SCIENTIFIC COLONIALISM IN INDIGENOUS SPACES: A CASE STUDY IN HAWAI´I by ANNA CORDOVA B.A., University of Colorado at Colorado Springs A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Geography and Environmental Studies 2016 This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by Anna M. Cordova has been approved for the Department of Geography and Environmental Studies by _______________________________ Emily Skop, Chair ________________________________ Minette C. Church ________________________________ David Havlick ii Contents Figures ............................................................................................................................................ iv Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... v Hawaiian terms ............................................................................................................................ v Acronyms .................................................................................................................................... vi Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Literature Review............................................................................................................................. 2 Background .................................................................................................................................... 10 Research Questions, Methods, and Analysis ................................................................................. 16 Results ............................................................................................................................................ 21 Mauna Kea Summit, Hawai´i, Island – TMT Project ................................................................ 21 Haleakalā, Maui Island –ATST Project ..................................................................................... 35 Moku´ula/Mokuhinia Restoration –Lāhainā, Maui Island ......................................................... 43 Interviews with Community Members ...................................................................................... 51 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 54 Persistent Colonialism ............................................................................................................... 54 The Value of Alternative Sciences ............................................................................................ 58 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 64 References ...................................................................................................................................... 66 Appendix ........................................................................................................................................ 74 iii Figures Figure 1 – The Cultural Impact Assessment Process…………………………………….16 Figure 2 – Mauna Kea Observatories and site of proposed TMT project……………….22 Figure 3 – ATST being constructed on Haleakalā……………………………………….37 Figure 4 – A satellite image of the proposed restoration area with an overlay of proposed project plans………………………………………………………………………………...……45 Figure 5 – Protesters of TMT block construction vehicles on Mauna Kea……………...57 iv Glossary Hawaiian terms ahu—altar, shrine (generally made of stacked stone) ahupua´a—traditional Hawaiian land division extending from the mountains to the ocean ´āina—land ali´i—Hawaiian royalty ´aumakua—a Hawaiian deity in the form of an animal kanaka maoli—a Native Hawaiian person kapu—sacred, prohibited, or consecrated Kumu Lipo—the Hawaiian creation story limu—seaweed lo´i kalo—taro patches loko—pond makai—toward the sea mana´o—wisdom, knowledge mauka—inland mauna—mountain mele—traditional Hawaiian poem or chant mo´o—lizard na kanaka—the people (referring to Hawaiian people) ´ohana—family piko—umbilical cord, navel, center wahi la´a—highly sacred place wahi pana—a place of the gods wao akua—a place inhabited by spirits v Acronyms ATST—Advanced Technology Solar Telescope BLNR—Board of Land and Natural Resources CIA—Cultural Impact Assessment CMP—Comprehensive Management Plan DKIST—Daniel K. Inouye Solar Telescope EA—Environmental Assessment EIS—Environmental Impact Statement FOM—Friends of Moku´ula HO—Haleakalā High Altitude Observatories IFR—Integrated Feasibility Report KOH—Kilakila ´O Haleakalā MCC—Maui Community College NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act NSF—National Science Foundation OEQC—Office of Environmental Quality Control OHA—Office of Hawaiian Affairs PASH—Public Access Shoreline Hawai´i SHL—Session Law of Hawai´i TCP—Traditional Cultural Property TMK—Tax Map Key TMT—Thirty Meter Telescope USACE—United States Army Corps of Engineers UH—University of Hawai´i vi Introduction Using a case study of three key sites in the State of Hawai´i, this research explores the effectiveness of certain legal regulations designed to ensure the protection of key cultural and natural resources that are considered important to indigenous communities. This research analyzes environmental impact assessment documents and interviews with Native Hawaiian individuals to explore the efficacy of these State and Federal regulations. The three sites were specifically chosen because they are considered extremely sacred to many Native Hawaiian people. The results of this analysis illustrate that these regulations are not always adequately heeding the indigenous connections with and concerns about these spaces. Results of this research reveal that, due to the required legal proceedings in the state, Native Hawaiians and their advocates are technically able to clearly communicate their concerns in these legal contexts. However, the results also disclose that mainstream, non-indigenous worldviews often take precedence in these proceedings, and Native Hawaiian voices are marginalized to the point that they often have little to no sway in government decisions about the approval permits that allow for petitioning agencies to proceed with plans. Oftentimes, these plans end up having a detrimental impact on cultural resources. By viewing this research through a geographic lens, it is possible that this research will contribute to geography by illustrating indigenous notions of geography within the context of legal spaces like Environmental Impact Statements (EIS). In terms of broader significance, this research may assist both indigenous groups and scientists/agencies to better communicate by recognizing variations in different 1 geographies and ways of knowing and employing them in geographic research and planning. Literature Review Social geographers have long been aware of their work’s impact upon indigenous people (Desbiens & Ruddick, 2006; Godlewska & Smith, 1995; Katz, 1992; Kobayashi & Peake, 2006; Panelli, 2008; Shaw, et al., 2006). The nature of this discipline has often brought to the forefront indigenous struggles with sovereignty and ongoing colonialism. However, scholarly interest has increasingly recognized the role of the social sciences in propagating modern-day colonialism (neo-colonialism). Thus the focus has turned to topics that include the need to decolonize the discipline, ways in which this can be accomplished, benefits of decolonization of geography, and potential impacts this can have on both indigenous and non-indigenous peoples (Coombes & Howitt, 2012a; Desbiens & Ruddick, 2006; Gibson, 2006; Godlewska & Smith, 1995; Katz, 1992; Kobayashi & Peake, 2000; Panelli, 2008; Shaw, et al., 2006). While the terms “Western worldview” and “indigenous/Native worldview” are massively oversimplified, this paper utilizes them to speak in general terms about the conflicting views that are found in the research material. There is sometimes push-back over the binarism in comparing Western vs. indigenous epistemologies. In his book The Settler Complex: Recuperating Binarism in Colonial Studies, anthropologist Patrick Wolfe defends this terminology, writing “But the existence of major differentiations within settler (and, for that matter, within Native) societies does not alter the binary nature of the Native/settler divide. The respective differentiations are of different orders” 2 (2016, p. 2). Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) also discusses this noting that for indigenous people, the nuances of Western cultures are irrelevant when it comes to how many Western scientists conduct research on native people and spaces. In this way, the use of these terms does not ignore the heterogeneity of Western cultures and Native cultures, but is employed to study colonial repercussions on Native people. The term “decolonization of geography” is meant to convey the idea that traditional geographers have generally approached the discipline from a Western, imperialistic mindset (Clayton, 2003; Gibson, 2006; Shaw, et al., 2006). Therefore, the decolonization of geography would require researchers to view geography through different lenses –namely, indigenous viewpoints in how geography is thought about, spoken about, and conveyed to both insiders and outsiders of indigenous