Land Rights on Mauna Kea

Instructor Introduction

Indigenous peoples around the world have lost most of the land that was historically under their stewardship. For example, the University of Michigan campus in Ann Arbor is comprised of lands traditionally belonging to the Anishinaabeg and Wyandot people. Another place of significance to Indigenous peoples that has been utilized by public institutions, is the summit of Mauna Kea on the island of Hawai‛i. Undisputed as the best location on the planet to conduct astronomical observations, Mauna Kea is a place of great cultural, ecological, and religious importance. Kathryn Hunter’s essay explores the environmental, historical, and legal context regarding the stewardship of Mauna Kea. It is an important contribution to current discourse surrounding Indigenous land rights and the use of these lands by public institutions, as well as the specific case of astronomy on Mauna Kea. She concludes by encouraging us to prioritize Indigenous voices in such conversations, as part of an on-going effort to realize the ideals on which the United States was founded.

- Michael Meyer

Land Rights om Mauna Kea: A Case Study on Indigenous Sovereignty, Environmental Preservation, and Reparatory Justice

Abstract

Mauna Kea is the ideal location for astronomical observations in the world; however, concerns over environmental preservation and land rights have been setting back the construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) and discouraging future additions of other new observatories. To understand the complexities of these issues, we examined the intentions of management plans for Mauna Kea in comparison to the actual environmental impacts. Additionally, we gathered maps of historical sites, cultural records, legal documents on land rights, court rulings on Indigenous sovereignty, and descriptions of relevant historical events to establish both context and the significance of Mauna Kea to Native Hawaiians. From the accumulation of these resources, we concluded that ensuring that only Native Hawaiians have the right to determine land usage on Mauna Kea supports Indigenous sovereignty, environmental preservation, and reparatory justice.

1 Introduction

For Native Hawaiian people, the summit of Mauna Kea is the place where creation began. According to Hawaiian culture, the now-dormant volcano is the first born of Papahānaumoku (She who is the foundation birthing islands) and Wākea (He who is the wide expanse of the heavens), because it is the place where the Earth meets the Sky.¹ The distinction of Mauna Kea as a wahi pana (sacred place) comes from the Native Hawaiians’ connection to the ‘aina (land) as their family, with Mauna Kea being regarded as the first kupana (elder).² Although Native Hawaiians have a rich cultural history, the tradition of passing on this history through story-telling and hula dancing is often misunderstood and subsequently disrespected by Americans and other foreigners. Many mo‘olelo (cultural stories passed down orally) and mele (chants, songs, and poems) revolve around Mauna Kea.³ In one story, a fight between a snow goddess and volcano goddess was quelled when the volcano goddess left the summit to the snow goddess, and the volcano lying dormant for thousands of years displays the strength of this promise to make peace.⁴ Native Hawaiian history is rich in both culture and in resistance movements. This culture of resistance began with the fight of the Hawaiian monarchy against the encroaching power of foreign missionaries and plantation owners, continued with the resistance to US annexation, and persists today with the movement against the desecration of Mauna Kea.

The story of Native Hawaiians losing the rights to their land starts in the late nineteenth century, when the Hawaiian monarchy began to lose power to American missionaries and plantation owners.⁵ In 1893, the missionaries and plantation owners with support from the US Navy overthrew the last monarch of Hawai‘i, Queen Lili‘uokalani.⁶ Five years later, the United States annexed the islands. The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921 assured the Hawaiian people that the land they ‘ceded’ to the United States would be protected and managed solely for Native Hawaiian benefit.⁷ However, construction on a road to the summit of Mauna Kea began in the 1930s with the goal of attracting upper class North American and European tourists with the prospect of skiing.⁸ After Hawai‘i became a US state in 1959, tourism on the islands increased even further. As tourism began to dominate the areas of the big island by the shores, Mauna Kea grew even more symbolic to Native Hawaiians as a stronghold of their culture while they were being pushed increasingly further away from the shoreline and towards the summit.⁹ Around this same time, astronomers became aware of the ideal observing conditions at the summit of Mauna Kea.¹⁰ The summit’s 4,205 meter elevation minimizes seeing, and the air quality is consistently dry and clear.¹¹ About a decade later, the first telescope at the summit of Mauna Kea began operation.¹² The rise in foreign presence in Hawai‘i, the pollution resulting from this tourism and occupation, and the desecration of their sacred Mauna Kea kindled a Native Hawaiian resistance that advocated for environmental preservation and Hawaiian sovereignty. 

