Joan Conrow (Kauai Eclectic) had some astute comments last week about the strange alliance of anti-GMO activists and Hawaiians seeking to protect Mauna Kea by blocking construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope.
Someone left this astute comment on a recent post that featured photographs of mostly white people blowing pu to protest global trade talks under way at a luxurious Kaanapali hotel:
Not that long ago, the protest would be about the resort in the background of that pu photo.
But now, thanks to the influence of the anti-GMO/anti-agriculture movement, tourism is the friend and farming is the enemy.
The latest offspring of the strange union between the anti-GMO/anti-ag/pro-tourism movement and some Hawaiian groups is Sunday’s Aloha Aina Unity March.
She quoted from the Facebook page set up to promote the march.
By marching in Waikiki, the hub of the tourism industry, one goal we hope to achieve is to call attention to the fact that if our policy makers continue on this trend of over-development and exploitation of natural resources, Hawaii will undoubtedly lose its appeal as a picturesque tourist destination.
Then added her own biting comment:
And maintaining and promoting Hawaii as “a picturesque tourist destination” is now compatible with the goals of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement and the concept of aloha aina? When did that happen?
There are definitely some built-in contradictions here. I think you’ll find Joan’s full post worth pondering (“Musings: Kapakahi Kine“).
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Leaving this link here b/c don’t we all want useful info about critical thinking?
“Food for Thought: The debate over genetically modified organisms is a great case study in how to think critically.” Aug. 6 2015 in Slate by William Saletan
No. 6: Scrutinize everything. “…a papaya engineered with a gene from a virus. The papaya has been portrayed as dangerous, even though people have safely eaten non-GMO papayas loaded with the same virus for decades.”
No. 8: Watch for moving goalposts. “…anti-GMO activists who present themselves as experts…gave false testimony in Hawaii.”
No. 9: Beware of political agendas. “…when you see everything in political terms, you lose sight of the underlying reality.”
No. 12: Check your behavior against your values. Nuf said.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/08/critical_thinking_lessons_for_the_anti_gmo_movement_generalizations_evidence.2.html
self-righteous Americans looking for the latest cause, instead of dealing with real problems at home?
get outta here.
This post fits perfectly the description of an a’ama crab. Desperately trying to tear down others so that they can not leave the bucket.
In this case it was a unity march for Aloha Aina of 11,000 people stretching for a mile and a half. It was beautiful! So many who care about the aina and our sacred places and disappearing farmlands. This post’s attempt to divide the marchers by race really is scraping gutter.
This is straw man rhetoric. There are bound to be contradictions in any movement, organization, etc. Of course those contradictions must be resolved sometimes, but it’s also important to set aside disagreements sometimes and unite for a broader political vision. The march was an opportunity for those who share a common concern–the misuse, misappropriation, and desecration of our natural resources–to come together to show that they recognize that common ground and express disapproval at the cowardice, corruption and corporate manipulation which has caused this. I agree the messaging could have been better but dismissing the march because the organizers don’t have a perfectly coherent shared political vision is unfair.
So it’s unfair to criticize a march? Why? A dose of skepticism is a very good thing.
Y’know b/c B.s. is everywhere! If you smell something, say something. –Jon Stewart
https://twitter.com/ditzkoff/status/629499012475916288
P.S. The B.S. can indeed come from activists, protectors, preservationists who deserve criticism for pushing an agenda just like developers and hoteliers.
I did not say it’s unfair to criticize, I said it’s unfair to be dismissive. The tone of the Kauai Eclectic post is purely polemical, and contains more than a few misleading characterizations. The biggest one of those accusations is that this march pushed a pro-tourism agenda. Tourism is for better or worse an important economic driver for Hawaii, so for now it’s best that we try to run that industry in a sustainable way that yields equitable returns. Marchers were merely recognizing that reality. It’s just political pragmatism to point out that we are risking our economy if we continue to mistreat our natural resources. Furthermore, the assertion that marchers were solely focusing on TMT is absolutely not true. There were all kinds of people advertising their concern with a wide range of issues. Criticize all you want, but do it honestly and thoughtfully.
@Nick: Nobody ever said that fighting for a cause in a principled manner is easy. Selling out your principles and values in order to make short term slides in advancing your goals is a very slippery slope to tread.
Having a “beautiful” protest march doesn’t negate the ugliest parts of the messaging about anti-establishment and/or Hawaiian values (whatever that means since moving the goalposts is a common characteristic among the loudest “anti-GMO” and “protector” groups). In this information age, a narrative based on intellectual dishonesty and/or disingenuous claims is both easily spread via social media and likely to be exposed by serious fact-checking.
Joan Conrow posited a theory based on what’s available for all to see. It’s possible we would have a better political system (and better gov’t) if we were all astute observers who scrutinized those seeking instant notoriety.
It’s likely that Ian’s regular readers already know about “rapid response teams” as described by Denby Faucet that deflect attention away from uncomfortable facts.
http://www.civilbeat.com/2014/10/denby-fawcett-saving-tulsi-gabbard/
Politicking and promoting the underlying message of “We’re right so don’t scrutinize us” = Do Not Trust.
Joan Conrow can scrutinize all she wants. However, the theory she posited in this particular post was just plain wrong. There’s plenty of room to criticize anti-GMO groups, some Hawaiian activists, etc. But the critiques she supplied about this march were simply not in line with the actual facts.
Quoting t from Jul 21, 2015 at 6:38 pm
http://www.ilind.net/2015/07/20/tmt-protesters-cling-to-discredited-legal-defense/#comment-185692
Joan Conrow had admitted that she has “a paying gig” supporting the agrochemical industry. She works for the Alliance for Science at Cornell whose mission it to promote science based positive biotech communications, plus Monsanto just paid her to go to India for a pro biotech report.
Yes, “There are definitely some built-in contradictions here” and on Joan’s blog too! Ian, it would be cool if you would ever share any of the media critiques of the movements/protests you were a part of and supported during your activist days. You must have saved some clippings or something that may have characterized your efforts in ways that didn’t exactly describe what you guys felt you were doing…
“She works for the Alliance for Science at Cornell whose mission it to promote science based positive biotech communications, plus Monsanto just paid her to go to India for a pro biotech report.”
omg She’s One of Themmmmmmm!!!!!
New readers (to Joan’s blog) may want to google “kauai eclectic gary hooser.”
A tangent: does anyone else find that the tactics of “rapid response teams” do more harm than blog pieces?
The reactions from rabid “fans” of a politician/movement/cause provide the LOL-worthy material.
For Joan (& Ian) to characterize the Monsanto operations as “farming” is just silly. Monsanto is a CHEMICAL company. It is testing it crops for resistance to pesticides. It is NOT growing food for people to eat.