Showing posts with label Colonialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Colonialism. Show all posts

Decolonizing with Permaculture

SUBHEAD: Using permaculture to decolonize America from ecocidal industrial big agriculture.

By Jesse Watson on 19 January 2016 for Midcoast Permaculture -
(http://midcoastpermaculture.com/2016/01/decolonizing-permaculture/)

http://www.islandbreath.org/2016Year/02/160222decolonizedbig.jpg
Image above: An example of a novel ecosystem with forest garden polycultures and a diversity of plants and flowers. From original article. Click to embiggen.

[Author's note: This article was originally printed in Permaculture Design Magazine (formerly Permaculture Activist) issue #98, Winter 2015.]

This article is meant as a primer on decolonization in a contemporary North American context, written specifically for permaculture designers, teachers, activists and gardeners. It is offered so that we may think critically and philosophically about “sustainability” and our role in our culture as designers of novel ecosystems.

In this article we will seek to answer the following questions: of What is decolonization? Why should permaculture designers care? What is my experience with this topic? We will attempt to make a clear critique of settler colonialism here in industrialized North America, and demonstrate how we can simultaneously be both victims and perpetuators of settler colonialism.

As a bridge to the challenge of bringing a decolonization framework into permaculture practice and pedagogy, I would like to start by mapping those same questions onto permaculture itself.

As a quick thumbnail sketch, permaculture is an ecological approach to the design of whole systems. It is an ethically bounded framework of ecological design that can be used to design everything from landscapes and farms to business enterprises and other cultural projects, on nearly any scale.

On the surface, permaculture is often about designing eco-groovy, perennially edible landscapes, gardens and farms. On a deeper level, permaculture is about the conscious design of ecological cultures.

As a design process, permaculture can be used to design both outer and inner landscapes, using observation as the preeminent tool for understanding.

We would do well to reflect on our role as ecosystem designers and designers of ecological culture, and to think of ourselves in our design and organizing work as “culture jammers.”[i] What then, are some responsibilities here (vis a vis EarthCare, PeopleCare, FutureCare)? How we behave and interact with our ecosystems matters.

The reason this matters is because the industrial systems we are embedded within and dependent upon are often deeply flawed and corrupt, in addition to being quite brittle.

Whether we turn our observational gaze to food systems, energy systems or economic and political systems, they are all overdue for a radical ecological revision. The interactions between climate change, energy peak and economic contraction mean that the stakes are very high.

Whether considering energy systems of production and distribution or agricultural systems of production and distribution, when we examine them critically we can see that these systems are brittle and capable of breakdowns at many pinch points.

And it isn’t even accurate to say merely that the economic-political system is flawed, because it seems more accurate to say that it is deeply corrupt.

Or perhaps it’s designed to function exactly as its functioning now: to keep the poor and disenfranchised firmly separated from the elites, and to maintain this oppressive distribution of power.

Permaculture is a process of understanding, analyzing and designing systems. By using this lens of understanding, you can look at these systems and choose your leverage points.

If you have access to land use, permaculture allows you to design perennial systems of regenerative food production that are much more resilient than annual-based agricultural systems of food production. Permaculture allows us to design productive loops of synergies between our technologically built environments and the surrounding ecologies within which we live.

Think of it as regenerative design that heals and repairs ecosystems while at the same time producing beneficial yields. Through this process of the design and management of ecosystems, we can regenerate ecological health by weaving patterns of beneficial relationships in ecosystems.

Permaculture gives us the ability to design resilient homesteads, farms, villages, towns and economies so that we have the ability to weather the storms that come our way, whether they are economic or ecological in nature.

More importantly, though, permaculture gives us the ability to heal and regenerate ecosystems through “right relationship” to all the other beings around us: plants, animals (including humans), wind, water, rocks, soils and so on.

I am a permaculture designer, gardener, activist and teacher. The body-mind this go-around happens to be in the form of a cis-male of northern European ancestry (from the British Isles and Scandinavia).

My ancestors came from cool temperate and cold northern climates. My family and I currently reside in occupied Penobscot territory, known as Midcoast Maine in the industrial nation-state known today as the United States (and this too, shall pass).

I come from a background of union activism, art and philosophy, direct-action environmentalism, public school education, and building trades. I’m living out a version of the “American Dream” with an eco-groovy veneer here on my one-acre permaculture demonstration site where we manage small scale agroforestry systems with poultry as integrated livestock.

My lineage of permaculture teachers includes Charles & Julia Yelton and Lisa Fernandes of the Resilience Hub. My lineage of earth skills teachers includes Mike Douglas and Mal Stevens of the Maine Primitive Skills School.

I maintain a permaculture design/build practice for residential and farm clients. I help to facilitate and teach Permaculture Design Certification courses (PDCs) here in Maine and sometimes in Boston, partnering with the Resilience Hub.

I serve the larger Northeast regional network by being an active participant on the board of PINE, the Permaculture Institute of the Northeast. My economic forms of production include designing, teaching, gardening and construction trades (carpentry, painting).

I am here to learn how to be of better service to all people. I’m here to help make the world a more just and sustainable place for my daughter and all the other children in the world, those alive today as well as those of future generations. I’m here to learn how to be a good ancestor. I’m also here because I dream of a world free of the industrial nation-state.

I see an agenda of decolonization coupled with land use based on permaculture design as a positive way forward toward a time of greater ecological and social health, in which we may rediscover how to live in right relationship to a place while simultaneously repairing and healing historic crimes against humanity.

I became aware of the topic of decolonization a year ago. It was a topic whose initial catalyst came from Rafter Sass Ferguson’s article, ”Critical Questions, Early Answers,” which is an overview of the permaculture movement.[ii]

In this article he interprets the racial homogeneity of the permaculture movement as a vulnerability. He suggests that the response to this weakness should not be one of recruitment or tokenism, but rather requires some deeper reflection on how we can be relevant to communities of color.

While it’s a challenge, it’s also a tremendous opportunity. It’s also important to remember that no group of people is monolithic, whether we are talking about the permaculture movement, people of color, or Native American peoples.

As I reflected on how I could be relevant to communities of color close to where I am located in rural Maine (which is mostly white), I started thinking about making bridges with Native American communities to the north.

As I ruminated on the difference between recruitment, green missionary work, and relevance, I also started to ask how I could use my privilege and agency (as a white cis-male) to be an ally to marginalized Native communities.

I reached out to my close friends and eventually we found an article titled “Decolonization is not a metaphor”.[iii]


In a literal and legal sense, decolonization “brings about the repatriation of Indigenous land and life.”[iv] It is important to note here that Native American peoples are not mythical relics of the precolonial or pre-Columbian Americas. They are not extinct.

Native people continue to live and many continue to tend their council fires, which have been maintained for hundreds of continuous years. Many of them continue to resist the process of settler colonization and assimilation.

Decolonization is about upholding longstanding treaties, adherence to international law, and the return of genuine sovereignty and the administration of land use to First Nations peoples. Decolonization is about correcting past crimes committed by (mostly) European settlers by returning “stolen” land.[v] Ideally this process should be done without strings attached.

Questions of what happens to present settler peoples is secondary to the act of returning Native land to Native peoples. It is this facet of decolonization which strikes fear into the hearts of most settler peoples because it offers no firm guarantee of a settler futurity. In an ideal process here in North America, determining the future of settler people would be a separate process of negotiation between the newly repatriated indigenous governance structure and the settler peoples.

This concept is complicated by the fact that the ancestors of some settlers of color have been brought here against their will, in the slave trade or as indentured servants. This is known as the “tangled triad” of settler—native—settler of color.[vi]

And while settlers of color may experience systematic oppression at the hands of the currently designed economic-political system, they are also settler people and not members of the First Nations. And because of this they have a stake in the continuity of the colonial project.

How can we tend our own council fires in service to the community?

How can we expect to be designers of ecological culture if we don’t have a clear understanding of our past? How can we expect to design a regenerative legacy for our descendants if we haven’t yet made peace with the ancestors? If permaculture has as its ethical foundation Earth Care, People Care and Fair Share or Future Care, what do those words mean in this light, given the fact that people like me passively benefit from systematic forms of oppression and genocide that continue today?

In Edible Forest Gardens, Dave Jacke talked about the generative or degenerative potential that disturbance plays in ecosystem dynamics.  As a principle for ecosystem design and care he talked about “shifting the burden to the intervenor.”[vii]

So that when we decide to fall trees or sheet mulch so that we can plant forest gardens, the responsibility of managing the consequences of that disturbance falls to the gardener who intervened.  I consider this principle when recognizing how I passively benefit from the actions that my ancestors probably took to help construct this oppressive and exploitative system.  It informs how I think about what part I can play to heal historical traumas.