Growing native resistance against the presence of businessmen, government officials, and astronomers on the sacred land of Mauna Kea experienced a boom during the last decade. In 2015, construction of the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) was halted by first hundreds and then thousands of kia‘i (Native Hawaiian protectors of the land).¹³ During these protests, the kia‘i blocked the road to the summit. By overtaking the access road, the kia‘i reclaimed the stronghold of Native Hawaiian culture at the base of Mauna Kea’s summit. We cannot deny that the Mauna Kea summit is a premier location for astronomical observation. However, the political history behind land usage rights on Mauna Kea cannot be ignored. As John Johnson, an astronomer at Harvard University, states, “This goes way beyond whether we construct this telescope or not. It has to do with the fact that the United States stole Hawaii from a sovereign people and proceeded to systematically erase that culture.”¹⁴ The overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy was a continuation of the global history of colonialism. Just as Europeans conquered the Americas, the annexation of Hawai‘i was a “discovery” and seizure of a land that was already occupied by another people. When we, as non-Native-Hawaiians, make resolutions about land usage on Mauna Kea and disregard indigenous sovereignty in the process, we are continuing the United States’ history of colonization. Although many astronomers view the Native protests as a front against scientific advancement, the protests are not against the TMT in particular. Instead, the kia‘i are fighting for respect for Indigenous culture, the preservation of sacred Native lands, the protection of their environment, and the sovereignty of their people.

In this paper, we will compare the good intentions behind Mauna Kea management plans to the actual environmental repercussions, establish the cultural and historical significance of Mauna Kea to Native Hawaiians, analyze legal documents and court rulings on Indigenous land rights, and discuss historical events. Then, we will discuss the connections between the environmental preservation and Indigenous sovereignty movements, the methods of supporting Indigenous sovereignty in Hawai‘i in particular and the United States as a whole, the importance of preserving and respecting cultural heritage, and the necessity of learning from our history to avoid repeating past mistakes.

2 Methods

The methodology of gathering sources focused on environmental impact, cultural and historical significance, legal precedent on Indigenous land rights, and historical documents. Before the discussion of the research can begin, the limitations faced when gathering resources must be acknowledged. Perspectives or insights might have been missed due to personal, implicit bias. Although objectivity was prioritized in the gathering of resources in order to provide full context and a variety of perspectives before presenting an argument, the vocabulary used to search for relevant information and the selection of resources inherently depend on implicit bias. 

2.1 Comparing Management Intentions and Actual Environmental Repercussions

The Final Environmental Impact Statement for the TMT project from 2010 is a necessary resource to discuss, because it “presents existing environmental conditions, analyzes the potential effects of the project, and identifies proposed measures to minimize potential adverse impacts.”¹⁵ The TMT Final Environmental Impact Statement and the Mauna Kea Comprehensive Management Plan are used to display the good intentions of management plans to consider environmental factors and mitigate contamination.^{16 17} However, we also gathered resources which revealed that some environmental contamination occurred regardless of these good intentions. These resources included a list of the threats to resources in the Mauna Kea Comprehensive Management Plan, records of hazardous material spills, and a State Audit of the Management of Mauna Kea and the Mauna Kea Science Reserve, which found the University of Hawai‘i’s management of the MKSR inadequate to protect natural resources, preserve historic sites and cultural heritage, and control public access.^{18 19 20 21}

2.2 Cultural and Historical Importance

Because Native Hawaiian cultural history was largely passed down through oral story-telling and hula dancing, in which the movement of the dancers told a cultural story, Native Hawaiian cultural records do not meet Western standards or expectations. As a result, Westerners often misunderstand and disrespect Native Hawaiian culture. However, this does not make native Hawaiian cultural documentation any less viable or important, only more difficult to cite. From the TMT Final Environmental Impact Statement, we pulled lists of cultural practices and beliefs related to Mauna Kea and maps of cultural and historical sites that were considered as factors in the proposed construction of the TMT.²²

