Musings 16: Opinions on the Matter

in

I didn't think there would be a time where I would be scared of my own opinion. Not that I think my opinion isn't important, I've always thought that it was. I mean everyone has an opinion, whether it's a matter of thinking dogs are better than cats, or chocolate is better than vanilla. There are just a lot of feelings I have towards realizing the power of my own words.

The other day, The Civil Beat posted my submission. The submission was posted here obviously, mostly because I didn't know if they were going to post it on their website and I wanted to post it somewhere else just in case. Prior to it being posted, I got a few emails from the woman in charge of the Community Voices section which was about posting it, and that was pretty much it. Nothing else, and I didn't see it posted for a while, so of course, I didn't think about it.

Yesterday I got a text from some friends saying that they saw my post, and my heart dropped, tensed up. I started to sweat, feel nauseous, wanted to vomit, cry, hide. Everything. I kind of avoided clicking the link for a little bit, because I was scared of what people would say. I've been on the internet since I was 12, I knew how people could be. Eventually, I did and found that the comments were mostly mild which was comforting to a degree. Some of them were chimes of disagreement and some of them were words of support and agreement. It was just on the website, so it wasn't anything super crazy.

And then they posted the link on their FB page, and with all its ubiquity, more people see stuff anyway. This morning the likes were at 175 (according to a friend), when I checked it just now, it sits at 190, with 49 shares. I feel more nauseous and sick and want to vomit even more! Jesus.

The good points to this matter are that revisiting my opinion about two weeks later, I still feel the same way I did when I wrote it. At least I'm consistent. It also solidifies my belief that I am pretty moderate about a lot of my opinions, so that's good.

The cons are that people on the internet scare me. I find that people can be vitriolic on the internet, and are likely to more aggressively confront people online than they would in person. I also have actively chosen to not engage with the comments on the article, and I find that sometimes arguments gain no ground. Understanding and openness is key to solving conflicts, even if the conflicts are sowed in the land of the tangible world.

What is interesting to me are the posts of agreement. What do I know? I feel like a child in the grand scope of things, especially with my only recent interest in the going-ons of the world. I generally like to operate in my own sphere, but of course, I'm growing up to learn that as I get older, the more I see the spheres in my life overlap with other things.

It's scary to first, put your opinions out there about such a sensitive topic, because people are likely to react just as strongly as I'm reacting to their reactions. It's even scarier to think that people's opinions can change of you due to what you feel or think or say, especially when the opposing opinions are ones people close to you hold.

What's crazier to me is that if you word anything just right, you can get anyone to disagree or agree with you and without realizing it. It's like how Hitler got away with writing Mein Kampf, and was able to get people to be sympathetic to his opinion by playing on their own weaknesses, and then turning the country the way he did. Could you imagine?

Could you imagine being put to death because of your opinions incriminating you? Isn't that crazy? You write your own death sentence by choosing to be authentic to your beliefs. I think with the way the world is going today, it's becoming a possibility for that to happen in addition to your gender, ethnicity, or whatever else you choose or don't even choose. Doing stuff like this is essentially is putting yourself out there and exposing yourself to the world. That's scary.

I really don't know what I'm trying to say, it's just that we really need to be responsible and accountable for our own words. I'm glad that I am seeing it now although I want to vomit everywhere every time I think about it. I guess my opinion just scares me because it's crazy to see the power of words and thoughts. I think it's scary to see how it can charge and change things. I think it's scary to see people be so callous about how they use their words to influence thoughts and actions.

In the end it's more of a reason for me to use mine responsibly and practice channeling all of this positively…

I guess it's a good thing I never really learned how to be quiet.

Musings 13: Style + Out of the Woods = Wildest Dreams

in ,

Yes. I know I'm a few months late, etc etc. I also know that Taylor Swift debuted her new single!

I just wanted to throw out there short thoughts on what I had about the album other than I obviously love it. 

Out of the Woods came first and with its timing before the album's release, it seems more apt of the uncertainty that the artist could have faced. Interpretations of the reasoning aside, however, the song is only one side of juggling a relationship in which the status is undefined. The song itself has a hint of nostalgia and melancholy based on the memories relayed and the repetition of the same "Are we out of the woods, yet?" 

Yet. The word itself alludes to a prolonging of some experience. The bridge about "hitting the brakes too soon" is in its own way a breakthrough, and the song's key and energy changes at this point. Cycle broken. What's interesting to note is that the visuals you would expect for this song are of forests and trees, and lots of memories. Shown in the video of another song...

