A friend asked me if they heard about Canada and Denmark sharing the land border?
I immediately thought: Here we go again.
I looked it up and found a CBC article with headline: Canada and Denmark reach deal to divide uninhabited Arctic island
 | Google Map: Hans Island Google Earth: Hans Island Note that the island is nowhere near Denmark or Britain, so no legitimate reason for those governments, or their subsidiaries/derivatives, to have title claims. If you look via Google Earth and look at the earth from the North Pole, you can see how there is a claim that this has something to do with Russia.
|
This is what Europeans look for. It is a reminder that the "Doctrine of Discovery" and "terra nullius" are still current concepts for Europeans. This is the notion that if a thing (which until recently included people) was not already "owned" in a Roman/European sense, then it could be claimed to be owned simply through seizure.
I believe continuing to use this less advanced European way of thinking in this case makes no sense.
European notions of properly grant exclusivity, but without any responsibility. Once "owned", the thing can be harmed or even destroyed without any responsibility to others (human, non-human living beings, differently animated beings).
When Europeans first started to visit this continent, which the peoples near where I live call "Turtle Island", they didn't recognize the people here as civilized and had an unwillingness to even treat them as humans. When Samuel de Champlain, a subject of the French kingdom, first came across a citizen of the Haudenosaunee in 1609, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy had already been an an advanced participatory democratic league of 5 nations possibly since 1192. While the Europeans lacked evidence of their odd claim to being more advanced in social sciences, they did have more advanced weaponry. Typical of the thinking of Empire builders, might was believed to be right. They use their savagery to claim supremacy and "civilization".I believe continuing to use this less advanced European way of thinking in this case makes no sense.
Apparently the concern is that Russia might claim ownership through seizure, so British North America (Canada) and Denmark jointly seized the land for themselves as they already made odd claims to neighboring lands. The assumption in all this European Supremacist thinking is that it is legitimate for any European government to lay exclusivity claims based on seizure, even to lands quite distant from Europe.
Europeans are constantly feuding or at war with each other. Even though "might was believed to be right" in the European seizure of this continent, somehow Russia (also part of Europe) doing the same thing to a much smaller area currently called Ukraine that was fairly recently part of the Soviet Union is supposed to be automatically understood as wrong.
Europeans are constantly feuding or at war with each other. Even though "might was believed to be right" in the European seizure of this continent, somehow Russia (also part of Europe) doing the same thing to a much smaller area currently called Ukraine that was fairly recently part of the Soviet Union is supposed to be automatically understood as wrong.
Apparently the sovereignty of Europeans we are supposed to like is good, but the sovereignty of non-Europeans we are blindly supposed to ignore.
The correct thing is for the International community to protect further land outside of Europe being claimed to be controlled by European governments based on their uncivilized notions of seizure based exclusivity. It is the people and other more-than-human relations with connections to the lands which have a motivation to steward the lands which should be protected.
What is needed is for Indigenous peoples of the polar regions to be granted sovereignty from European governments in the south (especially those operating outside of Europe). There are agreements to disallow any foreign government to claim Antarctica, and something similar should be done with the Arctic.
In the case of what Europeans renamed "North America", it would be the beginning of allowing the True North to become Strong and Free again -- without being subjugated to European dominion.
The correct thing is for the International community to protect further land outside of Europe being claimed to be controlled by European governments based on their uncivilized notions of seizure based exclusivity. It is the people and other more-than-human relations with connections to the lands which have a motivation to steward the lands which should be protected.
What is needed is for Indigenous peoples of the polar regions to be granted sovereignty from European governments in the south (especially those operating outside of Europe). There are agreements to disallow any foreign government to claim Antarctica, and something similar should be done with the Arctic.
In the case of what Europeans renamed "North America", it would be the beginning of allowing the True North to become Strong and Free again -- without being subjugated to European dominion.
Starting with Inuit Nunangat
What is needed is peacekeeping to protect the land from European ideologies (whether from Eastern or Western Europe), not further land seizures by Europeans.
What is needed is peacekeeping to protect the land from European ideologies (whether from Eastern or Western Europe), not further land seizures by Europeans.
So eloquently written. As always your brilliance is appreciated. Carly
ReplyDelete