Another source that was studied in our research was the documentary Mauna Kea - Temple Under Siege.²³ The independent video production team Na Maka o ka `Aina (The Eyes of the Land), composed of Puhipau and Joan Lander, spent five years capturing the stories behind Mauna Kea’s geologic and cultural history, the resistance fighting to protect the sacred mountain, and the ways in which the Native Hawaiian belief system connects with Mauna Kea.²⁴ Although the documentary is rich with information, our paper will not describe in detail all the cultural practices outlined in the film. Instead, we will use some examples and our conclusions from the documentary to highlight the significance of Mauna Kea to Native Hawaiian culture.

2.3 Documents on Indigenous Land Rights

To examine the legal precedent for Indigenous land rights in the United States, we analyzed the “Marshall Trilogy” of Supreme Court rulings, the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921, the Rice v. Cayetano Supreme Court case, and Chapter 205 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes.^{25 26 27 28 29 30} In most cases, the ideal of self-determination was used in support of Indigenous sovereignty, but the actual actions of the US government and the experiences of Indigenous peoples following these rulings and legislations did not display this same support of Indigenous rights. In analyzing these resources, we tried to lay out a timeline of court decisions and legislations that outlined both the legal and public opinion on Indigenous land rights over time.

2.4 Historical Events

The history of the United States is one of colonialism. By examining the documents that resist this colonialist history, our research hopes to answer the question of whether the construction on Mauna Kea is advancing our society or repeating past mistakes. In the book An Indigenous Peoples’ History of the United States by Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, the history of the United States is told from the perspective of Indigenous people, revealing a centuries-long genocide that is often omitted from or abridged in history books.³¹ This source is important to include, because the debate over the land rights and usage on Mauna Kea must be considered within the context of the colonial history of the United States, specifically as it relates to the occupation and annexation of Hawai‘i. Another source, Say We Are Nations: Documents of Politics and Protest in Indigenous America Since 1887 is an anthology curated by Daniel M. Cobb of letters, congressional testimonies, interviews, excerpts from autobiographies, essays, and lectures. This collection of fifty-five documents from Indigineous activists, intellectuals, and tribal leaders that led the protests and resistance movements that opposed US colonialism and encouraged Indiginous sovereignty.³²

3 Results 

From the collected documents on legal and historical precedents, a pattern emerges of well-intentioned plans and decisions that are inadequately executed. In addition, the public’s disregard of Indigenous sovereignty and Native Hawaiian culture can be connected to historical events and misunderstandings about the process of passing down Native Hawaiian culture through storytelling and hula dancing.

3.1 Comparing Management Intentions and Actual Environmental Repercussions

In the TMT Final Environmental Impact Statement, the proposed location lies within the Mauna Kea Science Reserve (MKSR).³³ In the MKSR, there are 263 historical properties, including shrines and burials; two ecosystems, the Alpine Stone Desert and the Alpine Shrublands and Grasslands; and an endangered species, the Mauna Kea silversword.³⁴ In addition, the MKSR is home to the Wēiku bug, which is currently a candidate for being listed as an endangered species, and the Douglas’ bladder fern, which is a species of concern for the US Fish and Wildlife Service.³⁵ Although the Astronomy precinct within the MKSR does not include the Mauna Kea silversword habitat, it does house the habitat of the Wēiku bug, as seen in Figure 3.1. ³⁶

According to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the site for the TMT was chosen to avoid the habitats of endangered or threatened species, minimize the impact on Wēiku bugs and other indigenous Hawaiian species.³⁸ Similar to the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the Mauna Kea Comprehensive Management Plan lists threats to resources from various operations on Mauna Kea, as seen in Table 3.1, and describes management strategies for each of these threats.³⁹ However, the Mauna Kea Comprehensive Management Plan also lists the hazardous material spills from astronomy operations on Mauna Kea from 1979 to 2008, as seen in Table 3.2, which were not prevented by previous management plans.⁴⁰

