical American story of an indigenous people having its land stolen, its population decimated by imported disease, and its culture almost totally destroyed by Christian missionaries, land barons, and politicians. Currently there is a a pretty strong inverse relationship between amount of Hawaiian ancestry and socioeconomic status.

[pgher]

One key difference between indigenous peoples and immigrants/colonists/conquerers is that there is a different understanding of the land. To Europeans settling America, or Canada or Hawaii or anywhere in the "New World," there is a transactional relationship with the land. To indigenous peoples, the land is home. If a certain place has been your home for generations, money is not the issue. I mean, compensation is nice, but doesn't ultimately replace what is lost.

Even though my family has been in America for a few hundred years, we have moved around so much that no one place can truly be called "home." Still, if Canada wanted to buy the Dakotas (or perhaps trade us some prime land in the Yukon for them), I would have a visceral reaction. Not because of the economic value of the natural gas there or whatever, nor because I care that much about them, but because it doesn't seem right to lose a part of our property. I think that, on a different scale, is at the root of the conflict. Different value systems that are fundamentally incompatible.

I don't know if Americans can ever really understand that, nor can we understand that religion, culture, and homeland are all things worth dying for. For example, there's lots going on in the Middle East that we can and should do something productive about, but a lot of it transcends the kind of economic, materialist mindset most Americans have.

Of course, I know less about Hawai'i than the author of the article does, so maybe I'm blowing smoke.

[spork]

While the above is true, Hawai'i also fits the pattern of an indigenous community whose welfare has been sabotaged by the very members of that community charged with promoting its interests. For example:

https://www.pritchettcartoons.com/bet_essay.htm.

http://archives.starbulletin.com/2006/03/03/editorial/special.html.

[spork]

Glaring basic science fail by someone with PhD in mathematics: https://www.civilbeat.org/2019/08/will-the-tmt-really-contribute-to-astronomy/.

Protesters blocked the access road to existing telescopes: https://www.staradvertiser.com/2019/08/09/breaking-news/observatories-group-tmt-protesters-reach-agreement-to-allow-mauna-kea-workers-access/.