If “responsibility falls to the intervenor,” how does that affect contemporary land ownership for those who can afford it?  How should this principle inform the actions of ethical people who benefit from skin and gender privilege in general?  I don’t have any firm answers, but I know that asking these difficult questions causes an uneasy and unsettling feeling.

It seems the observation of the tension in considering these questions of land ownership/stewardship in light of this historical and contemporary inheritance is important.  If we genuinely care about the regeneration of ecosystems and culture, we should talk more openly about this tension of “owning” “stolen” land,[viii] especially when seeking relationships with contemporary Native peoples.

In another sense, a cultural sense, decolonization is about the process of removing colonizing thoughts from your own mind and colonizing behavior from your own lifeway. In this sense, there is broad overlap between movements for social justice and anti-racism. For me, it is a process of learning how I passively benefit from my racial and gender privilege. It is a process of unlearning racist and white supremacist ideas and behaviors, some of which I wasn’t consciously aware were in my head.

For me, it is a process of working through my grief over the crimes my ancestors may very well have committed. It is about learning what it means to be an ally, how to listen (especially when what I hear is emotionally challenging), and learning to give thanks always.

We have to decolonize our minds before we can decolonize Native North America. We have to remove the empire from our heads before we can remove the empire from any land base.

This matters because an injury to one is an injury to all. I know that sounds trite and cliche, but that’s because it’s a truism. The industrial nation-state is an omnicidal machine, and it eats everything. The industrial machine is genocidal because it kills off whole nations and peoples. This machine is ecocidal because it destroys mountaintops and water wells with fracking and coal mining.

Right now it doesn’t make a prominent habit of eating white cis-dudes because it’s busy making a habit of disenfranchising people of color, women, queer peoples and all those ‘others.’ But as these brittle industrial systems fall apart as a result of climate change or energy shortages, those ‘others’ can always be redefined to include me or you.

So “an injury to one is an injury to all” should be understood in light of Neimoller’s poem “First they came for the Socialists…”:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Decolonization matters because of mountaintop removal, water mining and fracking. If resource extraction or industrial infrastructure needs to happen, none of us are immune to being displaced.

If it’s under your house and the machine needs it, it cares not who you are. It will get those resources and eat you along with them, if need be. Think of decolonization as another form of enlightened self-interest.

Decolonization matters because it is the right thing to do in a moral sense. It gives the ethic of ‘People Care’ teeth. Ferguson points out that the mostly homogenous demographic makeup of the permaculture movement is a weakness. Recruitment is disingenuous. We need to be relevant.

Decolonization allows for a framework of relevance as long as we have the courage to heal our “White Fragility”[ix] and face the realities of a white supremacist economic-political system. And if we have privilege and agency within that unjust and atrocious system, we must commit to using that access to dismantle that system.

I submit that the framework of decolonization would also save permaculture from being one more happy-faced, green, eco-groovy front for the project of genocide. This framework would help us discern between solidarity projects and green-missionary projects, both here and abroad. This lack of discernment is a blind spot.

What good does it do to impose a forest garden somewhere if it isn’t a good cultural fit, or if the design process isn’t sufficiently inclusive? Such a project is nothing more than another form of imposition upon the locals by another foreign interest.

Some open questions I still have revolve around issues of permaculture and its relationship to colonization. To what extent is permaculture a product of a settler people? Permaculture certainly appears to have been assembled from toolkits from all over the world and throughout history.

And while that seems “progressive” or “cosmopolitan,” are there instances where design principles or techniques associated with permaculture were misappropriated from indigenous peoples without their permission?

To what extent is permaculture practiced as a form of “green missionary work” throughout the world?

While I get excited about the National Agroforestry Center looking into ‘Traditional Ecological Knowledge’ (TEK) with the interest of transitioning tillage-based agriculture to perennial agricultural systems, I can’t help but notice the potential for inadvertent colonial appropriation.[x]

In this case, settler peoples are studying and applying indigenous forms of land management, which can be positive as long as the tools and techniques are willingly shared by the indigenous peoples and not brashly stolen, like they have been so many other times throughout history.

Clearly we’re doing important work with permaculture, so I want to separate the baby from the bathwater. This critique is offered to make the evolution of our movement cleaner and more respectful of indigenous cultures, and to find a way to balance “Leaver and Taker”[xi] cultures, maybe even to unify them.

Once, during a presentation I said, “Permaculture allows us to remember how to be indigenous to a place.” It was a meme I had seen elsewhere, but I instantly felt skeevy after repeating it and vowed to never say it again. In the sense of some kinds of strict land management and home economics, it’s kind of true.

But I realized that saying that sentence, especially to a room full of (mostly) white people, has the effect of erasing the lived experience of contemporary indigenous North American people. The tragedy is that such thinking offers permaculturist white people the opportunity to replace those indigenes and complete the project of settler colonialism, without those permies realizing that they’re doing so.

We now approach a closely related topic that, while important, is big enough that it warrants a separate article. Though there isn’t enough space to properly tackle the subject in this article, it still warrants a brief mention here.

How do we remember that we are all indigenous to this planet, our Earth Mother, our Gaia? We all have indigenous ancestors, and they were once colonized too.

How can we translate and communicate that to members of our colonial culture who may have forgotten?

In light of Earth Care, People Care and Future Care, how can this be a valuable concept? (Think solidarity, being an ally, healing white fragility). How can it be a misappropriated concept? (Think of “Rainbow family”, New Age “Plastic Shamans”, and “pretindians”.)[xii] [xiii]

In my work regionally in the Northeast Permaculture network, one proposal that has emerged is that we consciously refrain from self-applying the term ‘indigenous’ if we are not actually indigenous to Native North or South America. So instead of making a statement like “Permaculture allows us to remember how to be indigenous to place,” we should choose other language.

The reason for this relates to a concept in the article “Decolonization is not a metaphor,” which the authors call “settler moves to innocence.” A move to innocence is a diversionary attempt by a settler person to absolve themself of the guilt of living on stolen land using some form of catharsis, without actually addressing the difficult societal structures involved.

So saying something like “Permaculture allows us to remember how to be indigenous to a place” makes a metaphor of indigeneity and thereby erases the lived experience of real peoples who are actually indigenous to Native America and who still resist the campaigns of genocide and expropriation of land and resources that continue to this day.

Instead we can deploy an alternate sentence, such as “Permaculture allows us to remember how to be in right relationship to place.” This phrase contains a subtle but profound difference, one that relinquishes the settler colonial replacement strategy.

Another proposal is that we should seek genuine and longstanding relationships with existing First Nations. We should ask how we can be relevant to their lives, and ask for permission and endorsement of our activities and events.

We should listen with humility when we are challenged over our privilege or unexamined racism. We need to be aware of white fragility if we start feeling defensive during racially charged conversations. We need to give thanks always.

During events like the regional Convergence, we might make an offering at the beginning to acknowledge who the indigenous peoples are who live/d on the land we are now occupying. And when we publicly use ceremonies or songs from other cultures, we must be absolutely clear exactly how we got permission to use those ceremonies or songs.

And finally, what does the decolonization of Native North America look like? How do we organize for that kind of vision or dream? How do we incorporate righting this egregious, unresolved, and ongoing historical crime into our culture jamming work?

How do you organize and convince White, Black and Yellow people into giving their land back to the Red Nations from which all this land was stolen?

As designers of “bioculturally diverse ecosystems,”[xiv] how can we accomplish our goals of cultural, ecological and economic sustainability without contributing to the erasure of indigenous people and their lived experiences?

These are a few thoughts I’m left with. I don’t have any answers, but I do care deeply about being a good neighbor and a good ancestor to my descendants. I am deeply grateful for the space to explore this important topic in these pages, and I am grateful to the other participants in this conversation for their help in unpacking these ideas and figuring out how to apply them to our permaculture organizing efforts. Onward to regeneration of healthy systems!

Special thanks to my dear friend Kiarna Boyd for holding me accountable to a high standard and compassionately aiding my evolution in this area. Special thanks also to gkisedtanamoogk (Wampanoag nation), Canupa Gluha Mani (Lakota nation), and Ana Oian Amets (Aquitainian proto-Basque ancestral recovery) for the same.

Jesse Watson is a permaculture designer, teacher and builder living and working in Midcoast Maine, occupied Penobscot territory.