Table 3.1: Threats to Resources by Various Operations on Mauna Kea

Table 3.2: Spills Associated with Astronomy Operations on Mauna Kea

In the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the impact on Native Hawaiian cultural practices is determined according to Hawaiian Revised Statutes (HRS) Chapter 343. For those who believe that “astronomy and cultural practices can co-exist, the Project’s cultural impact will be less than significant;” while for those who believe that any disturbance of Mauna Kea by non-Native Hawaiians is unmitigatable, the cultural impact is significant.⁵⁷ The Final Environmental Impact Statement considers the cultural impact mitigatable, and lists mitigation measures. These measures include 

• placing the telescope where it is not visible from culturally significant locations,
• designing the access way options to reduce the impact to cultural resources,
• implementing a mandatory Cultural and Natural Resources Training Program for all employees,
• furnishing the Project in a way that acknowledges Native Hawaiian culture,
• minimizing daytime activities on up to four days per year that are culturally significant to Native Hawaiians, and 
• developing exhibits regarding cultural and archeological resources.⁵⁸

The rich history behind the cultural practices listed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement is often lost in translation between Native Hawaiians and Westerners. The methods of transmitting this culture, through mo'olelo (storytelling) and mele (chanting with or without dancing), are unfamiliar to the Western perspective.⁵⁹ In the documentary Mauna Kea - Temple Under Siege, the cultural history of Hawai‘i is illustrated, conveying this culture in a way that is more conducive to its methods of transmitting traditions and beliefs across generations.⁶⁰ The film interviews kupana (elders) in order to gather traditional mo'olelos (cultural stories) and captures meles, which can be in the form of hula (a chant and dance) or oli (a chant without a dance).⁶¹ This structure mirrors the way Native Hawaiian children would learn of their cultural history by listening to stories told by their kupana (elders), by attending community events where meles were performed, or by learning the art of hula at a hālau (authentic hula school) from a kumu hula (hula teacher recognized and renowned within the community).⁶² In representing the culture in the way it is normally passed down, the documentary combats the Western lack of education and sensitivity on Native Hawaiian culture that causes the disregard and disrespect for their cultural traditions, beliefs, and sacred lands. Through this film, the opinions of both scientists and Native Hawaiians are presented, with scholars of Hawaiian culture, kupana (elders), and other Native Hawaiians expressing their view of the Western activity on Mauna Kea as sacrilege. On the other side, the scientists assert that, with the inclusion of management and mitigation plans, the impact on the environment and the disturbances to the historical, archeological, and cultural sites are insignificant in comparison to the scientific advancements that can be made using this prime astronomical location.

3.3 Documents on Indigenous Land Rights

Over two centuries, the public perspective on Indigenous land rights can be drawn from supreme court rulings and legal documents. To begin with, the “Marshall Trilogy” set the legal precedent in the American judicial system on the subject of Indigenous sovereignty. Within a decade, the Supreme Court made three separate rulings that were conflicted in their support or denial of Indigenous sovereignty. First, Johnson v. McIntosh (1823) ruled that the right to sell and manage land was given to the United States government rather than Native Americans.⁶³ The Supreme Court cited the “Doctrine of Discovery” from 1493, which gave land rights to those who discovered lands not inhabited by Christians and not to the original residents.⁶⁴ Next, the Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia (1831) case questioned whether Georgia legislation that put the Cherokee people under the governance of state-elected officials was constitutional.⁶⁵ However, the Supreme Court was able to avoid addressing the issue of Indigenous sovereignty by claiming they did not have jurisdiction over the issue, because the Cherokee nation was not a foreign nation.⁶⁶ However, the last case in the “Marshall Trilogy,” Worcester vs. Georgia (1832), did not allow for this loophole.⁶⁷ In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee Nation was sovereign and any State legislation governing the Cherokee Nation was void.⁶⁸ At first glance, this progression of rulings might appear to show a shift in the legal and public opinion on Indigenous sovereignty. However, although this ruling supported Indigenous sovereignty, the actions of the US government at the time opposed the progress made with this case. The Supreme Court’s decision did not affect the enforcement of Congress’ Indian Removal Act of 1830, which authorized the President to force the Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw, Choctaw, and Seminole Nations to relocate from the Southeast to the West.⁶⁹

