During the review period, Rapa Nui national leaders affirmed movement toward self-determination in the context of local, state, and global biopolitical forces that threaten the sustainable future of the Rapa Nui people, territory, and resources. Engaging the spirit of Angata, the first Rapa Nui woman to valiantly challenge such forces as they articulated in 1914 (McCall 1997, 117), many political voices and actions for social justice by leading contemporary Rapa Nui women are highlighted in this review, including Lolita Tuki, Erity Teave, Elisa Riroroko, Anakena Manutomatoma, Mama Piru (Piru Hucke Atan), and Marisol Hito. Conflict over the March 2015 reclamation of “ancestral lands”(kāiŋa tupuna) and “ancestral valuables”(hauha ‘a tupuna)—which the state had developed into a national park (El Parque Nacional Rapa Nui) in the 1930s without consulting the Rapa Nui people—had temporarily been resolved in April 2015 through an agreement between Rapa Nui national leaders and Chilean state government representatives (Young 2016a), but the conflict resumed by June 2015. Erity Teave, vice president of Parlamento Rapa Nui and president of Honui (two grassroots political organizations engaging movements for Rapa Nui self-determination entangled in the conflict), explained that the dispute centers around incommensurable understandings and experiences of the island: for Rapa Nui people, the sites that the state and global actors recognize as part of a “park for recreation” are actually “sacred places”(vahi tapu) that must be protected by “customary law”(derecho consuetudinario) as a taina henua—that is, an “island”(henua) of “siblings/relatives”(taina)(Teave, pers comm, 12 Aug 2016). The worldfamous moai statues at the center of vahi tapu are considered by Rapa Nui people to be “spiritual tombstones” that “protect the land and the blood matrix to which each clan belongs”(M Hitorangi 2013); as Mama Piru, a Parlamento Rapa Nui member, has stressed during the conflict, the moai “talk” with the Rapa Nui people who are the “children of their children”(ec, 25 Sept 2015). Thus, what is at stake is not only the “moral economy” for governing cultural heritage but also the epistemological and ontological foundations of Rapa Nui being and becoming as a nation and people (Young 2016c). What the state and global forces desire to administer as a Chilean “lawscape”(Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos 2015, 38–106), that is, a place that spatializes people, resources, and territories in terms of Chilean law, Rapa Nui national leaders want to protect as a genealogical “relationscape”(Manning 2009) that connects Rapa Nui present and future “extended families”(hua ‘ai) to their ancestral spiritual ecology and living cultural heritage.