While musically different, Style, is the same relationship, but looking at the back and forth of it. It isn't necessarily a good thing, as the good girl bad guy thing doesn't usually work out. I know people seem to suggest that there was infidelity, but I honestly just think that they broke up. They break up and get together and do it again and again. Even though he's out with other girls, he's still thinking about her. She's doing the same with other guys. It's important to note that lyrically Taylor Swift is referencing the '50s James Dean badboy look, similar to the Marilyn Monroe red lips. 

And here, it leads me to Wildest Dreams, in which the 50s style movie film genre. Her look references Liz Taylor, the sadness of the separation almost seems reminiscent of Casablanca, and the separation of two almost lovers. The song evokes the feelings I have, but more importantly, it references how timeless the story of Style is and how the story doesn't change. Just the characters.

 

TLDR: SUPER EXCITED I LOVE TAYLOR SWIFT.

Musings 12: Is Some Land More Important Than Others?

in

Today, the Hawaii Supreme Court started the hearing for the Thirty Meter Telescope. This hearing should determine the fate of the telescope that has garnered the state so much attention over the past few months. Everyone was talking about it through our prolific use of hashtag activism with #StopTMT etched in signs and stamped across our bodies. Celebrities and supporters plastered their endorsements across their Instagram profiles and Twitter feeds.

 

Where is that same fervor now?

 

TMT is not without its controversy, as both sides of the issue pose compelling arguments about the project. What's is more concerning to me, however, is the sporadic and inconsistent approach towards the natural resources in the islands. The different islands have varying issues regarding the land, whether it’s the crops grown on them, the ownership of one by a very rich man, or just managing to survive on them.  

Brown Water, Sewage, and Drains

The state's population is growing, but not without its share of problems. With the extremely active hurricane season, we're only "now" uncovering some of the effects of the city's delay in addressing our infrastructure. Drone videos are showing the spills into Kailua, and Waikiki closed down because of a sewage spill. Officials say that some of the storm drainage behavior is expected and everything is working as it should. 

Of course, this wouldn't be the first time that it's happened around the Waikiki area. In 2006, 48 million gallons of sewage pumped into the Ala Wai. In 2013, The intersection of McCully and Kapiolani overflowed and spilled a more palatable amount of 5,000 gallons, "possibly" contaminating the Ala Wai. I mean after all, there were no water samples submitted, just "visual observations." There were previously contingency plans to truck excess sewage to Kailua because the current setup at Sand Island wasn't enough.   

Let’s not forget that the Sierra Club had originally tried to sue in 2004, much before the Ala Wai catastrophe. The state and the EPA reached a settlement agreement concerning the upgrade of our sewage system in 2010. The plan is expected to continue until 2035, although there is some optimism around the timeline being accelerated; Mayor Kirk Caldwell reported we were ahead of schedule last year.

Walkable City

As many of us live and work in downtown Honolulu, there is no missing the constant murmuring of projects in the Kakaako district. Once full of warehouses, it's quickly undergoing an urban restoration. Kamehameha Schools has allotted 29 acres of land for low income housing and other business ventures to encourage the already growing activity in this part of the city. The condos are a different story, as many of the luxury condominiums have been sold, and excited buyers are just waiting for their products. Many of the developers are looking to finish their buildings in the next couple years. 

With all the development, we should be excited for the future of the state right? Hawaii, the most isolated place on the planet, is the perfect meeting point for the East and West. Oahu, The Gathering Place, has a population of about 1,000,000 people and we see anywhere from 650,000 to just under 900,000 a month. The island hosts so many people, that we really should be excited at the growth we're cultivating and the impact that our developing city should see even now.

Homelessness

A constant source of controversy and discussion in the community is the homeless population present on Oahu. We've enacted the sit-lie bans in Waikiki and downtown Honolulu. With talks to expand these bans, we will only further push these already displaced people into suburban neighborhoods. Some people have taken a different approach and offered repurposed school buses as a solution in Sand Island.

Hostility and perhaps even a fear of homeless people exist. Senator Tom Brower was attacked in Kakaako, which further taints the image of the homeless population to the public. Yet, he was known most for destroying homeless encampments back in 2013. Many of the homeless population is mentally ill and may even have addiction problems. Even if some individuals don't have the previously mentioned issues, they have children to support. While there is more attention given to the downtown population, we shouldn't forget about the populations in other places, like Nanakuli and Wahiawa.