He operates Midcoast Permaculture Design (midcoastpermaculture.com), serving residential and farm clients. He helps facilitate PDCs with Lisa Fernandes of The Resilience Hub. Jesse helped organize the Northeast Permaculture Convergence as the principal logistics coordinator in 2010 and 2014. He now serves as president of the board of PINE, the Permaculture Institute of the Northeast.=



Footnotes:

[i] “Culture jamming is an intriguing form of political communication that has emerged in response to the commercial isolation of public life. Practitioners of culture jamming argue that culture, politics, and social values have been bent by saturated commercial environments…Culture jamming presents a variety of interesting communication strategies that play with the branded images and icons of consumer culture to make consumers aware of surrounding problems and diverse cultural experiences that warrant their attention…Many culture jams are simply aimed at exposing questionable political assumptions behind commercial culture so that people can momentarily consider the branded environment in which they live.”

Center for Communication and Civic Engagement, “Culture Jamming and Meme-based Communication.”   https://depts.washington.edu/ccce/polcommcampaigns/CultureJamming.htm

[ii] Rafter Sass Ferguson, ”Critical Questions, Early Answers

[iii] Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang, “Decolonization is not a metaphor,” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1, no. 1 (2012) 1-40, http://decolonization.org/index.php/des/article/view/18630/15554

[v] I used quotes around “stolen” because many indigenous cultures reject the concept of land ownership familiar to European peoples. Nonetheless, to the degree that Native land use and sovereignty of their own cultural affairs has been removed by force, there is traction in the use of the word “stolen.”

[vi] Tuck and Yang, 2012.

[vii] Dave Jacke with Eric Toensmeier, Edible Forest Gardens, Volume 1, pg 20 (Chelsea Green, 2005).

[viii] See (5) above.

[ix] White fragility: “White people in North America live in a social environment that protects and insulates them from race-based stress. This insulated environment of racial protection builds white expectations for racial comfort while at the same time lowering the ability to tolerate racial stress, leading to what I refer to as White Fragility. White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium.”

Robin DiAngelo, “White Fragility,” The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy 3, no. 3 (2011): 54-70. http://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/view/249/116

Robin DiAngelo, “White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard to Talk to White People About Racism,” The Good Men Project, April 9, 2015: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/white-fragility-why-its-so-hard-to-talk-to-white-people-about-racism-twlm/

[x] Colleen Rossier and Frank Lake, “Indigenous Traditional Ecological Knowledge in Agroforestry,” Agroforestry Notes 44 (May 2014):  http://nac.unl.edu/documents/agroforestrynotes/an44g14.pdf

[xi] Daniel Quinn, Ishmael (Bantam/Turner, 1992) and Beyond Civilization (Harmony, 1999). The shorthand is that “Takers” are people of industrialized growth-based societies and “Leavers” are people of tribal, small-scale, village-based or nomadic societies.

[xii] Simon-Moya Smith, “Here Come the Hippies: Oglala Lakota Tell Rainbow Family to Behave in Sacred Black Hills,” Indian Country Today Media Network, June 23, 2015, http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/06/23/here-come-hippies-oglala-lakota-tell-rainbow-family-behave-sacred-black-hills-160822

Wikipedia; Wikipedia’s “Plastic shaman” entry; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_shaman

FreeFactFinder; FreeFactFinder’s “Pretindian” entry;  http://freefactfinder.com/definition/Pretindian.html

[xiii] Here are some more difficult questions: How is misappropriation different from the meme-swapping that happens when cultures naturally interact? To what spheres of human culture does misappropriation apply? How is cultural appropriation viewed from these different perspectives: culinary, linguistic, economic, technological, ethnobotanical, ceremonial, and magical? Which are tolerated, and which aren’t? How is the answer complicated when a colonial culture is dysfunctional in terms of its ethics, morals, worldview, meaning, and community values? If we want to remember a spiritual or mythic relationship to land base and ecosystems, how can reconstructionist and syncretic spi

[xiv] Rossier and Lake, 2014


.

Hawaii should be Deoccupied

SUBHEAD: Hawaiian sovereignty advocates support de-occupation by USA, not for de-colonization.

By Juan Wilson on 22 November 2015 for Island Breath -
(http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2015/11/hawaii-should-be-deoccupied.html)


Image above: Supporter of "deoccuopation" of Hawaii. From (http://learni.st/users/gwen.duralek/boards/29314-annexation-of-hawaii).

The article in the Garden Island News announcing the meeting was titled "Election Critics Host Meeting" with the subhead "Public meeting to discuss Native Hawaiian self-governance slated Friday at Wilcox school".  TGI got that article right, but their followup article this morning got the message of the meeting completely wrong.

 The presenters, Walter Ritte, Trish Kehaulani Watson-Sproat and Donovan Preza agreed that their were three current paths for Hawaii to reach an international standing of having achieved sovereignty.
  1. One path would be through claims of indigenous rights
  2. Another path is through efforts at decolonization
  3. The last is through accomplishing a deoccupation of Hawaii by the United States
Donovan Preza was crystal clear in his presentation. The best and most effective path is to pursue deoccupation.

However, the TGI article's author states that Preza was proposing we focus on decolonization when she writes:
“They want you to focus on becoming recognized as indigenous peoples, but (focus on) decolonization.”
Certainly, achieving sovereignty along a path of indigenous identification weakens the effort in several ways. One crucial way is by measuring blood quantum as the qualification for inclusion. It is literally a dead end.

People in Hawaii with even a quarter pure Hawaiian heritage are rare and usually elderly. Their numbers can only dwindle further - thus exluding many who are sympathetic with Hawaiian independence.

In my opinion, the sovereignty movement should be seeking the participation of people who are "Kama Aina" (the children of the land); and not "Kanaka Maoli" (the native Hawaiians). 

Donovan Preza went on to detail how by focusing on "Occupation" we are acknowledging that Hawaiian sovereignty was never destroyed. An illegal overthrow, supported by America, of the constitutional monarchy occurred in 1893. No treaty relinquishing sovereignty was ever signed and the regent never relinquished the throne.

As stated by the Hawaiian Kingdom website (http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/us-occupation.shtml):
"As a result of the Spanish-American War, the United States opted to unilaterally annex the Hawaiian Islands by enacting a congressional joint resolution on July 7, 1898, in order to utilize the Hawaiian Islands as a military base to fight the Spanish in Guam and the Philippines. The United States has remained in the Hawaiian Islands and the Hawaiian Kingdom has since been under prolonged occupation to the present, but its continuity as an independent State remains intact under international law."

The government might change from a monarchy to a democracy, as happened in France, but there is continuity of the nation's sovereignty.



See also:
Island Breath: Time for Provisional Government 12/28/04
Rebuilding Hawaiian Kingdom 9/3/05
Island Breath: Sustainability and Sovereignty 11/15/07
Island Breath: Hawaii Nation Part 1 4/25/08
Island Breath: Hawaii Nation Part 2 4/30/08
Ea O Ka Aina: Hawaiian Sovereignty Pane 9/26/09
Ea O Ka Aina: Case for Hawaiian Sovereignty 12/20/10
Ea O Ka Aina: Hawaiian Sovereignty Issues 9/17/11
Ea O Ka Aina: Feds Threaten Hawaiian Sovereignty 2/2/12
Ea O Ka Aina: State of Hawaiian sovereignty 9/11/14
Ea O Ka Aina: Hawaiian sovereignty on the line 10/28/15
Ea O Ka Aina: Guide to Hawaiian secession 11/6/15
Ea O Ka Aina: Na'i Aupuni is indefensible 11/18/15


Questions rise over Nai Aupuni election

By Ellen Else on 22 November 2015 in the Garden Island - 
(http://thegardenisland.com/news/local/questions-rise-over-nai-aupuni-election/article_0cd53e36-a4ba-5606-931b-c28eeb8936f2.html)

Skeptics of the upcoming Nai Aupuni elections sought clarity at Wilcox Elementary School Friday night.

“We’re here to learn about this process and then engage in a conversation about what we want,” said Shane Cobb-Adams of Anahola, who was moderating the meeting. “We’re here to put a rudder on this canoe.”

Native Hawaiian advocates Walter Ritte, Trish Kehaulani Watson-Sproat and Donovan Preza all had about 15 minutes each to educate their audience about aspects of the process.

Watson-Sproat kicked off the panel discussion with a quote from King Kamehameha III, “He aupuni palapala ko’u,” which means “Mine is an educated kingdom.”

“King Kamehameha III took pride in his kingdom,” Watson-Sproat said. “He was proud that the whole kingdom was literate.”