A century later, the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921 attempted to protect the land rights of Native Hawaiians.⁷⁰ The act was passed to encourage self-sufficiency, self-determination, and cultural preservation for Native Hawaiians by ensuring that Native Hawaiians have access to land “for the benefit and use of Native Hawaiians.”⁷¹ However, the lands that are protected under this act make up only a small percentage of the islands, as seen in Figure 3.3 below.⁷² In addition, a promise made by the US government in 1995 to provide reparations to Native Hawaiians in the form of housing on these Hawaiian Homelands has not been adequately met; 23,000 Native Hawaiians were still on the residential waitlist in 2020.⁷³ In 1991, housing problems for Native Hawaiian households were 11 percent more common than for non-Native households.⁷⁴ The highest incidence of housing problems, 68 percent, was experienced by low income Native Hawaiian households.⁷⁵ If 23,000 Native Hawaiians are still on the waitlist, these high percentages of housing problems have not been resolved.

In Supreme Court cases of more recent decades, the rulings have similarly conflicted in their dismissal or support of Indigenous sovereignty and land rights. In McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020), the Court decided that three million acres of land in Eastern Oklahoma were to remain a Native Reservation of the Muscogee Nation.⁷⁷ In contrast, the Rice v. Cayetano case in 2000 criticized a requirement of Native Hawaiian ancestry to vote for the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA).⁷⁸ The Opinion of the Court stated that this requirement for voting rights of lineage from those who resided in Hawai‘i prior to European arrival in 1778 was unconstitutional.⁷⁹

Today, the determination of land usage is granted to a land use commission of nine members. Of these nine members, one must have “substantial experience or expertise in traditional Hawaiian land usage and knowledge of cultural land practices.”⁸⁰ According to the 2014 State Audit, Kahu Kū Mauna Council, which translates as “Guardians of the Mountain,” advises on the management of Mauna Kea.⁸¹ Made up of nine Native Hawaiian volunteer members, the council was created to encourage respect for the sacredness of Mauna Kea and give recommendations according to Hawaiian cultural practices, traditions, and landmarks.⁸² However, this council is an advisory board and does not have decision-making power.

3.4 Further Reading About Relevant Historical Events

As revealed in An Indigenous People’s History of the United States, this history of our nation is plagued with erroneous Western assumptions that have been passed down for generations, deliberate disruptions of the Indigenous way of life, and the calculated genocide of the Indigenous people.⁸³ The immorality of this history and the necessary actions to avoid repeating these past mistakes are outlined in many revolutionary documents written by activist groups and individuals. One of these activist documents is “My Own Nation (1889)” by Queen Lili‘uokalani, the last monarch of Hawai‘i.⁸⁴ Queen Lili‘uokalani advocated against the US annexation of Hawai‘i, excited an ongoing resistance movement, and is hailed in Hawaiian history to this day for her commitment to her people and her fight for the continuation of Native Hawaiian independence.⁸⁵ Another source, the “Declaration of Continuing Independence” charged the US government with violating the treaties created to dictate Native land rights.⁸⁶

In Martin Luther King Jr. 's book Why We Can’t Wait, the Reverend calls for the change in national policy considering the Indigenous population and the shift in public perspective of our treatment of the Indigenous peoples.⁸⁷ He writes,

“Our nation was born in genocide when it embraced the doctrine that the original American, the Indian, was an inferior race…We are perhaps the only nation which tried as a matter of national policy to wipe out its Indigenous population. Moreover, we elevated that tragic experience into a noble crusade. Indeed, even today we have not permitted ourselves to reject or feel remorse for this shameful episode. Our literature, our films, our drama, our folklore all exalt it.”⁸⁸

King not only criticizes the treatment of Indigenous Nations, but also traces the root of racism in our country to its origins in the colonization of the Indigenous population of the Americas.⁸⁹ Furthermore, he questions the national propaganda that paints the genocide of Natives as a “noble crusade” that brought civilization and Christianity to helpless peoples (i.e. “Manifest Destiny”).⁹⁰