In May, an infographic circulated the web about the minimum wage needed to live in Hawaii: $31.61. Compare that to the current $7.75 minimum wage, with gradual increases annually. The cost of living has become too much for some families, who have opted to move to the mainland. And those who can't? They continue the grind.

What does this mean?

Even with the passionate discourse around Mauna Kea, the same energy isn't applied equally to land on the island on which we live and work. Land is a limited inelastic resource, and more so in the islands. For that reason, we should think more critically about how we decide to use this gift. 

The benefits of development can best be defined by their effects on what already exists. If we encourage population growth at a rate that cannot be sustained by current infrastructure, we risk putting our natural resources at risk; whether it is the land itself, fresh water availability, the ocean. While any system is best tested against real life application, it should challenge us to improve. The sewage system upgrades are certainly a start, but is it enough?

In Honolulu, the rising cost of housing and living poses a constant hurdle. Some families are living paycheck to paycheck, while working two jobs in town. Others have members who work one job with 2.5 hour commute each way, rebelling against the cost of living while spending their quality of life. The movement towards becoming a walkable city is certainly an improvement, and with the allotment of KS property to affordable housing, one can hope this is enough as we await the arrival of the rail system.  

But what about the homeless population? While some perceive their existence to be burdensome, some families are only a paycheck away from the same. The stigma against homelessness is so strong that we forget the spirit of aloha and sometimes compassion.

The construction of the condos in downtown Honolulu certainly may be a reflection of the growing metropolis that Honolulu aspires to be. I often wonder, however, if the continued construction is only a bubble that we continue to invest in. In the worst case, we continue to use more land and more resources until the bubble bursts, and we've removed the richness of the land by planting our greed. The same people drawn to the island for its beauty and pleasant weather are moving away as the land is no longer valuable. Those of us who can afford to leave certainly will, but what of the rest of us? Is the growth that we're experiencing a true reflection of the island's potential and is it a sustainable way to solidify our presence in the Pacific? 

While the TMT decision may be some time away, the benefits to me seem more sustainable. The educational benefits of TMT for scientists, hobbyists, and students are innumerable. They're the ones who can help us further improve the land that we live in and contribute to the growth in our islands.

I'm fully aware of the fact that many cry foul, saying that the culture is not being preserved or protected, and to this I ask, “What defines the culture?” Why can't a place of learning simultaneously be a center of culture? By treating Hawaiian traditions and culture as relics of the past, we are digging its graves. Education has ubiquitous value, so why can't a place of science and learning also be a place that celebrates the cultural impact and achievement? In 2014, TMT announced a partnership with the Pauahi Foundation, to help students on the island interested in STEM further their education. Certainly it can do more.

Some may argue about the indigenous flora that call its home Mauna Kea. It's hard to argue this one. Then again, it's also hard to maintain the argument when the Kaiwi Coast had development looming above it until last week. Is some land more sacred than others? Isn't it our responsibility to make sure that we treat our resources with respect, use what we need, and counsel others who may have struggles in doing the same? Is the land that we work and play on less important than the one that stands as the cornerstone for the birth of the Hawaiian people? 

Think about that while we continue to solidify the presence and cultural impact of our island home. We should work to be proactive instead of reactive, and challenge decisions. Picking and choosing our battles is easy, but if all land is valuable, is that approach enough to be reasonable? 

We can also argue about the unfair and subversive ways things are done, but if we aren't invested from the beginning, is it fair? We are as responsible to the due process of any system, regardless of our opinion, and more so when it isn't one that we share. At the end of the day, we should hold each other accountable because our experience on the island is affected by each of us.

As the hearings continue on, we must keep the following in mind: there should always be a willingness to compromise. Compromise is often a hard pill to swallow, as everyone loses in a compromise. Our dissenting opinions should be an asset, but it's only proving to be a hindrance to further growth. There's so much more we can gain from challenging each other to be better and using our past as motivation to improve.

Let's get comfortable with being uncomfortable, so that we can gain more from the diversity of our opinions, instead of losing out on everything in the battle.  

 

 

Musings 10: To Taylor, From Maxx

in

I was not always a fan of Taylor Swift.

In fact, I distinctly remember in high school that I hated her Romeo and Juliet song about something that "obviously" could never work. I mean, seriously those children died.  "They're dead Taylor," I said, "this song is stupid, and it was the stupidest love story ever." Then, something happened with You Belong with Me and I started to turn.  I was becoming a Taylor Swift fan.