Watson-Sproat transitioned into an explanation of the private election among Native Hawaiians who can vote for 200 delegates who will write a new constitution at a convention scheduled in Honolulu this winter. This constitution will provide a recipe for a new Hawaiian government. Voting for these delegates closes Nov. 30.

“There’s a lot to learn,” said Ritte, a former candidate who withdrew his name from the election last month. “Come hell or high water, they want to push this thing through and we need to do something.”

Preza, who teaches geography and Hawaiian history at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, outlined three different avenues to sovereignty and explained the history of the legislation to date.

“America has shackles on Hawaii and decolonization is the way to break those shackles,” Preza said. “They want you to focus on becoming recognized as indigenous peoples, but (focus on) decolonization.”

Just before the election opened, Ritte said he believes the process is leading toward a native government that is seeking federal recognition rather than independence.

“As long as you participate, you’re stuck in it,” Ritte said. “Don’t vote.”

Chief Delbert Black Fox Pomani, full-blooded Hunkpapa Lakota from the Crow Creek Reservation, and Kaplan Bunce, a full-blooded Apache from Washington currently living in Kauai, both attended the meeting to lend support for their native brothers and sisters.

“My ancestors fought this battle and we are here to add our blessings,” Pomani said.

After the panel discussion, the audience broke up into groups of 15 or 20 people and discussed their thoughts on how Native Hawaiians should go about finding sovereignty.

.

OHA's bad premise = bad election

SUBHEAD: United States government, through Office of Hawaiian Affairs asks native Hawaiians to legitimize its occupation with vote.

By Sonali Kolhatkar on 10 November 2015 for Truth Out -
(http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/33590-us-government-asks-native-hawaiians-to-legitimize-occupation-with-vote)


Image above: Lanakila Mangauil (center) walks alongside fellow activist Hāwane Rios (right) at the Aloha ʻAina Unity March on August 9, 2015. Photo by Lynette Cruz. From (http://hawaiiindependent.net/story/how-lanakila-mangauil-came-to-mauna-kea).

In early November, a month-long voting period began for a group of Hawaiians to elect delegates to a constitutional convention. Al Jazeera cast the process, called Na'i Aupuni as, "a historic election [that] seeks to return sovereignty to Native Hawaiians, a people still stinging from the bitter ruin of colonization." Colorlines picked up the story saying, "Native Hawaiians are Voting to Create Independent Government."

 For those interested in self-determination for indigenous people, particularly Hawaiians who are the last remaining native population in the U.S. without its own governance structures, the story sounds like good news. However, to Anne Keala Kelly, an award winning, Native Hawaiian filmmaker and journalist, "this isn't so much a vote, as a stick-up."

Kelly is intimately involved in the movement against the building of a new 30-meter telescope on the sacred Mauna Kea summit. She is making a documentary about it called "Why the Mountain."

"It's as if the state and federal government got together and decided to hold a gun to our head and say, you're going to vote on one of these two things: 'Do you like me, or do you love me?'" Kelly told me in an interview on Uprising.

Two hundred native Hawaiians are running for the chance to be one of 40 delegates to a convention early next year to determine the relationship between the U.S. government and native Hawaiians. But many Hawaiians, like Kelly, are expressing grave doubts about the process.

Walter Ritte, one of the candidates and a long-time Hawaiian activist, recently withdrew his name from the election.

"If you're going to plant a seed that is not pono, then you're going to harvest something that is not pono," he said, using the Hawaiian word for "righteous," or "fair." Ritte also called the election "a fake pathway to nationhood and its disillusioned vision of sovereignty."

At the heart of the matter is the U.S.'s annexation of Hawaii, which may not be legal. In one of the more nuanced news reports covering the election, the BBC laid out how the annexation of the islands was done by Congressional fiat after the U.S. began its occupation, and therefore is possibly invalid under international law.

Furthermore, in 1993 President Bill Clinton actually signed an "apology resolution" expressing regret for the U.S.'s overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy.

Kelly explained that the seeds of Na'i Aupuni began when the Office of Hawaiian Affairs wrote to the U.S. State Department demanding the legal basis for Hawaii's annexation. She said, "Within 3 weeks of that letter, out of nowhere, the Department of Interior announced hearings in Hawaii to discuss creating a Native governing entity. Within six weeks, the Department of Interior was in Hawaii holding hearings on each island."

A majority of the hundreds of Hawaiians who testified at the hearings challenged the U.S. government's legitimacy in Hawaii and demanded independence. "We do not need you here. This is our country," and "Get out of our house! Go home," were among the sentiments expressed.

After those hearings, the Obama administration adopted Na'i Aupuni, the current election process, which given the historical context, appears as an attempt to retroactively legalize annexation via a facade of native Hawaiian participation.

"They've been trying to cover up the overthrow [of the Hawaiian kingdom] for 200 years," said Kelly.

Aside from the problematic origins of this election, there are serious questions over who is actually eligible to cast a ballot. According to Kelly, the Hawaii state government spent millions of dollars over several years, trying to get native Hawaiians to submit their names to a registry. Only about 19,000 out of half a million residents and diaspora Hawaiians did so.

The state then cobbled together other lists of people who have applied for scholarships and home loans and expanded the registry to about 150,000. After realizing that thousands of names were those of people who have passed away, it was whittled back down to approximately 95,000. That flawed registry is the list of voters that is being drawn from for this election.

For decades the Native Hawaiian movement for sovereignty has demanded the right to self-determination. In recent years that movement has grown, its strength especially visible during the past year of protests against the Mauna Kea telescope.

Activists camped on the mountain and engaged in militant civil disobedience, refusing to let construction crews pass the steep narrow roads leading up to the summit which houses an internationally funded, world class observatory.

The political actions received widespread news coverage and demonstrated the power of an organized population. "What they want to do is make that the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, which has now become an independence movement - they want to make sure that it does not have any traction," explained Kelly, in reference to the U.S. government's push for the election.

The fight over Hawaii goes beyond the relationship between Native Hawaiians and the U.S. federal government. From the beginning, Hawaii has housed a crucial military base, enabling the U.S. to expand its reach to the middle of the Pacific Ocean. "The U.S. illegally invaded Hawaii to facilitate its war with Spain and the Philippines," said Kelly. "The American presence here has everything to do with militarizing the Pacific."

The U.S. hosts the world's largest maritime exercises every other year on the Hawaiian Islands. Tens of thousands of military personnel from dozens of countries attend RIMPAC, including Indonesia, which is overseeing its own occupation of the Pacific islands of West Papua.

Indonesia's brutally violent crackdown on the West Papuan independence movement is facilitated by the U.S.'s long-standing occupation of the Pacific islands of Hawaii.

If native Hawaiians can be corralled into governing their own "nation within a nation," as indigenous mainland tribes have been, then the supremacy of the U.S. state over Hawaiian lands will remain intact.

Native Hawaiians will have control over limited territories whose boundaries, like those of mainland Native American reservations, will be determined with the permission of the U.S. government. If this election was truly about Hawaiian independence and sovereignty, then they would be voting on whether their islands should remain a U.S. state, or become their own sovereign nation.

That democratic choice has never been offered by the federal government and likely never will be.



.

Step closer to war with China

SUBHEAD: Furious China summons U.S. Ambassador to slam Obama decision to "Threaten Peace" with warship challenge.

By Tyler Durden on 27 October 2015 for Zero Hedge -
(http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-27/furious-china-slams-obama-decision-threaten-peace-warship-challenge)

[IB Publisher's note: It is true that this is an imperial expansion into the South China Sea bounded by Vietnam, the Philippines Malaysia, Brunei and of interest also to Japan. However America's is flexing its "Super Power" muscles against China in that part of the world is a bit of imperial stretch for the USA. We have already made claim to much of the Pacific Ocean with out weapons testing/exercise areas and national ocean "monuments" See (http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-new-colinization-of-pacific.html) and (http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/search/label/Strategic%20Islands). Isn't China entitled to some empire too?]


Image above: USS Lassen in 2001. From (www.navsource.org/archives/05/01082.htm).

Well, the US navy vessel Lassen sailed within 12-nautical miles of Subi Reef and surprisingly, World War III did not break out overnight.

Nine months of tension between Washington and Beijing over the latter’s land reclamation efforts in The South China Sea culminated on Monday with President Obama’s decision to send a guided missile destroyer to China’s man-made military outposts on a “freedom of navigation” exercise. As we put it on Monday evening:
"The ball is now squarely in China's court. The question now is whether Beijing will back down and concede that "sovereignty" somehow means something different with regard to the islands than it does with respect to the mainland or whether Xi will stick to his guns (no pun intended) and take a pot shot at a US destroyer."
In short, some feared that based on recent rhetoric out of Beijing (e.g. the PLA will “stand up and use force”) that China might actually fire upon the US-flagged vessel or at least move to surround it in what might mark the first step on the road to war.

