I was listening to an episode of The Takeaway on NPR yesterday, and one brief segment caught my attention because it seems to echo concerns about the current civil disobedience taking place on Mauna Kea.
The Takeaway was examining the protests in Hong Kong that had shifted to the airport.
Commenting was Orville Schell, who had witnessed the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989. This is from his Wikipedia entry:
Orville Hickock Schell III (Chinese: ??; pinyin: Xià W?i; born May 20, 1940) is an American writer, academic, and activist. He is known for his works on China, and is the Arthur Ross Director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the Asia Society in New York. He previously served as Dean of the University of California, Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.
In any case, here’s an excerpt from Schell’s comments.
What’s hauntingly familiar is sort of the arc of the demonstrations, the way they gather momentum, and keep reinventing themselves in order to keep people engaged.
I think your report from the Hong Kong airport reminds me very much of what happened in May in Beijing in 1989. The students decided to do a hunger strike as a tactic to kind of reinvigorate the protest. I think it was a very clever tactical move that the students moved to the airport, a highly symbolic place where people come and go, a nerve center of Hong Kong, and also a public space, a big lobby of a big airport.
There are lots of ways that you see similar kinds of escalations, and I think the very worrisome part is that each time there is an escalation, and each time they sort of gather a new group, a new grievance, a new demand, of course it becomes more impossible to imagine a resolution short of confrontation.
Of course, in Hong Kong they’re talking about a potential violent confrontation with a Chinese military force as the ultimate threat.
In Hawaii, a military response of that kind isn’t in the cards. But there could be a law enforcement response that could lead to violence.
When one side says it isn’t going to negotiate, how do we imagine “a resolution short of confrontation” in Hong Kong or on the mountain?
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“When one side says it isn’t going to negotiate, how do we imagine “a resolution short of confrontation” in Hong Kong or on the mountain?”
Well here’s a possible scenario: the protector stand up some kind of organization that would be granted the ground lease in place of the University of Hawaii and then that entity of Hawaiians would lease to the telescopes as they see fit.
To those who say it’s never been about building the telescopes but about the management, this solution would pose it’s own set of problems including how to deal with the certain backlash from the no millions of people who are persuaded that any telescope is in conflict with respect for a sacred place.
Oops, it’s not it’s
The time for negotiation has long since passed. Disobedience is the predictable next step when the people who have been entrusted to make good decisions that reflect the needs of the entire community haven’t listened . The resolution in both cases seems pretty clear.
There hasn’t been talk enough about why this looking-to-the-heavens business canNOT be done by satellite photography, as in the successful images that are now being revealed by NASA.
Are we clamoring for dated technology, as in rail?
Also, the issue of aquifer pollution and experts saying there is no chance of that happening–it would depend on a certain time frame (the initial Kohala coast wells drilled at Waikoloa Village in the late 60’s dated the water at 1500 years). It was so tasty, folks from Hilo would come and fill up water jugs (without any advertising :).
There is also the danger of a harsh backlash.
As the Mauna Kea confrontation carnival drags on, costs taxpayers serious money, diverts public safety resources, and is perceived as an exercise in immensely misguided activism and unreasonable cultural chauvinism, it could seriously erode support for Hawaiian causes in general, and certainly for reckless assertions of sovereignty and tiresome fanciful notions of being above the law whenever convenient.
“Enough of this s…” could very well become the watchwords of an increasingly fed-up silent majority.
Your mileage may vary, but the evaporation of good will and tolerance is palpable in some previously sympathetic quarters.
In July, Cayetano said that OHA should be abolished. So even apart from TMT, there might be a silent minority that is fed up with the dysfunction.
It seems that our LT Gov is trying to rack up some points for his soon to be Governor run by pandering to the wrong voters!And the protestors will have to “reinvent” themselves again&again as the rest of Hawaii moves on & tries to eke out a living on the “island specks” in the Pacific.If Age fails to act in a positive manner, within the laws…then any new businesses attracted to this state will be turned off& the economy will suffer for all of us going forward.