This wasn't a surprise by any means. At the time of my life in which I was criticizing Taylor Swift for imagining such silly things, I was coming to my own conclusions about creative expression. One of the musings I posted previously was about how everything we do in the world is an extension of ourselves. That which we choose to do is a reflection of us, and we should never choose to give less that all of ourselves. My conclusion was that all that we do should be done in love.

I wrote that when I was 18, about 6 years ago. This musing is when I realized that amongst all the love songs and clichéd lines, that she was just practicing something she loved in the same way I practiced my words and sketched what moved my soul.  I began to listen to her music more and I loved what I heard. The movement of her compositions matched the flow of the words in a way I could never do. Did I necessarily think she was a better writer than me? No. Could I draw better than her? Maybe. Could she write songs better than I could? Absolutely. I can't write music to save my life. 

Through practice do we find better ways we can express ourselves and better wield the tools that let us craft, whatever it is that we chose. I would have once considered myself a very clever writer, and judged harshly those who could only quote others to describe their own thoughts. I also once would have rolled my eyes at someone who showed off their amateur works. Then, I learned something very important.

Creative expression is necessary, and the resulting works may speak volumes for people who don't know how to express themselves, or have not found the ways to do so. For those who continue to find ways that they can speak, the limits are their own imaginations. Skill is no longer a factor in this, as skill doesn't dictate what causes cathartic release, unbridled joy, or unfathomable sadness.

Fulfillment through passionate expression isn't new. Roman and Greek people had written stories and poems with the same intent. Trust me, I've read some very boring Latin fiction and poetry. During the Renaissance, the de'Medici family sponsored the creation of many inspiring works of art. This patronage continued through the Impressionist period and well into the 19th century. Music is no different from this. Composers like Mozart, Vivaldi, Beethoven, names that may be familiar to those who don't even have any familiarity with baroque and classical music. 

If you've noticed though, these creators had very rich supporters and very distinct centers of art for their endeavors. Vienna was the center of baroque music, while Rome and Italy is where most people associate the Renaissance movement. New York City itself became a place of innovative art, depending on your "definition" of art. I mean have you seen what dadaism is? If not, look up the Foutain by Marcel Duchamp. When it comes to modern art, most people are familiar with Andy Warhol and his creation of the Campbell's soup labels.

The distribution and consumption of art by "common" people is a recent phenomenon. Prior to the 20th century, art was mostly consumed by those who could afford it. The merchants of Italy, the courts of Vienna, the kings who paid handsomely for their own portraits. Ballets and operas and theater. Even Shakespeare found patronage in the crown, and we still sift through his sonnets centuries later. With the introduction of radio and television, art no longer was limited to the geographical location, but was as consumable as the utilities that distributed them. Jazz music on the radio? The Dick Van Dyke variety show with music? For the first time, the price of admission to enjoy something beautiful became small. Radio is a public good, and basic television is almost there, so we began to see forms of entertainment and expression as the same.

Internet has grown to take much of the audience that TV and radio once did. Remember MySpace? I sure do. Many artists flocked to MySpace to distribute their music and their arts to find patronage. Instead of sponsors seeking artists, it shifted to where the artists now looked for patrons. On the internet, we are the patrons, and the business model has shifted towards artists distributing and work with no promise on payment. The currency is now the amount of views or followers or likes we have acquired through the expression of ourselves on the internet. Everyone's a patron here, but the biggest patrons can influence the crowd.

Networks and production companies are slowly shifting towards the internet to capture viewers and consumers of their product, and artists have done the same. The only quantifiable value is how many people consume it, and who will consume as a result of a work's consumption.  A video has a million views, to network producers, that means a million chances an ad will play, and a million more dollars one company will pay over another to increase exposure. But isn't that what artists are doing too? Without the millions of dollars in pay?

This is where Taylor Swift makes a very good point. Last summer she pulled her music from Spotify, after having written an op-ed about the distribution of music, and the importance of relationships between the fans (patrons) and the artists (… artists, duh). Essentially, she believes that the current experience of music diminishes the value of an artists' expression, and we should ask for the value of our expressions.

Really, her movement into NYC is almost symbolic if you think about how NYC is really one of the first places (aside from Paris), where art was made easier for public consumption. Except now, she's taking a stand and encouraging us to demand the value of ourselves. There are many artists who spend hours of practice perfecting their chords and strokes across paper, the arch of their feet as they bend on stage, for the love of it. Why shouldn't those who do find patronage show them what they're worth? People are always willing to pay for convenience, and spend money on people they love by buying things those people love. What makes this different?