Ultimately, that didn't happen as China apparently decided to take the high road for now and avoid an escalation that might have had far-reaching consequences.


Image above: Map of From (http://globalnation.inquirer.net/125704/ph-govt-makes-impassioned-plea-at-the-hague).

That said, Beijing isn't happy. Here's more from Bloomberg:

China said it will take “all necessary measures” to defend its territory after the U.S. sailed a warship through waters claimed by China in the disputed South China Sea, a move the government in Beijing called a threat to peace and stability in Asia.

“The behavior of the U.S. warship threatened China’s sovereignty and national interest, endangered the safety of the island’s staff and facilities, and harmed the regional peace and stability,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said in a statement today. “The Chinese side expressed its strong discontent and firm opposition.”

The comments came hours after the USS Lassen passed within 12-nautical miles of Subi Reef, an island built by China as a platform to assert its claim to almost 80 percent of one of the world’s busiest waterways. By passing so close to the man-made island, the U.S. is showing it doesn’t recognize that the feature qualifies for a 12-nautical mile territorial zone under international law.

The patrol marks the most direct attempt by the U.S. to challenge China’s territorial claims and comes weeks after President Barack Obama told President Xi Jinping at a Washington summit that the U.S. would enforce freedom of navigation and that China should refrain from militarizing the waterway. 

In a strongly-worded statement, Lu said the USS Lassen had “illegally” entered Chinese waters and that “relevant Chinese departments monitored, shadowed and warned the U.S. ship.” China has “indisputable” sovereignty over the Spratly Islands and surrounding waters, Lu said.

“What the U.S. is doing now will only damage the stability in the South China Sea, and send the wrong message to neighboring nations such as the Philippines and encourage them to take some risky behavior,” said Xu Liping, a professor of Southeast Asian studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, a government-linked institute.

Image above: Artificial islands, like this one planned to be built by China over Mabini Reef. From (http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2014/06/04/1330967/designs-chinas-planned-base-mabini-reef-surface).

While it's not entirely clear what professor Xu Liping means by "encourage the Philippines to take some risky behavior," it's worth noting that Washington's provocation is in some respects explicity designed to embolden America's regional allies. That is, this isn't going on in Washington's backyard.

This is simply the US responding to calls from its friends in the South Pacific to counter what they view as Chinese aggression by letting Beijing know that Big Brother isn't going to stand for any bullying from the PLA. That gambit appears to have paid off - for the time being.

As for what comes next, Malcolm Davis, an assistant professor in China-Western relations at Bond University on Australia’s Gold Coast tells Bloomberg China could move to set up a no-fly zone:
China may choose to respond without directly challenging U.S. ships with its Navy or coast guard. It could declare an Air Defense Identification Zone over the South China Sea, or speed up the militarization of the area by deploying extra forces, including combat aircraft, to the islands. 

“The ball would then be back in the U.S.’s court,” Davis said. “A Chinese attempt to enforce an ADIZ over the South China Sea would increase tensions with its neighbors, most notably Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia, and they would place increasing pressure on Washington not to back down.”
In other words, China doesn't need to fire on a US destroyer to ratchet up the pressure. Beijing can simply continue to do what it's done up until now; that is, militarize the region and essentially dare the US to take action beyond sailing by and waving.

We suspect we'll see plenty of new satellite images over the coming weeks and months which purport to show the extent to which the PLA is beefing up its defenses in the face of unnecessary (not to mention extremely petty) posturing on Washington's part.

http://www.islandbreath.org/2014Year/10/141022uspivotbig.jpg
Image above: Detail of map of Marine Monuments and US Military Range Complexes and major bases in the Pacific claimed by the United States of America. by Juan Wilson produced for Koohan Paik. Click to see entire map. From (http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-pacific-pivot.html).


.

Steady State - Is it a miracle?

SUBHEAD: Would a living in a steady-state economy constitute a real miracle?

By Herman Daly on 6 August 2015 for the Daly News -
(http://steadystate.org/would-the-steady-state-economy-be-a-miracle/)


Image above: An illustration for the Mars One program. In 2013 the Mars One organization named 1058 potential colonists for its program. In 2014 they expected the final colonists selection will be through a Reality Show. Wouldn't you rather use the money this program would goble up to make life livable on Earth. From (http://wordlesstech.com/mars-one-astronaut-selection-will-be-a-reality-show).

Many people think that advocating a steady-state economy is like wishing for a miracle. I understand their reasoning and take their point—in the present era of growthism it does seem rather like advocating a miracle. But that raises the question: exactly what is a miracle? And how many other miracles are we wishing for these days?

Of course science, by definition of its method, rules out the existence of miracles, if by miracle we mean either something not explainable physically in terms of efficient causation, or else overwhelmingly improbable. Consequently, if a miracle did exist science could not see it. Looking for a miracle with science is like looking for darkness in the narrow beam of a flashlight.

Consciousness, reason, and good and evil are undeniably real, yet we have no convincing explanation for them in terms of efficient causation or biophysical evolution. And the origin of first life (as opposed to its subsequent evolution into different forms) also qualifies as a miracle by the above definition.

Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, thinks the origin of life on earth is so physically improbable (miraculous) that it must have arrived here from space—”directed panspermia” is the elegant name for this miraculous sidereal ejaculation. Science considers the whole amazing experience of life on earth as just a cosmic accident.

Given that life on earth is, according to science, eventually going to end, why make extraordinary efforts to prolong it, especially if, as the modern intelligentsia assures us, the universe and all life are just temporary accidents? We, as non-miraculous random events, can have no objective idea of what a good life is. Therefore we cannot know how much per capita consumption is sufficient for a good life.

Instead of a steady-state economy the default economic rule of scientific materialism seems to be, “more and more (especially for me) while things last.” Yes, I know that most scientific materialists are good people, but I am suggesting that their goodness must have origins other than their professed materialism.

For some of us materialism is just a methodology, not an ultimate worldview in which divine purpose might replace cosmic random. For Christians, for example, hope in the promise of New Creation (Rom. 8; 1 Cor.15) substitutes for despair over the ultimate impossibility of preserving this Creation forever, as well as over our repeated failures to protect it while it lasts. Like this Creation, New Creation would be a miracle—a generalized resurrection of this mortal Creation.1 

 It is a grace-based hope that flies in the face of the hard facts of evil, entropy, and finitude. It is a religious belief that death, decay, and oblivion are not the last words, and therefore it is classed as superstition in the modern secular academy, along with other religions.

Belief that the end of the world will occur soon, with lots of life-support capacity left unused (wasted), is a tenet both of some scientific catastrophists, as well as some religious fundamentalists, who consequently consider themselves exempt from the responsibility of Creation stewardship. Why sacrifice for a non-existent beneficiary, they logically ask?

However, Pope Francis, for one, in his Laudato Si strongly affirms the value of this Creation, however transitory, and in this regard he speaks for most Christians and many other religious people, as well as for some thoughtful atheists.

Most scientists (and some theologians) will not be happy with talk about miracles, or with hope in New Creation. They fear that such hope will undercut efforts to prolong the present Creation, which they believe is all there is or ever will be.

Yet when faced with the ultimate heat death of the universe, plus the increasing likelihood of self-destruction well before then, and with the meaninglessness implicit (and increasingly explicit) in their materialist cosmology, they sometimes flinch.

They look for optimism (if not hope) somewhere within their materialism. They invent the hypothesis of infinitely many (unobservable) universes in which life may outlive our universe.

They were led to this extraordinary idea in order to escape the implications of the anthropic principle—which argues that for life to have come about by chance in our single universe would require far too many just-so coincidences among the magnitudes of basic physical constants.

To preserve the idea of chance as reasonable cause, and thereby escape any notion of Creator or Telos, they argue that although these coincidences are indeed miraculously improbable in a single universe, they would surely happen if there were infinitely many universes. And of course our universe is obviously the one in which the improbable events all happened.

If you don’t believe that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet, you can claim that infinitely many monkeys pecking away at infinitely many typewriters had to hit upon it someday. That such a deification of random would take the meaning and pleasure out of reading Hamlet—or studying anything in “creation” at all—is a carefully repressed thought.

The idea of infinitely many universes, or monkeys for that matter, is speculative—at least as speculative as the idea of New Creation. The only evidence that could be offered to support hope for the future miracle of New Creation would be the occurrence of a similar miracle in the past, namely the present Creation.

