[ExI] Update on the Hawaiian observatory shutdown
avant at sollegro.com
Fri Aug 23 04:15:05 UTC 2019
Quoting Adrian Tymes:
>> How do you figure that? Every article I have read on the matter talks
>> about their ancestral claim as a given.
> To quote John:> The difference is there is not a scrap of evidence
> native Hawaiians ever lived on top of Mauna Kea, in fact there is no
> evidence any human being ever stood on top of it before 1823 when a
> American missionary climbed it. And the law is on the astronomers
> side, they won the 4 year legal battle.
Since when do you need to live on land in order to own it? The point
is before their colonization and integration into the U.S., the whole
place belonged to them.
But of course the astronomers won. The State of Hawaii recognizes no
native-Hawaiian tribal lands. That is the whole point of the protests.
The mountain was simply chosen as a strategic location to draw their
line in the proverbial sand. Blocking access to an important mountain
on ancestral lands is political strategy.
> Also it's not really about the
> mountain. It's about native-Hawaiian sovereignty. They want something
> like what all other native-american tribes have. Tribal lands,
> self-policing jurisdiction, and such. And if history is any guide, I
> really can't think of a good reason not to give it to them. I say give
> them the mountain and lease it back from them.
> Do you think they would be satisfied with "tribal lands" consisting
> of a previously-unused mountain, and that they would not simply use
> the same tactic to try to claim more land? Or that they would be
> able to police the mountain effectively?
It seems to work in the rest of states. Many models to choose from.
Haven't seen too many Sioux land grabs lately, so I don't see how
Hawaiians would be any different. The would police it at least as
effectively as any Indian Reservation in the U.S. polices its lands.
Obviously the federal jurisdiction would supersede the native
jurisdiction as I believe it does on Indian reservations.
> Better to give them some of the islands no one yet lives on -
> perhaps Nihoa and Necker, where there is proof of ancestral claims
> and self-policing may be within their means.
The reason nobody lives on those island is that they are unlivable.
That is an insulting concession to them. They are not stupid after
all, they had the strategic acumen to seize the high-ground, literally
and figuratively, so I would offer them something better.
But, you can't know what they would settle for until you sit down and
start bargaining with them. Ultimately the state of Hawaii has the
guns but "justice for all" is part of our pledge as Americans, right?
More information about the extropy-chat