But remember, we've been conditioning ourselves for the past century that creative expressions should be free; and the cost of entry to enjoy them is much smaller than it had been in the past. In fact, we've moved towards feeling entitled to the expressions of someone else, because we aren't willing to pay. Concert experiences were once unique, but as it became cheaper to consume television and radio, and with YouTube available to snap shots of different shows, the value of a live performance became lost. The experience was lost.


It's easy to pirate music, and it's easy to print or save a beautiful picture off the internet to look at later. It isn't "worth" paying for something when you can get it for free right? Right. Taylor Swift made an important statement when she refused to put her recent album on Apple's streaming service. She stated they would not be paying artists for sharing their music for free. We "don't ask for free iPhones."

But we also perceive iPhones to be more valuable because the cost to own one is high, while the cost to consume music and art and human expression has become lower and perceivably cheaper. It has added value because of its versatility in use; creative expression exists mostly to be beautiful. Most people are hesitant to move towards paid streaming services because Youtube is "free" and pirating is "free." Pandora's former executive reminded everyone that all streaming services pay their artists, and it's really the status quo of Silicon Valley. Nothing here is momentous or new. Just more of the same.

The artistic centers of Rome and Vienna have shifted from physical places to being the devices we spend hours on, and the services we consume. We all are still patrons and sponsors of these creative expressions, but the value is now measured in views and likes and followers. Our perception gives them influence, so without it they're nothing. It has always been the patrons who dictated the value of an artist, whether in gold or in digital clicks. The difference now is that we've stripped the artistry of the exclusive experience and the relationship between the patron and the artist. Instead, we've severed this relationship with the screens on our phones and removed the breathing, living, loving person who created the music or art we enjoy.

What makes this whole debate interesting is that Taylor Swift has emphasized the importance of valuing art and expression. Realistically, patrons have always dictated the value of art, and that hasn't changed even now. Why does this make what she's saying important? People have always wanted to create, and art has always been the direct result of this. Children draw and sing and dance because they can. Art exists outside of museum and salons; look at the street art that graces different neighborhoods. Sometimes, we don't need to know the artist to appreciate the art. Look at Banksy, who manipulates and commentates on the current condition of the art world through his anonymous exhibits and expressions. In the inverse, human expression has always existed without an audience, I mean look at Van Gogh or Emily Dickinson or the Foxconn worker who also happened to be a poet. (Foxconn helps to manufacture many smartphones and smartphone parts in case you didn't know.)

This debate doesn't have a clear solution, and that's acceptable too. It will always be a dance of patron and artist diminishing or adding value to human expression. Human expression is universal and as permeating as the air we breathe; a need we don't place value on. When we find ways to express our love, sometimes we can't find the words we need, sometimes shared in the first dances of newlyweds. Doing what we love and doing something valuable shouldn't be mutually exclusive; we've just been taught over the course of our lifetimes that it should be.

The refusal to pay for streaming music services is a passive and quiet reminder that we are the products and the audience at the same time. We may be the audience to music, but someone is always watching us too. We are the products to the companies who advertise through these services, and we are the products if we choose to share our content in these ways. Paying for streaming content can help consumers to dictate their experience with a work of art. It's about reestablishing the relationship between the consumption of art, the artist, and us; humans, people.   

Ultimately, Taylor Swift is defiantly fighting an uphill battle against a society and consumers who may not understand the price of free; by building a relationship with her patrons. Us. The real world is stacked against artists, and the "free" model is the way to go for consumers. While we groan and gripe about paying more to enjoy music, artists will create in spite of it. Companies ask for money to stream it, really so they can better host it for you, but skew the rewards for the people who generate the content through their own cleverness and creativity.

Regardless of art or employment, what we do has value; it's an extension of ourselves after all. What we forget is the first patron for any work is the performer or creator herself. If she loves what she does, and values what she does, why wouldn't she ask that others value her the same way?

Just remember, it never hurts when you first love what you do.

 

 

 

 

 

45

in

Ghosts become us.

We set sail our inscriptions of well written wishes. As the lights left our faces, the night-time traces enveloped us as the fleeting fire found flight. The shadows and we became like the trees that darkness hugged as light was released.

The ghosts watched, these lanterns to the sea, as we released them, like fireflies into the night. 

 

Musings 7: Accountability

in

Today on the radio, the station invited opponents of the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) onto their show. I didn't get to hear much of it, but something that stood out to me was that one of the contributors said, "You'd be surprised, I used to work with the telescopes but changed my mind after I saw that they weren't taking care of it."