Science understandably tries to account for this Creation, as far as reasonable, in its own materialistic terms, and of course from the beginning rejects “miracle” or God as an explanatory category. I am not objecting to that self-imposed, defining limitation of science.

I am just saying that New Creation is not a scientific concept rooted in efficient and material causation. It is a religious hope rooted in the idea of final causation and ultimate purpose. As such it is neither contradictory to nor dependent upon science.

Whether ad hoc postulation of infinitely many unobservable universes violates the self-imposed limitation of science, and belongs more to the category of miracle, I will leave to the reader’s judgment. But the working hypothesis of scientific materialism, however fruitful it has been, should not be sanctified as the Ultimate Metaphysics of Chance.

Nor does adding Darwinian natural selection to Mendelian random mutation alter the picture, since the selecting criteria of environmental conditions (other organisms and geophysical surroundings) are also considered to be a product of chance.

Mutations provide random change in the genetic menu from which natural selection picks according to the survival value determined by a randomly changing environment.

Such a Metaphysics of Chance precludes explanation of some basic facts, pushing them into the category of miracle:
  • First, that there is something rather than nothing;
  • Second, the just-right physical “coincidences” recognized in the anthropic principle;
  • Third, the “spontaneous generation” of first life from inanimate matter (which has apparently never happened again);
  • Fourth, the creation of an incredible amount of specified information in the genome of all the irreducibly complex living creatures that evolved from the relatively simple information in the first living thing (in spite of the fact that random change destroys rather than creates information);

    Fifth, the emergence of self-consciousness and rational thought itself (if my thoughts are ultimately the product of random, why believe any of them, including this one?);|
  • Sixth, the amazing correspondence between abstract mathematical thought and empirical natural order; and
  • Seventh, the innate human perception of right and wrong, of good and bad, which would be meaningless in a purely material world.
 Explaining these facts “by chance” strains credulity at least as much as “by miracle.”

Metaphysical humility remains a virtue for both science and religion. The longevity of a steady-state economy is a metaphysically humble goal appropriate for limited creatures in the face of ignorance and mystery.

Christianity and science both recognize the fundamental finitude and frailties of this Creation. Christianity offers ultimate hope in New Creation; science necessarily remains mute about that.  

Scientism, however, seeing no limits to this Creation, offers, instead of hope, the campaigning optimism of, for example, the Coming Singularity of the digital “new creation” with immortal silicon-based consciousness, or IBM’s new creation of “building a smarter planet,” or NASA’s new creation of colonizing Mars.

A moment’s reflection, however, shows that a spaceship, and a space colony, as well as a population of infinitely long-lived silicon “people,” must all operate as the strictest of steady-state economies.

If we cannot manage a steady-state economy on the large and forgiving earth out of which we evolved and to which we are evolutionarily well adapted, then how likely are we to manage it on a barren rock under alien conditions, including extreme cold and intense radiation?

Yet large amounts of taxpayer’s money is wasted in pursuit of the unnecessary miracle of colonizing Mars, while nothing is invested in the necessary and smaller miracle of attaining a steady-state economy on our finite earth. The pseudo-religion of scientism leads those who reject a steady-state economy on earth as a “miracle” to imagine even bigger miracles to escape it.

Notes:
1. For more on the theology of New Creation, see, Jürgen Moltmann, Ethics of Hope. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. 2012; John Polkinghorne, The God of Hope and the End of the World. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. 2003; and N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope. New York: Harper Collins. 2008.


.

A new colonization of the Pacific

 SOURCE: Wendy Raebeck (wendywailua@gmail.com)
 SUBHEAD: How U.S. Marine National Monuments protect environmentally harmful military bases throughout the Pacific.

By Craig Santos Perez on 26 June 2104 for Hawaii Independent -
(http://hawaiiindependent.net/story/blue-washing-the-colonization-and-militarization-of-our-ocean)

http://www.islandbreath.org/2014Year/10/141022uspivotbig.jpg
Image above: Detail of map of Marine Monuments and US Military Range Complexes and major bases in the Pacific by Juan Wilson produced for Koohan Paik. Click to see entire map. From (http://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-pacific-pivot.html).

President Obama recently announced plans to expand the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument from 87,000 square miles to nearly 782,000 square miles. Despite the media framing this move as a victory for ocean conservation, the truth is that these monuments will further colonize, militarize and privatize the Pacific.

Many mistakenly refer to marine “monuments” as “sanctuaries” because they are both “marine protected areas.” However, an official sanctuary is designated by the Secretary of Commerce under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, which requires “extensive public process, local community engagement, stakeholder involvement, and citizen participation, both prior to and following designation.”

On the other hand, the President unilaterally designates marine monuments through the Antiquities Act of 1906. No public process is required.

The first and largest Marine National Monument was established in 2006: The Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (140,000 square miles).

Three more marine monuments were established in 2009: The Marianas Trench Marine National Monument (95,000 square miles); The Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument (87,000 square miles); and The Rose Atoll Marine National Monument (13,000 square miles).

The total “protected” area, with Obama’s expansion, would be more than a million square miles of “small islands, atolls, coral reefs, submerged lands, and deep blue waters.”

Why has this antiquited, unilateral process suddenly become so popular? Why are U.S. presidents from both sides of the political divide side-stepping Congressional approval and—more importantly—public participation and scrutiny?

It’s important to understand that establishing a marine national monument, reserve, or refuge places our coastal and open ocean waters under federal control. The marine monuments are administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (under the Department of Commerce) or by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (under the Department of the Interior). This ocean and submerged land grab by the federal government severely limits public access and trust.

Additionally, these monuments violate the rights of indigenous peoples by separating us from our sacred spaces. Traditional fishing grounds or ritual spaces may no longer be accessible. If there are exceptions for indigenous rites, we will need to apply for a permit and receive federal approval.

How Do Marine Reserves Militarize the Ocean?

As I wrote about in a previous editorial, the U.S. military removed the original landowners of Litekyan (Ritidian), an area in northern Guam, under eminent domain in 1963, and the Navy used the area as a communications station during the Cold War. Thirty years later, 1,000 acres of the land was deemed “excess.” Instead of that land being returned to the families, it was transferred to the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service and designated a “National Wildlife Refuge.” Today, four thousand acres of Litekyan is now being considered for a live firing range complex.

You see, designating land and water as a monument, refuge, reserve, or even sanctuary keeps the land under federal control as opposed to public (and indigenous) trust. So if the military ever wants to use the land in the future, it can simply be converted (or re-converted in the case of Litekyan) from the Department of the Interior or Commerce to the Department of Defense. This is the “logic of military conservation.”

Many marine monuments house strategic military bases. For example, the marine monuments of the Pacific are home to U.S. bases on Guam, Tinian, Saipan, Rota, Farallon de Medinilla, Wake Island and Johnston Island, to name a few. The reason why military bases can be within marine monuments is because “nothing in the proclamations impairs or otherwise affects the activities of the Department of Defense.

Among other things, the DoD is ensured full freedom of navigation in accordance with the law of the sea, and the U.S. Navy can continue effective training to maintain its antisubmarine warfare and other capabilities.” In other words, the military is exempt from most environmental regulations and prohibitions.

Ironically, the public may no longer be allowed to fish in these “protected” areas because it might affect the fragile ocean ecosystem, yet the military can conduct weapons training and testing. Remember, marine monuments are not designed to protect the ocean from the U.S. military, one of the worst polluters in the world.

In fact the opposite is true: they are designed to allow easier military access. As activists in Hawai’i know, these national monuments could become “watery graves” for endangered species when military training occurs.

Besides providing more federally controlled space for the U.S. military to train, marine monuments give military bases another layer of secrecy from the public. This buffer strategy is spreading to other nations. During the meeting of the U.S. State Department sponsored Our Ocean conference last week in Washington DC, other countries announced similar plans to federalize massive ocean areas, including Palau, Kiribati, the Cook Islands and the Bahamas.

These new marine reserves will become military sanctuaries, buffer zones and watery bases for the U.S. military as it forcefully positions itself in the Asia-Pacific region (and uses “illegal fishing” as justification to militarize these marine reserves).

We need to be critical of these efforts. Read about what happened to the Cayos Cochinos, an island group in the Carribean off Honduras, during the twenty years after they were declared a “protected area.” The Afro-Indigenous Garifuna peoples have been displaced from their lands and fishing grounds. Tourism developers and other private industries have invested in and exploited the islands.

