The Problem: climate crisis, mass extinctions, environment degradation, war, refugees.
The Cause: capitalism, the power of business over elected governments, the drive for profit for a few over the rights of many. Government efforts at tackling The Problem have been stymied at every turn by big business with opposing vested interests.
The Solution: Decolonisation.
I am sure that many people have the idea that colonisation was something that happened in the 18th and 19th centuries and that we have moved on from there.
We need to admit the extent to which we are still colonised. And I don’t think many people do. Which leads to a rather superficial idea of what decolonisation means.
Colonisation is not just strutting Europeans in pith helmets out to exploit new lands. It is a state of mind, a very insidious one that persists strongly today. Embedded in it is the attitude that nature is there for us to exploit – that we are the apex creatures who are separate from nature, that we have been given ‘dominion’ over nature.
Also inherent in colonialism are patriarchy and racism, which are both still rampant today. Our minds remain colonised by a distant European sense of entitlement. I am able to write this because I know it: I was brought up in Britain in the 50s and 60s. I was a product of the private school system which was designed to indoctrinate us with a sense of privilege and superiority. Somehow I escaped and have Aotearoa’s biculturalism to thank for opening my eyes.
Colonisation and capitalism are one and the same thing. Capitalism is the weapon used against nature. Capitalism is the army of shock troops who have no moral code, who only act out their pre-programmed orders to exploit to the limit, then move on. As long as capitalism remains, so will the colonial mindset. To be sure, the colonial/capitalist model has brought prosperity to many, though by no means all. But now it has gone too far and is failing to respond to the current crises. And I would say that it is no longer politically and philosophically tenable.
Colonialism has many ramifications, many radical outcomes, but I would like to focus on just one implication: land.
As Māori say, I am the land and the land is me. Land is the basis for everything. The Green Party is discussing how colonialism severed Māori connection to land and how they want to redress this by returning some land. But they are missing the point: colonialism severed contact for everyone. The issue is not just about giving land and connection back to Māori (though that is the most important one), it is doing that for everyone. The climate crisis demands it.
As long as we think we are separate and treat nature as a resource to exploit, then we are doomed. But humans have not always lived like this. And many indigenous cultures still don’t. So I think it is important to look to them for an older, more resilient model.
As I understand it, pre-colonial cultures like Māori did not own land, they belonged to it. Tribal groups had ‘mana’ or authority over their rohe, but within that area different smaller groups (hapū or whānau) had often overlapping rights to different areas, depending on their activity. Some would also move between different areas seasonally. With resource collection rights came responsibilities, kaitiakitanga: because we are the land, so we have to look after it and hence our ongoing security. To maintain their rights they had to exercise ahi kā, continuous occupation, keeping the home fires burning. This ensured that no person or family claimed more than their share, or more than they needed.
Land ownership with title deeds and fences came here on a ship from Europe as a weapon of colonisation. And it was not that old in Europe either. A few hundred years ago people used to build their own cottage, often in a village, but they grazed common land outside the village which no one owned. Until, that is, the rich passed a law that anyone who fenced land would then own it. Of course, only the rich could afford the fencing which was probably carried out with the labour of the farmers, denying themselves their own grazing and cropping.
It is also important to note that land in those days was meaningless if you could not travel to and from it within a day. So farming plots were all ringed around villages. Small and sustainable.
This, for me, is a good starting model for the future. Food, water and energy security are basic human needs and rights. There is no way they should be controlled by market forces. Germany suddenly woke up to this fact very recently when it discovered that its enormous reserve tanks of gas happened to be nearly empty – why? Because they are owned by Russian gas companies!
We can only approach sustainability and carbon zero if we ditch the market model of energy and foodstuffs being shipped around the world. They do not need to be – we can grow all we need here and most of it can be done right next to our towns and villages.
Similarly with energy. Putin’s threat would have been immeasurably reduced if the west had not relied on Russia for so much of its fossil derived energy, which has also paid for his war effort. Renewables can all be local – you don’t need filthy oil tankers plying the sea and roads, making us dependent on amoral companies.
But I want to come back to land. In a post-colonial world how can anyone own land? By this I do not mean the herbaceous borders around your house, but all the rest, including productive farming land. As Davids Wengrow and Graeber say in The Dawn of Everything, “Landed property’ is not actual soil, rocks and grass. It is a legal understanding, maintained by a subtle mix of morality and the threat of violence.” Or as Mao put it more bluntly, “Property, like political power, ultimately derives from the barrel of a gun”.