I found that thought kind of disheartening. I believe that both our futures and pasts can be reconciled with the right amount of compromise and the right amount of accountability. Part of my problem with the constant protesting is that it's always one way or another. I think there's some fault in both the government and the Native Hawaiian Organizations (NHO). The government for not reaching out to these groups beforehand, and the other group for not taking a more active role in the community and politics (I addressed this in my last blog.) I may be completely wrong about how active the Hawaiian groups may be in the politics, but as I stated with statistics last blog... I don't know. 

I understand the desire to stop TMT, I do. At the same time, I think it's perfectly reasonable to build a telescope on a perfectly formed mountain. I also think that it's very possible to keep sacred a mountain of significance and maintain the veneration towards it when building upon it.

These things come at a cost though. I don't think the unused telescopes should remain, and costs should include the restoration of land that previously housed these telescopes. I am a bit hesitant to completely trust Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), because they're all just statements, and may not have contingency plans for obstacles encountered. I also don't believe that the Hawaiian groups can protest something or complain that something does or doesn't go their way. 

Personally, I would love to see the telescope be built; I think that continuing education and bringing modern day significance to a sacred place is a way to keep something hallowed and sacred. The quest for knowledge and understanding spans all cultures and religions and societies, and it's important that we continue to grow in Hawaii. I feel development can be a way to keep tradition and evolve a culture as long as it's done respectfully.

The government, and perhaps the university, should really look into removing older telescopes as a compromise. Sure it will cost money, but it has the potential to dissipate and dissolve much of the tension and animosity towards previous, current, and new projects on the mountain. Growing up, everyone's heard that we should clean up after ourselves and leave it as we found it. That should be the case here.

I don't think that NHOs should grumble about losing their battle. I think that TMT provides an opportunity to evolve the culture, make it relevant, and also become active participants in shaping the land. What this means for me is probably including NHOs in the development of the EIS, the planning of the project, and should the telescope be built, continued consultation on the maintenance of the telescope.

People sometimes view conflict as bad, and I don't think it's bad. I feel that conflict can be constructive if done in a healthy and respectful way. I think putting opposing groups together can be challenging, but it's important to be challenged. Sometimes in our desires to be right, we find better solutions than the original ones we sought. 

Everyone is responsible for reconciling our pasts and futures, however difficult it may be. People will not always agree, and compromise is necessary. Sometimes, even after we try, one side will win out before the other. That may make for a sour loss on one end, or a well fought one, if lessons are learned. Accountability is key, and unfortunately, I'm not seeing a lot of it here.

Of course, I understand that I'm being naive. It would be nice to see everyone play nice, but the fact of the matter is that people feel strongly about this, and rightfully so. I just hope that there is future courtesy and respect in the continued discussions revolving around this, as well as an active engagement around understanding the opposing side. 

Part of this is just maybe a little selfish. I just imagine as a kid, reading mythology and reading origin stories, and learning about how fascinated ancient cultures were with the gods and the heavens, so much so that they desired to reach for it. The Tower of Babylon in the bible, Icarus in with the sun, and so much more. I feel like the past and the culture and the stories that Hawaiian mythology has to share can inspire and excite a whole new generation to find the same fascination and awe from believing that there's magic somewhere in the earth that can be explained by the story of our origins in the sky. (That was a long sentence). Imagine the cultural renaissance that inspired us to get from there to here, and the contributions that the past can make towards the future. 

Or don't.

The universe is ever growing and living and expanding and if we don't dare to learn more of it, the hard-earned preservation of Hawaiian culture will die with it. Hawaiian sailors navigated the seas with the stars, imagine if the legacy was continued into space. 

To infinity and beyond.  

Musings 5: Thirty Meter Telescope

in

 

As seen on Civil Beat’s Community Voices.

With a lot of the #StopTMT and the #WeAreMaunaKea hashtag activism that is going on in the news, or at least with celebrities, I wanted to discuss, or at least address the complex feelings I have towards the issue. Please note that my spellings and references will likely be wrong, and please correct me if I am. My knowledge is also very limited on some things, so I won’t be able to do anything close to a full and complete analysis.

What is it to preserve a culture?