And, you guessed it, the U.S. military is using the area for basing and training, providing millions of dollars of aid to the Honduras government. This is what will happen to countries that ally with the U.S. in this colonial conservation scheme.

In 2009, Britian designated a marine protected area around the Chagos islands. However, the waters around the island of Diego Garcia, which is the site of one of the most secretive overseas U.S. military bases, was exempted. How bizarre: a secretive U.S. military base in the Indian Ocean surrounded by a 200-mile marine preserve controlled by the British government.

Peter Sand, in “The Chagos Archipelago: Footprint of Empire, or World Heritage?”, pointedly asks whether these new marine reserves are “an anachronistic example of ‘environmental imperialism’, or evidence of an equally outdated variant of ‘fortress conservation’ that disregards human rights under the noble guise of nature protection.” Either way, the Chagossians who were removed from their islands may never be able to return.

How do Private Corporations Benefit from Marine Monuments?

As I mentioned before, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is under the Department of Commerce (DOC). Does that seem strange to you? It certainly seems strange to Obama, when he joked during his 2011 State of the Union address: “The Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they’re in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them when they’re in saltwater.” Obama wants to move NOAA to the Department of the Interior.

Joking aside, it actually makes perfect (or perverse) sense that NOAA remains in DOC, which promotes trade and economic development. A few years ago, then Secretary-of-State Hillary Clinton dubbed the 21st century: “America’s Pacific Century.” This strategic turn aims to expand trade, investment, and militarization throughout the Asia-Pacific region.

The cornerstone of America’s Pacific Century is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a free trade agreement that has been described as “NAFTA on steroids.” As Clinton stated, the continued economic growth of the region depends on the “security and stability that has long been guaranteed by the U.S. military.”

It is not surprising that TPP negotiations, as well as militarization proposals in the Pacific, intensified around the same time that President Bush designated the first marine monument in 2006.

So what are these economic opportunities, and what does the TPP have to do with the surge of marine national monuments and reserves designated by the U.S. federal government and its allies?

First, the more military sanctuaries the U.S. has around the world, the more federal tax money will be spent to secure these areas for investment, which means more profit for the military industrial complex and private defense firms.

Second, does something smell fishy? The justification for many of these marine reserves is to prevent illegal fishing and fish fraud, especially from China. With a massive fleet of 2,000 distant-water, state-subsidized fishing vessels, China catches nearly five tons of fish a year, worth more than $10 billion—some legally and some illegally. In contrast, nearly 90 percent of seafood consumed in the U.S. is imported.

By establishing marine monuments, and encouraging its allies in the Pacific to do the same, the U.S. could effectively shut out China from Pacific tuna waters. In turn, private U.S. tuna corporations could negotiate contracts with Pacific allied nations to develop Pacific fisheries or to obtain exclusive fishing rights within the marine reserves (as well as access to cheap labor and canneries).

This comes at a time when foreign-owned and American-owned canned-tuna companies are battling for control over our kids’ school lunches. Billions of dollars of tuna are on the plate.

Third, wherever you find a national monument, you will find a tourism industry. The Cayos Cochinos is a prime example. The government that controls the marine monument can permit private companies to operate tourism centers, hotels, eco-adventures—all in the name of development and jobs.

The concessions throughout the U.S. National Park Service are owned and operated by private companies, which gross over $1 billion annually. There are more than 500 companies, from food to lodging to adventure sports to retail, that have contracts with the National Parks. Of course, the entire National Park system was one way of displacing Native American presence on these lands.

Fourth, the Pacific has long been a “laboratory” for Western science and technology. Since another justification for marine reserves is scientific research, then we will see many more unprecedented grants for oceanography research.

This research can be transformed into profit by private industries, such as deep-sea mining, geo-thermal energy, open-ocean (genetically modified) aquaculture, and pharmaceutical drugs derived from ocean microbial bacteria.

New Zealand established a Marine Mammal Sanctuary in 2008 to protect engangered dolphins, yet it is now considering opening the area up for oil drilling. This is not a contradiction; this is exactly what these conservation schemes are designed for.

Lastly, do you want to see Avatar 2 with me when it comes out? In 2012, James Cameron dived in a submarine to the bottom of the Mariana Trench, the deepest point on earth, which is protected by the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument.

He lit up the trench with an eight-foot tower of LED lighting to film 3D footage. In another celebrity sighting, Leonardo DiCaprio made a cameo at the State Department’s Our Ocean conference, donating $7 milllion towards marine reserves. Apparently, he’s a diving enthusiast.

What is Blue-Washing?

In the 21st century, national marine momunents, marine parks, marine preserves, marine refuges, marine sanctuaries and their other iterations are instruments that empower the federal government to take land and water away from indigenous and public access, scrutiny, and trust. The “marine monuments” are especially dangerous because they do not require—nor are they accountable to—legislative or public comment, engagement, or approval.

As David Vine, in “Environmental Protection of Bases,” notes: “For all the benefits that marine protection areas might bring, governments are using environmentalism as a cover to protect the long-term life of environmentally harmful bases.

The designation also helps governments hold onto strategic territories.” Furthermore, these designations give the governments of the U.S. and its neoliberal allies the power to create contracts with private corporations to exploit the resources of our ocean for profit and not for the public good. Let’s call this a form of “Blue-washing.”

The word “monument” comes from the Latin, monumentum, meaning “grave” or “memorial.” If our oceans continue to become national marine monuments, our blue ocean will indeed become a watery grave, a memorial to the beauty, richness, and biodiversity that once was.

.

"Discovery" of US Indigenous People

SUBHEAD: The "Doctrine of Discovery" makes our whole country is a crime scene that should be marked with yellow tape.

By Mickey Zezima on 11 October 2014 for World News Trust -
(http://worldnewstrust.com/books-an-indigenous-peoples-history-of-the-united-states-my-interview-with-roxanne-dunbar-ortiz-mickey-z)


Image above: “The Landing of Columbus” by American neoclassicist painter John Vanderlyn (1775–1852). Note the crosses and swords in the hands of Europeans and the naked cowering "natives". This travesty was commissioned by Congress and hangs in the Capitol Rotunda. From (http://amylively.net/tag/doctrine-of-discovery/).

“The whole country is a crime scene and should be marked with yellow tape.”
- Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz

As I type these words, we are two days away from “honoring” Columbus and exactly a month has passed since the cries of “never forget” echoed on the 9/11 anniversary.

When it comes to honoring and remembering, however, it’s clearly slipped our minds how -- upon encountering the Arawak people in 1492 -- the venerated Mr. Columbus noted that they “would make fine servants,” adding, “with 50 men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.”

Fortunately, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz is making certain we “never forget” the realities of Manifest Destiny. Born in rural Oklahoma to a tenant farmer and part-Indian mother, Dunbar-Ortiz has committed her life’s work to education and activism. Her path will inspire you and her latest book,  An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States (Beacon Press) will enlighten you. And anger you. And, best of all, educate and motivate you.

I recently had a conversation with Roxanne and it went a little something like this:

Mickey Z.: Is it safe to assume that many readers are approaching your book with heads filled with preconceptions and misconceptions on this general topic?

Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz: Yes, U.S. people either think they know a lot about Native Americans, or have little interest or curiosity. The latter especially applies to leftists and progressives, who think Native Americans are irrelevant to politics and strategies for change; they will nod their head in paternalistic sympathy, and that’s it.

Those who “know Indians,” as Richard Slotkin emphasizes in his work, often men who have been Cub and Boy Scouts and/or in the military, particularly the Marine Corps, or non-Native people (not only Euroamericans) who live near reservations. In each case, the knowledge and analytical base is wrong, and even the assumptions.

Most U.S. Americans will go a whole lifetime without meeting a Native American (even many of those who will tell you they themselves had a Native ancestor). And in the presentations of U.S. history, in schools as well as popular culture, Native Americans are largely absent.

Then, when they are present, it’s often worse than absence; it’s misinformation or distortions. That’s why I present Native American history as United States history. Nothing about the founding and development of the United States can be understood except in relation to the Indigenous Peoples of the continent (and of Hawaii and Alaska).

MZ: As you articulate in your book, a big part of that awakening may start with the acceptance of the official U.S. war on indigenous peoples as a war against foreign nations.

RDO: This is a key factor of U.S. history, the fact that some 500 Native nations existed when Europeans began their colonizing projects. Throughout the British colonial period in constructing the 13 North American Atlantic colonies, the colonizing authorities approached the Indigenous nations as nations, not that they respected them as equals as they did not, but they also didn’t respect Turkey, Russia, and other nations they regarded as nations.

