There's this guy on his Kona Blog that questions the existence of Hawaiian activists and accuses us of wanting the status quo. He questions our concern of Mauna kea telescopes and other issues. His multi-issue statements made me respond to his allegations. This is my response to him:
Traditionally, activism is a good thing and I might add that you do a bit of activism yourself. Without activism, things remain status quo. In fact, more people should be activists which is a way to be heard rather than silently protest or complain about issues that should be investigated and evaluated. Activism is a positive thing and not a negative one. Look at how your country was formed; if not for activism, you would still be British subjects.
Somehow, you've labelled Hawaiian activism a bad thing without really knowing what they are being activists about or what the real issues are dealing with facts. Instead of assuming and reinterpreting what they are being active about; maybe you should be open enough to weigh in the facts, pros and cons, and investigate with fact-finding in an honest and objective way. This way you won't put your foot in your mouth while trashing Hawaiian activists and lump them all into one box.
As far as telescopes on Mauna Kea; you need to do a wider and more in-depth research before debunking some of the arguments and bring up facts and references rather than just saying things as a matter of personal opinion. This issue goes a lot deeper than the superficial content being presented by you.
Continuing on you've made some good points for critical thinking, especially with the politics and conflicts of interests. I'm glad many are being observant and using critical thinking in their processes and common sense and logic. HFP has an ethical obligation to remain neutral and pose two sides of the political issues each candidate holds. This way we can make a more intelligent decision as to whom we support. This is a constant challenge for us to remain active in what and how issues affect our daily lives as a community and personally.
Keep being an activist and let people hear your concerns. Remember, a word to the wise is sufficient.
I agree that high tech jobs would be an avenue to explore and consider. But the analogy would be: you don't buy just any dog for a pet. Some dogs are good and positive for your family and some dogs are not good and even dangerous or detrimental. In other words you don't accept certain companies that don't have healthy practices and injures your environment, community health and well-being just because there are jobs and money to enrich the community.
Hawai'i has always been considered dispensable and expendable by the U.S. and corporations that experiment and test things out before putting it on the open market. Our territory is used as a toxic dumping ground because of its location and isolation from the contiguous 48 states. This has always been a common practice. "Give it to Mikey, see if he likes it!" This is why many peope begin to get cynical and wary of what is introduced here in Hawai'i.
Companies that have been turned away or banned from most of the 48 states seem to manage to operate here with minimum opposition.
We have more rights than those on the mainland to be more discerning about what kind of businesses we want here. The 48 States is on a vast continent; whereas Hawai'i is a group of small islands. When the islands become unfit to sustain human life; where would one expect to go? To a foreign country? Many of us have ancestors that have been here for thousands of years; it's our homeland. The motherland that we are part of. To many others, they can return to their motherland or adopted land like the U.S.A and other lands. I neglected to mention those from Bikini island and other Marshall Islands that those can no longer return to as it's unfit for human survival.
So if we are "picky" as to what we want here and how they do business here; then we have every right to do that.
[Maybe “living off the land”, without technology, or cars, or electricity, is a better choice-]- This is such a
vacuous argument and silly to voice as it has no substance to it. An extremist to the opposite side of the spectrum. It's like choosing quantity in lieu of quality.
You contradict yourself by saying we need revenue opportunity, yet state that $1 a year is justified and substancial to lease the land and to look at all the good it does for the economy! Yeah, right! Is it charity or business? I'm sure the telescope companies would pay the fair rent gladly and also give that 10 to 15% use of the telescope. They still come out ahead. Hawai'i has the jurisdiction to determine what goes on and how thing should be done within its territory.
As long as the corporations dictate and the politicians comply without the people's consent then nothing improves. Most local companies get squeezed out of business here as more companies move in from the U.S. and other places. You see more locals opening businesses per capita on the US continent than you see them open here in Hawai'i. Shouldn't that tell you something?
You need to be a member of Maoliworld to add comments!