I have decided to sell my rental&buy on the mainland so if the going does get “tough” for those who respect the rule of law…I can be at a safe distance!
After 45yrs in the Islands..this fiasco ,coupled with mediocre medical care&the looming climate crisis will discourage tourism(think carbon credits vs.flying long distances).
I am grateful I was able to live in Honolulu when the Tahitian Lanai was a beautiful spot for dining..when Gabby P. played on a boat in the harbor downtown&when Waikiki was safe for even a single gal to venture out at night!
Thank you Jimmy Borges&Mai Tai Sing for all the melodic memories!Now we get The Green &Jack Johnson on Mauna Kea…! I have no faith that our govt leaders will truly lead on this issue..so Im bowing out&retiring where I will look on from afar at the horrible decline of our 50th state ..held hostage by those who don’t even understand the privilege of democracy! Aloha!
Now we’re getting to realize the ramifications of the action vs no reaction at the standoff. The longer this festers, the more we may not be able to recover. Two sides need to take a breath… and at least agree to parley. Without discourse, the time may be short. Akua, and our leaders please show us the way.
Meanwhile, a grandstanding politician seeking higher office is on the front page today espousing a kooky theory that the state lacks jurisdiction over the access road. On the op-ed page, a tinfoil triumvirate declares the 1959 statehood vote a sham. And on the same page, a commentator bemoans the new age of absurd political conspiracy theories pushed by educated elites who really should know better.
Coincidence? Subtle jab? Warped sense of humor? Or conspiracy?
Native Hawaiians have nothing left to lose at Mauna Kea. there is nothing to negotiate. The courts have ruled that its fine to give away Mauna Kea to the foreign corporations to do as they please. Conservation land laws don’t apply to them.
In their mad rush to concrete our islands, our politicians turned two deaf ears and a middle finger to the pleas of the people. Local people no longer believe the developers empty promises.
The TMT protests are based on the “broken trust” model. The idea is that institutions and property that belongs or is dedicated to Hawaiians has been hijacked and mismanaged. That fit the pattern of abuse at Bishop Estate, but most people would consider it quite a stretch to apply that to Mauna Kea. Mauna Kea is not the religious heartland of a Hawaiian people who practice an ancient and unique religion. While Mauna Kea has been mismanaged by the University in the past, that is no longer true, and the University leadership was never so corrupt and ignorant as some Bishop Estate trustees were.
I’m not sure if Hawaiian Supremacy will ever be a threat, let alone one on the level of White Supremacy, but both are rooted in the same ground: that one’s ethnicity conveys special privileges.
Tulsi Gabbard is popular locally because she is refreshingly genuine and bright compared to the rest of Hawaii’s politicians, but on the national stage, she faces a whole different level of scrutiny. The TMT protests is the reverse of this, receiving applause from abroad and quiet skepticism on the local level. Locally, two main groups support the Protectors, one being Hawaiians who were once on the fringes of the sovereignty movement, the other middle-aged white guys from the mainland. Some middle-aged white guy wrote an editorial about how every day, in every aspect of their lives, Hawaiians face massive discrimination, but no one from Hawaii would ever believe that. Also, the fights over the Natatorium’s future are between middle-aged white guys from the mainland, whereas locals are indifferent.
Everyone needs to feel comfortable saying “no” to causes they don’t believe in, and that doesn’t make them any less Hawaiian, less progressive, or self-hating, elitist, or racist. One problem here is that many people have convinced themselves that embracing their Hawaiian identity, or lending support to Hawaiians, necessarily means supporting virtually all forms of Hawaiian activism, no matter how misguided or even absurd, lest they be labeled sell-outs or worse. That kind of group-think and intolerance is dangerous to everyone.
It’s OK to say “no” to nonsense.
Happy Statehood Day.