Some of the arguments I’ve heard against the TMT (Thirty Meter Telescope) involve the desecration of sacred lands. The namesake for the mountain, Mauna Kea is important in Hawaiian culture. I attempted to google it to briefly summarize what its significance is, and it took a bit of time honestly. There weren’t clear stories or places to find the story, everything I tried to Google came up with incomplete or partially relevant results. Give it a try:

  • Mauna Kea origin story

  • Mauna Kea kumulipo (kumulipo is the Hawaiian origin story)

  • Mauna Wakea story

  • kumulipo

Either way, the name, fully expanded, is Mauna a Wakea, Mountain of Wakea. Wakea is the Sky Father. Within Hawaiian culture, this mountain is seen as the first-born, preceding all the Hawaiian Islands and to the Hawaiian people. It continued its significance in Hawaiian culture with Hawaiian royalty burial site and a place of pilgrimage for some Hawaiian people.

Given the passionate discourse about the subject, it’s very clear that this place is of cultural significance.

How do we define what is culturally significant?

Is what is culturally significant a place, or is it a continuous living practice? Is it a living people who practice traditions that preserve it? How are we defining culture for it to be significant and worth preserving?

How does a living culture evolve?

Obviously, or maybe not so obviously, culture is made by its origin and its future. How a culture goes about surviving is an entirely different matter.

The methods by which countries have reconciled their past, future and present selves vary widely. China at some point in the past century destroyed many historical relics in an effort to modernize and cast away traditional thinking. Yet, many countries in Asia have rich traditions that have persisted through time: Diwali in India, Songkran in Thailand, and Hanami in Japan. Within the Middle East, where religion and culture are both ubiquitous and synonymous, Jewish tradition and Islamic tradition permeate the lifestyles.

Part of what preserves a culture, maybe ironically is in what ways it evolves or doesn’t. The previously listed cultures survived in spite of continued and persisting warfare, conquest, and diaspora. How do we compare it to something dead?

Roman culture is dead. It doesn’t exist by itself, but exists through what has evolved from it. We don’t run around speaking Latin (well, most of us), but we have forms of government that have evolved from it, or languages. Modern languages have actual sentence structure, whereas before, finding the meaning of a sentence was difficult with arbitrarily placed words and declensions.

The Vandals and the Goths conquered Romans and their culture was essentially wiped out. Right? Right. That’s what we’re told to understand, but history always has been written by the winners. Any time we’ve “learned” history, it’s always been from the side of the winners. From the takeover of China by the Mongols to the conquistadors in South America, this has thematically occurred again and again in history. The long reaching effects of imperialism made its way to Hawaii in the 1800s and many of the Pacific Islands.

What makes this conflict about the TMT interesting is that much of the protesting still goes back to what is considered by many the illegal annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States. The events that have transpired cannot be undone and the repercussions of what’s outside of the status quo are innumerable and unpredictable. I’m more interested in the reconciliation of Hawaii’s past and present.

Hawaii has a bit of a dichotomy because the culture is both honored and sometimes commoditized, but one could argue so are many other cultures. It’s what makes Hawaii, Hawaii. Hawaiian culture “lost” but isn’t lost, like the Romans from before. This culture has the rare opportunity to remain relevant in its original form, instead of transforming and altering itself. 

When I went to New Zealand, I found that New Zealand, even with a “modern” democracy still had many immersion schools, kura kaupapa. Within these schools the Māori traditions and expectations remained, and it was fascinating to hear from my friend how important becoming a kaitiaki is. They’re people who choreograph the kapa hakas. In fact, she said it’s a great honor to be a kaitiaki, as well as people that are involved in the dances, or the costume making. She had explained how there’s a competition similar to the Merrie Monarch that’s equally as prestigious.

It’s fascinating to think considering almost similar circumstances, that the presence of Māori culture is so permeating when compared to the circumstances revolving around our own island society. Is it the slow annexation and separation of New Zealand from Australia when compared to the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy by the greed of capitalism? Or was it the sheer number of unified Māori that banded together? Is the inability to form one cohesive and unified group because of the distance in between groups scattered across Hawaii’s archipelago? The islands own history tells the story of unifying under one King, but even he didn’t unify all of Hawaii (see: Kauai). But maybe it’s simpler than that.

Where is the voice of Hawaii?

Voter turnout in Hawaii is low and keeps getting lower. As it stands now, only 36.5% of eligible voters actually voted during 2014. It's gotten to the point where the state is considering mail in voting to hopefully increase voter participation. How many of the people who voted are Hawaiian? How many Hawaiians didn’t vote? The majority isn’t speaking, and while people are asking why, I don’t think they’re asking the right questions. Why is there disinterest and apathy in our island home?