To support the Indigenous sovereignty encouraged in these activists’ writings, Clyde Warrior listed three courses of action in “To Survive as a People.”⁹¹

1. Decision-making power over Indigenous lives should be in the hands of the Indigenous people rather than those of the US government, 
2. Existing treaties should not be violated or disregarded, and
3. Economic and education systems within Indigenous communities should be radically restructured.⁹²

Warrior believed that these three courses of action were necessary to rebuild the Indigenous community and make amends for past wrongdoings.⁹³

4 Discussion and Implications

From the debate over land rights on Mauna Kea, the larger issues of environmental preservation, Indigenous sovereignty, and reparatory justice emerge. By ensuring that Native Hawaiians have the right to decide land usage on Mauna Kea, these issues can be brought to the public’s attention on a larger scale. Although the processes for preserving the environment, restoring Indigenous sovereignty, and establishing reparatory justice that could be used in Hawai‘i cannot necessarily be applied globally, the prioritization of these issues in this debate has the potential to set a standard around the world.

4.1 Prioritizing Environmental Preservation

As documented by the State of Hawai‘i Audit on the Management of the MKSR and the records of contaminant spills, there is always the possibility of unintended, uncontrollable mishaps.^{94 95} These mistakes can harm the local environment, even when well-intentioned plans and procedures have been put into place. No matter where observatories are built, contamination is a possibility that can be prepared for but rarely prevented entirely. An argument can be made that because there is a possibility of contamination anywhere, the location of observatories is inconsequential. However, we believe that the possibility of environment contamination only further supports the idea that the opinions of people native and local to that environment should be prioritized, because they will be affected the most by the pollution of their environment. 

In the United States, the Indigenous Rights and environmental preservation movements are intertwined. Before the colonization of the Americas, the Native peoples were a network of nations that all had sustainable, powerful relationships with the land. A strong understanding of nature was deeply rooted in Indigenous farming and hunting techniques. One example is the three sisters technique, in which Native people plant corn, beans, and squash in the same plot, because each of the crops encouraged the growth of the other two plants.⁹⁶ In addition, Native peoples depended on and lived in harmony with the bison, until the US government encouraged a mass hunting of American Bison in the mid- to late- 19th century.⁹⁷ By reducing the bison population from tens of millions to just hundreds, the US government continued its genocide of the Indigenous people.⁹⁸ Today, our monoculture farming and endangerment of species is a corrupted version of the relationship people once had with these lands. 

4.2 Respecting Native Historical and Cultural Sites

The sacred status and historical significance of Mauna Kea within Native Hawaiian culture should protect the land as a cultural and historical landmark. The mountain plays a significant role in cultural stories, dances, songs, poems, and traditions. Because of its cultural importance to the Native Hawaiian people, land usage on Mauna Kea should be under the jurisdiction of Native Hawaiians. Although steps like the Kahu Kū Mauna Council are in the right direction, respecting Native Hawaiian culture must be prioritized even more.⁹⁹

In the wider United States, landmarks that are sacred to Native peoples must be protected and preserved. Ultimately, Indigenous people should have land rights over sacred and culturally significant lands. Before that level of autonomy is achieved, tourism and construction on those lands that have been approved by non-Natives should be limited and, ideally, halted. Across the United States, sacred sites like Mauna Kea are being desecrated and disrespected. To begin reparations for our past genocide of Native peoples, destruction of their lands, disrespect of their culture, and desecration of their sacred sites, we must preserve these sacred lands until Indigenous sovereignty is restored.

4.3 Restoring Indigenous Sovereignty

Although America is known as a land of immigrants, we cannot forget that our country was formed and expanded through the genocide of Native peoples. This history cannot be rewritten. However, the hypocritical foundation of our country on the ideals of freedom and self-determination that were accomplished through the indenture, enslavement, and genocide of minorities should now be reversely applied to encourage the freedom and self-determination of those historically oppressed. By ensuring that the land usage on Mauna Kea is determined by Native Hawaiians, we can begin the restoration of indigenous sovereignty. In Hawai‘i, restorative justice could begin with Native Hawaiians being officially recognized by the US government as a People. Additionally, land rights of Mauna Kea could be yielded to Native Hawaiians by enforcing a majority or entirety of Native Hawaiians in the Land Use Commission (LUC) of the State of Hawai‘i. Similarly, a board or task force of Native Hawaiians within the LUC could be dedicated to land use on Mauna Kea.