The independent Anglo-American state continued the same nation-to-nation colonial practices as the British. But, in all European colonial projects, including the United States, they invoked the Doctrine of Discovery.

From the mid-15th century to the mid-20th century, most of the non-European world was colonized under the Doctrine of Discovery, one of the first principles of international law Christian European monarchies promulgated to legitimize investigating, mapping, and claiming lands belonging to peoples outside Europe. It originated in a papal bull issued in 1455 that permitted the Portuguese monarchy to seize West Africa.

Following Columbus’s infamous exploratory voyage in 1492, sponsored by the king and queen of the infant Spanish state, another papal bull extended similar permission to Spain.

Disputes between the Portuguese and Spanish monarchies led to the papal-initiated Treaty of Tordesillas (1494), which, besides dividing the globe equally between the two Iberian empires, clarified that only non-Christian lands fell under the discovery doctrine.

This doctrine on which all European states relied thus originated with the arbitrary and unilateral establishment of the Iberian monarchies’ exclusive rights under Christian canon law to colonize foreign peoples, and this right was later seized by other European monarchical colonizing projects. The French Republic used this legalistic instrument for its nineteenth- and twentieth- century settler colonialist projects, as did the newly independent United States when it continued the colonization of North America begun by the British.

MZ: How was this doctrine exploited and expanded by the United States?

RDO: In 1792, not long after the U.S. founding, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson claimed that the Doctrine of Discovery developed by European states was international law applicable to the new U.S. government as well. In 1823 the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Johnson v. McIntosh, brought by the Cherokee Nation.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Marshall held that the Doctrine of Discovery had been an established principle of European law and of English law in effect in Britain’s North American colonies and was also the law of the United States.

The Court defined the exclusive property rights that a European country acquired by dint of discovery: “Discovery gave title to the government, by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession.”

Therefore, European and Euro-American “discoverers” had gained real-property rights in the lands of Indigenous peoples by merely planting a flag. Indigenous rights were, in the Court’s words, “in no instance, entirely disregarded; but were necessarily, to a considerable extent, impaired.”

The Court further held that Indigenous “rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, were necessarily diminished.” Indigenous people could continue to live on the land, but title resided with the discovering power, the United States. The decision concluded that Native nations were “domestic, dependent nations.” This remains the fundamental law that rules the U.S. government’s relationship with Native Nations, a living colonial institution.

MZ: Please talk about how your book connects to larger issues of white supremacy/privilege.

RDO: In Chapter 2, “The Culture of Conquest,” I trace the rise of white supremacy to the Christian Crusades, and particularly the centuries long Castillian crusade against the Moorish Caliphate in the Iberian peninsula. In this process, Christian canon law introduced the concept of limpieza de sangre, cleanliness of blood, and established the Inquisition to investigate the purity of Christians, that they had no trace of Muslim or Jewish religious practices.

Then in 1492, began mass deportations of Muslims and Jews. The Doctrine of Discovery itself was inherently white supremacist in that it mandated that Christian monarchies (all European/white) had the right to occupy and dominate any non-Christian/non-white society.

The expropriation of Native land, turning it into private property/a commodity, as well as the savagizing of Native people, and the enslavement of human bodies, African bodies, as private property/commodities as well as a labor supply form the core of white supremacy in the founding, development, and present of the United States. I’ve always thought that the term “privilege” is such a weak word to describe the mindset that possessed European settlers.

MZ: I very much concur. It’s a word designed to be polite and non-confrontational. Yet another reason why it’d be so powerful to see your book become integrated into U.S. history education classes.

RDO: I think this book will be useful to teachers in developing a framework for presenting U.S. history to students at every level. The actual text books will be the last to change, due to the composition of most school boards in the country and the educational industrial complex. I want to see educators turn from thinking they have to “understand” Indians and instead start trying to understand the United States. When they do that, they will understand Native Americans.

MZ: With that in mind, as we descend into the era of ecocide, I feel it’d be useful to have you explain and expand on this passage that appears near the end of your book: “Indigenous peoples offer possibilities for life after empire, possibilities that neither erase the crimes of colonialism nor require the disappearance of the original peoples colonized under the guise of including them as individuals.”
RDO: As the first chapter in the book, “Follow the Corn,” lays out, the multiple forms of democratic governance and social relations developed by Indigenous peoples in North America are breathtaking. For one thing, they are all rooted in matriarchy. Matriarchy is not the opposite of patriarchy, nor simply substituting female people for male people. Rather it is a profound comprehension of the biological factors that can lead to domination and authoritarianism.

Training the male to be part of a community requires extensive ritual and discipline; it is not “natural,” rather socially constructed. It doesn’t happen automatically. And the concept of the earth as the source of sustenance, “mother,” that must be respected and managed.

Some of the experiments and results of social developments in North America (and the hemisphere) are adaptable to modern society, perhaps especially in cities. Native peoples built cities, towns, federations of towns, based on the common good. Indigenous socialism, as Evo Morales calls the phenomena, can provide both a goal and a practice, for survival and for defeating empire and structures of domination.

MZ: I’d love to see that concept shared widely as a template for environmental survival. Okay, as we wrap up, I know you’ve been doing plenty of talks and interviews lately but: Is there a question you've been hoping someone would ask you about this book but so far no one has? If so, please share that question and your answer with us.

RDO: The question: Why is Oklahoma unique, and what does its historical experience and present social movements have to offer for the rest of the society?

The answer: The whole country is a crime scene and should be marked with yellow tape, but Oklahoma was the place of distillation of the crimes against humanity created by the Andrew Jackson administration.

Click here to order An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States.

• Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz can be found on the Web here.

• Mickey Z. is the author of 12 books, most recently Occupy this Book: Mickey Z. on Activism. Until the laws are changed or the power runs out, he can be found on the Web here. Anyone wishing to support his activist efforts can do so by making a donation here.

.

DOI and OHA End Run

SOURCE: Gypsie Me ( gypsieme@hotmail.com)
SUBHEAD: Obama administration will use an executive policy statement to recognizing the Native Hawaiian roll, or instruct the DOI to do so.

By Ehu Kekahu Cardwell on 17 Friday 2014 for Free Hawaii -
(http://freehawaii.info/)


Image above: Modified image with no credit "We are not Indians. No thanks Kana'iolowalu". 

Highly reliable sources have informed us that the US Department of Interior has arrived at their decision regarding new rule making and federal recognition of Hawaiians.

Because of the overwhelming numbers of testifiers throughout Hawai`i as well as the US that stated they were against the DOI proposed plans, both in person at the hearings and online, the US Department of Interior itself has decided not to issue any new rules or re-recognition.

However, because those few who would stand to benefit directly from such a move have lobbied the White House intensely, the Obama administration will instead either issue an executive policy statement (as was done in Alaska) federally recognizing the Native Hawaiian roll, or they will instruct the DOI to issue an administrative policy that the Obama administration will then support.

Either of these actions are actually worse than any DOI rule making.

This yet to be announced policy statement will empower OHA and the Roll Commission to form a governing entity that will be rubber stamped with no oversight or advance public input whatsoever.

It is the “payoff” the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Council For Native Hawaiian Advancement (CNHA), the Sovereign Councils Of Hawaiian Homelands Assembly (SCHHA) and the Danners have been seeking for so long.

It also explains two recent developments -

First, the recent creation by OHA of itʻs “consortium,” of which the CNHA, the SCHHA and even the Association Of Hawaiian Civic Clubs (AOHCC) are said to become key controlling players.

This consortium would be the entity that administers and runs the creation of this federally recognized Native Hawaiian tribe. They would also be able to tightly control who gets admitted as members.

Second, the recent announcement postponing the Native Hawaiian convention and election of officers until sometime next year. This is to time the staging of the convention after the Obama administration publicly reveals its plans.

Since the public announcement regarding the Obama administration policy statement is not planned for some time, now is the time to let the Obama administration know that you are opposed to this scheme.

Contact the White House and DOI Assistant Secretary for Insular Areas Esther Kia`aina today and say NO! to their “proposed policy statement” or any US federal policy that would recognize the Native Hawaiian roll.

Email the White House - http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments
Or call the White House (202) 456-1111.

Email DOI Assistant Secretary for Insular Areas Esther Kia`aina - esther_kiaaina@ios.doi.gov

Let them know that after all the public testimony overwhelmingly against federal recognition you wonʻt stand for any end-run scheme that would in fact create a tribe to benefit a small group of kanaka maoli Americans.



Video above: Ehu Kekahu Cardwell presents possible DOI policy on native Hawaiians. From (http://youtu.be/E32EHxH7WhY).

.