How can we embrace indigenous principles today to create a better relationship with nature and land, and hence tackle current crises?
If we are serious about moving on from colonialism, then we need to address the problem of land ownership. In a post-colonial world, no-one should be able to own rocks, mountains, lakes, rivers, forests, thus excluding others. Nor should they own the source of our basic needs. We all have a right to be nourished by land and we all have a right to land’s life support systems like food and water.
I would go even further and say no-one should own land if they can’t demonstrate ahi kā. So goodbye corporations, absent landowners and other exploiters who have no incentive to practise kaitiakitanga. Goodbye fences with ‘Keep out’ and ‘No trespassing’ signs.
Aotearoa has the opportunity to lead the world here. The only way that we can address the climate crisis and reduce our impact on the environment is by tackling colonialism/capitalism. But there will be a fight!
Re “The Dawn of Everything”
Keep foremost in mind that “The Dawn of Everything” is a biased disingenuous account of human history (www.persuasion.community/p/a-flawed-history-of-humanity ) that spreads fake hope (the authors of “The Dawn” claim human history has not “progressed” in stages, or linearly, and must not end in inequality and hierarchy as with our current system… so there’s hope for us now that it could get different/better again). As a result of this fake hope porn it has been widely praised. It conveniently serves the profoundly sick industrialized world of fakes and criminals. The book’s dishonest fake grandiose title shows already that this work is a FOR-PROFIT, instead a FOR-TRUTH, endeavour geared at the (ignorant gullible) masses.
Fact is human history has “progressed” by and large in linear stages, especially since the dawn of agriculture (www.focaalblog.com/2021/12/22/chris-knight-wrong-about-almost-everything ). This “progress” has been fundamentally destructive and is driven and dominated by “The 2 Married Pink Elephants In The Historical Room” (www.rolf-hefti.com/covid-19-coronavirus.html ) which the fake hope-giving authors of “The Dawn” entirely ignore naturally (no one can write a legitimate human history without understanding and acknowledging the nature of humans). And these two married pink elephants are the reason why we’ve been “stuck” in a destructive hierarchy and unequal class system , and will be far into the foreseeable future (the “stuck” question — “the real question should be ‘how did we get stuck?’ How did we end up in one single mode?” — [cited from their book] is the major question in “The Dawn” its authors never answer, predictably).
A good example that one of the authors, Graeber, has no real idea what world we’ve been living in and about the nature of humans is his last brief article on Covid where his ignorance shines bright already at the title of his article, “After the Pandemic, We Can’t Go Back to Sleep.” Apparently he doesn’t know that most people WANT to be asleep, and that they’ve been wanting that for thousands of years (and that’s not the only ignorant notion in the title) — see last cited source above. Yet he (and his partner) is the sort of person who thinks he can teach you something authentically truthful about human history and whom you should be trusting along those terms. Ridiculous!
“The Dawn” is just another fantasy, or ideology, cloaked in a hue of cherry-picked “science,” served lucratively to the gullible ignorant underclasses who crave myths and fairy tales.
“The evil, fake book of anthropology, “The Dawn of Everything,” … just so happened to be the most marketed anthropology book ever. Hmmmmm.” — Unknown
Jived: Near the end of my article I made brief mention of ‘The Dawn of Everything’, and only as passing comment to what owning land might mean. Yet you have written your response as if my whole piece was based on that book, which it patently is not. And which is revealing . .
It seems, sadly, that responses to TDOE have been polarised along left/right divisions: the left loves it — the right hates it and will use any opportunity (like yours) to crudely put it down. In my opinion TDOE might have some flaws but is nevertheless worthy of consideration. I will take notice of reasoned arguments, like the excellent Chris Knight article you reference (thank you–but it advocates for oscillating history not the linear one you say he does), but not shrill hyperbole.
David, the fact that someone makes a critical comment on the dawn of everything does not imply AS YOU DO that your “whole piece” is based on that book. It only shows your lack of scholarly acumen.