As a case study, our argument that Native Hawaiians should have self-determination in regards to their sacred land has implications on the issue of Indigenous rights in the United States as a whole. We cannot fully rectify the genocide and oppression of Indigenous peoples in our country’s history; however, we must return land back to Indigenous peoples to restore their autonomy which we destroyed. Throughout the United States, more federal recognition should be given to Indigenous peoples. In US history, many treaties were written to dictate Native lands and have since been disregarded. Reparations must be extended in the form of reinstating these treaties to repair only a fraction of the destruction caused by our abhorrent treatment of the Native nations.

5 Conclusions

In this paper, we collected and analyzed legal documents, court rulings, historical events, and Native Hawaiian cultural stories. Our analysis and discussion of these documents focused on environmental preservation, indigenous land rights, and cultural heritage in Hawai‘i in particular and the United States as a whole. From this analysis, we drew the following conclusions.

1. The management plans and environmental impact mitigation procedures for Mauna Kea were inadequately implemented, specifically from 1979-2008. Under most land management plans and procedures, some amount of environmental contamination is inevitable.
2. Mauna Kea is a wahi pana (sacred place) that is integral to Native Hawaiian culture as the place where creation began and the site for many cultural rites and traditions.
3. Indigenous sovereignty can be supported by recognizing Native Hawaiians federally as a People; ensuring Native Hawaiian land rights over Mauna Kea, possibly through filling roles in the entire LUC or a subsection with Native Hawaiians; and adhering to past land treaties between Native nations and the US government. 
4. The United States was built on the enslavement, genocide, and oppression of minorities. We should examine and learn from our past to avoid repeating harmful historical precedents.

Our argument in this paper was not in favor or against the existence of observatories on Mauna Kea. Instead, this paper’s discussion considered who has the right to make that decision. We argued that the decision of whether or not observatories are built and maintained on Mauna Kea can only be determined by Native Hawaiians. As US citizens, we must all recognize that our country’s history is one of colonization, genocide, and oppression. After acknowledging the mistakes of our past, we must take steps to right these wrongs. In the case of Mauna Kea, we must prioritize Native Hawaiian voices, restore their sovereignty over their sacred land, and respect Native Hawaiian culture and history. Across the United States, as in Hawai‘i, restoring Indigenous land rights, reinforcing Indigenous self-determination, and respecting Native culture supports environmental preservation, reparatory justice, and the foundational ideals of freedom and self-determination.

References

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. 30 U.S. Supreme Court. 1. 1831.

Cobb, Daniel M.. Say We Are Nations : Documents of Politics and Protest in Indigenous America Since 1887, University of North Carolina Press, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umichigan/detail.action?docID=4322248.

Drexler, Ken. “Indian Removal Act: Primary Documents in American History,” Library of Congress 22, January 2019, https://guides.loc.gov/indian-removal-act#:~:text=The%20Indian%20Removal%20Act%20was,many%20resisted%20the%20relocation%20policy.

Dunbar-Ortiz, Roxanne. An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States. Tantor Media, Incorporated, 2014. OverDrive, https://umich.overdrive.com/media/73064ac6-c6b5-4855-a9c8-c5a5b1b1f30f. Accessed 4 April 2022.

Feder, Toni. “Q&A: Kealoha Pisciotta, on Mauna Kea and conflicts of astronomy.” Physics Today, 23 October 2019, https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.4.20191023a/full/. Accessed 4 April 2022.

Fujikane, Candace, et al. “Teaching for Maunakea: Kiaʻi Perspectives.” Amerasia Journal, vol. 45, no. 2, 2019. Taylor & Francis Online, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00447471.2019.1686318.

“Hawaiian Homes Commission Act.” Hawaii.gov, 1921, https://dhhl.hawaii.gov/hhc/laws-and-rules/. Accessed 4 April 2022.

“Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 205: Land Use Commission.” Hawaii.gov, 2007, https://files.hawaii.gov/luc/docs/hrs_chapter205_web.pdf. Accessed 4 April 2022.

Johnson v. McIntosh. 21 U.S. Supreme Court. 543. 1823.

Kimmerer, Robin Wall. Braiding Sweetgrass. Milkweed Editions, 2013.

King, Dr. Martin Luther. Why We Can't Wait. Beacon Press, 1964.

Lander, Puhipau, and Joan Lander, directors. Mauna Kea - Temple Under Siege. 2011. Oiwi TV, https://oiwi.tv/oiwitv/mauna-kea-temple-under-siege/.

Lemmo, Samuel J. “Hydraulic Fluid Release at the Caltech Submillimeter Observatory (CSO) Located at Mauna Kea.” KAHEA, 2009, http://kahea.org/files/b-12-letter-about-the-hydraulic-spill. Accessed 4 April 2022.

Marichalar, Pascal. “‘This Mountain Is It’: How Hawai‘i’s Mauna Kea was ‘Discovered’ for Astronomy (1959–79).” The Journal of Pacific History, vol. 56, no. 2, 2021, pp. 119-143. Taylor & Francis Online, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00223344.2021.1913402.

Marichalar, Pascal. “Skiing, science and sovereignty: A material and political history of the road to Hawai‘i's Mauna Kea (1936–2020).” History and Anthropology, 2021. Taylor & Francis Online, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02757206.2021.1983562?scroll=top&needAccess=true.

McGirt v. Oklahoma. 200 U.S. Supreme Court. 321. 2020.

Mikelsons, Maris, et al. “Housing Problems and Needs of Native Hawaiians.” Office of Policy Development and Research, 1996, p. 115, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/hsgspec/hawaiian.html.

"Mauna Kea Observatory." Britannica Academic, Encyclopædia Britannica, 16 Apr. 2020. academic.eb.com/levels/collegiate/article/Mauna-Kea-Observatory/51488. Accessed 4 Apr. 2022.

Office of the Auditor State of Hawai‘i. “Audit of the Management of Mauna Kea and the Mauna Kea Science Reserve.” Hawaii.gov, February 1998, https://files.hawaii.gov/auditor/Reports/1998/98-6.pdf. Accessed 4 April 2022.

Office of the Auditor State of Hawai‘i. “Follow-Up Audit of the Management of Mauna Kea and the Mauna Kea Science Reserve.” Center for Maunakea Stewardship (CMS), 7 August 2014, http://www.malamamaunakea.org/uploads/management/Audit_14-07.pdf. Accessed 26 April 2022.

Office of the Auditor State of Hawai‘i. “Follow-Up Audit of the Management of Mauna Kea and the Mauna Kea Science Reserve.” Department of Land and Natural Resources, 5 December 2005, https://dlnr.hawaii.gov/occl/files/2018/01/Audit-05-13.pdf. Accessed 26 April 2022.

Perez, Rob, et al. “The Government Promised to Return Ancestral Hawaiian Land, Then Never Finished the Job.” ProPublica, 2020, https://www.propublica.org/article/the-government-promised-to-return-ancestral-hawaiian-land-then-never-finished-the-job.

Rice v. Cayetano. 528 U.S. Supreme Court. 495. 2000.

University of Hawai‘i. “Mauna Kea Comprehensive Management Plan.” Department of Land and Natural Resources, 2009, http://www.malamamaunakea.org/uploads/management/plans/CMP_2009.PDF. Accessed 4 April 2022.

University of Hawaiʻi at Hilo. “Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Thirty Meter Telescope Project.” Mauna Kea & TMT, 2010, https://www.maunakeaandtmt.org/get-the-facts/tmt-supporting-environment/environmental-impact-statement/. Accessed 4 April 2022

Witze, Alexandra. “Hawaii Prunes Mauna Kea Telescope Hub.” Nature, vol. 522, 2015, pp. 15–16. Nature, https://www.nature.com/articles/522015a#citeas.

Worcester v. Georgia. 35 U.S. Supreme Court. 515. 1832.