The voice of the Hawaiian people, the advocates for the Hawaiian culture, lies dormant. It’s only when something disagreeable comes up that we hear it. Where is the voice when something is agreeable and respectful towards the culture? How is the current government to navigate the nuances of Hawaiian culture if it’s being reduced to an afterthought? If the culture is to remain relevant and present, it needs to engage in the present. The stories of the past will only become stories and the culture will be lost because their opinions will be reduced to shrill in the background when compared to the booming voices of the minority who actively vote and engage.

I understand and acknowledge that many disagree with the annexation of Hawaii, but we’re no closer to a solution for it when the majority of people simply don’t care. How are the people who believe so strongly in preserving the islands placing the values of Hawaii?

It’s important for the people who advocate for the Hawaiian culture ask themselves what is considered important? What is considered valuable? Where is the consistency in the approach of what we value?

Mauna Kea is a sacred Hawaiian site for rituals and within Hawaiian lore. Its protests are documented through social media activism, but a quick search of “stop tmt” brings me nothing. Hawaiians have banded together to protest a Thirty Meter Telescope that aims to bring all of mankind scientific advancement. Their concerns for the environment are sound and are also concerns of mine, but where were the interest and concern when the telescope was first proposed? I’m sure many would say they weren’t asked about the location, but did many of them offer either? Celebrities are showing their support for the cause, but do they understand the cause as well as the Hawaiian people? Do they understand the nuances of our local government and the push and pull between government relics and tradition as the tides of the sea?

I doubt it. I asked a close friend what he thought of #StopTMT as he moved from here to Boston. His response?

“Honestly, I don’t care.”

The cause that is being so strongly fought for has been reduced to a hashtag in a society that believes the only voices of importance exist on the Internet, not in the environment from which they take in the sun and breathe in the salty bitter air. Salty and bitter is all we’ll be if there is continued apathy and no organization in the arbitrary protests that somehow magically occur. There isn’t a need to let the winners continue to write history, when the same internet that gives us hastag activism also gives everyone an equal voice when used productively.

If the health of the islands is prioritized, where is the protesting against the developments in Kakaako? Oahu is the most populated of all the Hawaiian Islands, and with increasing population growth, how will our island sustain all the people? Where is the voice to speak out against this? Will the voices come too late? With the latency between government decisions and active protesting, I'm inclined to say yes. 

I question the consistency of the protests and consistency needs to come with a consistent presence in the current dealings of the “illegal” government. Illegal or not, the decisions made by them and the minority that votes happen without consent and they need to be questioned and challenged so that the islands have continued growth.

As I’ve written this, I’ve come back to the question of this, what does surviving and winning look like to Hawaii?

I don’t believe the all or nothing approach that has been taken is the way to go, and much of the reason I brought up the Asian cultures is because somehow, the past compromises with the future. Without the past, Hawaii loses its identity and what bonds it to other Pacific Island nations. The future will come, with our without the reverence for relics of the past, no matter how much we try to fight it. The voice of Hawaii needs to be present, and like the characters of myth: adaptable, clever, strong, and resilient.

Hawaiian culture looks to revere and honor tradition, and rightfully so. Many cultures look to do this respectfully, albeit differently. How do we honor the old gods in the modern world? Through oral traditions preserved in the continuous repetition, continued reverence towards sacred sites, and being everything that we can be. Isn’t it very possible that somewhere sacred in Hawaiian culture be revered in the present by giving it continued importance?

Two opposing ideologies can coexist and be both equally important and relevant and sacred. Science and tradition don’t have to exist exclusively of each other, even though it’s easier to believe in only one being right. It eliminates the need to actively engage in the situation and analyze the complexities. To be active participants in the current society, the voice of Hawaii needs to find itself and not let the minority continue to speak for it.

Hawaii is not just one place, but a chain of islands each with different identities and ghost stories and idiosyncrasies. I’ve talked about culture and its perpetuation, but even with tradition, languages, dances, and songs, they’re lifeless without one thing:

The people who celebrate it.

We are not Mauna Kea. We should not reduce the importance of the culture to a single place. Hawaii is under our feet and with the pidgin that we speak and the air that we breathe. The people of Hawaii need to have open and fair dialogue to both protect the traditions and continue the relevance and importance of the island chain. Without that, our old ways will become an quiet echo in the strong oral traditions that this culture celebrates.

 

We are not Mauna Kea. We are Hawaii and we need to start acting like it.