A careful examination of Jived’s sources also makes apparent UNLIKE YOUR FALSE CLAIM that “responses to TDOE” are about “left/right divisions” but that’s the fake ideology you, like most others, evidently live in and under. Which brings me back to your lack of scholarly acumen … and your rigid mindset.
David, you misconstrue what Chris Knight’s article states (and what Jived commented about it). Knight agrees that there has been a linearity since the dawn of civilization, while prior to that it was more of an “oscillating history.” Jived basically said that too, although he/she phrased it awkwardly and somewhat misleadingly or inaccurately (“human history has “progressed” by and large in linear stages, especially since the dawn of agriculture”) but the main part concerning us today, the linearity we’ve been in for a very long time, is correct.
Without a proper grasp of what world we live in no real solutions will be proposed, and then made.
What a load of unmitigated crap
Very well said David, shame some of your peers fear losing some of their status and or power that they have made off of others.
Denial of the damage of colonisation is purely to maintain the status quo by those who fear losing the power/status they hold and enjoy.
The sooner this country teaches it own History in schools and drops the focus on former ruling countries the better.
Here is a NZer’s TedTalk on privilege, well worth the watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJepOq6J5kk
This article paints a wonderful picture of an ideal world where everyone lives in harmony with each other and the natural environment. I wish I could push a button to beam me to this land where the future is safe, the physical and mental well-being guaranteed and time for joyful activities abundant. But sadly, such a happy world can only come alive in my dreams.
A more realistic aim is to force the government to govern in the best interest of the population instead of dancing to the tunes of the corporate elite. Such a government would set and enforce boundaries to individual greed and make those who act environmentally irresponsible pay for the damage they do. But even this far more moderate change is unlikely to come about without a revolution.
What you have written Mr Trubridge is a truth to big for many to swallow but it is in my opinion the truth
There will be much debate about how we are going to get where we need to go but one thing is clear
If we don’t but the brakes on the colonial mind set we will truely be stuffed if we are not already
Thanks for having the courage to say what needed to be said
The challenges and stresses of our planet’s finite resources and fragile environment will certainly have been adversely affected by Capitalism and Colonialism.
If you keep expanding the truthful nature of those discussions, I would suggest that at some point you will logically come to the topic of population size versus available resources, and how those should be allocated etc lead further to discussions about population management too, yes??
Good luck to all when we start those discussions.
David I think you need to have a listen to Magatte Wade, she is the Director of African Prosperity of the Atlas Network. The largest think tank in the world on free markets. She would whole heartedly disagree with you on your understanding of both Colonialism and Capitalism. Capitalism has pulled more people out of poverty than any other system. What you are referring to is crony capitalism, which is where state and business work together forging monopolies and unfair advantage. Which is exactly what we have in NZ with Fonterra and Fletchers etc. These companies simply wouldn’t have that much power/control in a truely free market.
It’s also interesting that you have benefited largely from the very system you now despise and have a business that has done exceptionally well in a ‘somewhat’ capitalist system and now that you are in a comfortable position you can now look down and preach rhetoric about the utopian socialist society that has never existed in human history.
You are also romanticising the traditional Māori society. They did indeed have fences and life wasn’t bliss. There is no excuse for the many atrocities England undertook when here in the 1800’s however, we as a society have come a long way since then and it’s the polarisation of the left and their divisive ideologies that are causing more and more of a divide between Māori and Pakeha not capitalism.
The university of Hawaii conducted a study which concluded governments of the 20th century killed over 200 million people (excluding wars)! I would rather live with the problems of ‘too much’ freedom than ‘too much’ government!
The Riverside Community based in the Lower Moutere Valley was established in 1941 by a small group of Christian Pacifists. Now the “Riverside Community Trust”, it is perhaps the best and most successful example of low-impact community living to which we might aspire. However, we should be having a serious discussion on a New Zealand population limit which at least will preserve or improve the present environmental status.
Utterly cherry-picked, fanatical, scary and bitter, from someone sitting on his perch judging the system that put him into considerable comfort while owning properties that most can’t ever own, hopefully, he chooses to share these properties with those less fortunate. Or give them up completely, I don’t think so! No doubt Jacinda will be pleased to see articles advocating for Socialism, as will Mr Klaus, expect these ideological views to get more air time as they push us towards that agenda, with many extreme left arty types unwittingly advocating for squashing our freedoms in the process of pushing for their utopia.