Browse
This chapter uses the specific case of Antarctica to think more broadly about how the treatment of animals can reveal colonial attitudes and logics, but also whether, in the absence of an Indigenous human population, animals have been (or can be) mobilised as subjects of human domination in a manner with parallels to colonialism. After a discussion of the relationships among imperialism, colonialism and capitalism, the chapter asks what wider structures facilitated the exploitation of animals by visitors to Antarctica, and contrasts the view of animals as objects for exploitation with the occasional invocation of penguins as Antarctic ‘citizens’. The chapter considers Greenpeace’s use of penguins in its 1980s campaigns for an Antarctic World Park as an example of how animals could be mobilised as representatives of the Antarctic environment, which proved an effective tactic even if it raised questions about who spoke for Antarctica and its animals. The chapter concludes that while it is problematic to cast Antarctic animals as colonial subjects, the underlying logics and attitudes of colonialism can be regarded as having potentially shaped actions in Antarctica towards animals.
This chapter discusses the USSR’s activities in Antarctica as a continuation of the traditions of Russian/Soviet continental colonialism, particularly of the practices of exploring the far north. It shows how transfer of people, institutions, technologies and discourses from the Arctic to the Antarctic created an interpolar space of Soviet colonialism. On the other hand, the author examines the representations of the Soviet Antarctic programme within the context of the anti-colonial discourse of the Cold War period. Attention is drawn to the USSR’s particular focus on the mineral resources of the icy continent as a manifestation of its colonialist intentions. The chapter examines both the reflection of Antarctica in the resource imagination of the Soviet era and the history of specific research programmes for geological exploration of the continent and its shelf in the second half of the twentieth century. It employs the concept of extractive socialism to highlight the specificity of the Soviet response to resource challenges of the 1970s.
The chapter addresses the question of whether colonialism can be a useful concept to analyse the relationship of Argentina and Chile with Antarctica. To do so, it presents a historical analysis based on the perspective of international practices, examining territorial, scientific and economic approaches to Antarctica. The first section presents the concept of colonialism and relates it to the phenomena of imperialism and nationalism, raising some important analytical questions. The second section presents both countries’ territorial approach to Antarctica, considering these to be distinct from colonialist approaches. The third section contrasts the early scientific projects of Argentina and Chile with those of European powers during the heroic age of Antarctic expeditions, revealing some important differences. The fourth section explores the way in which both countries approached economic activities in the region as a means to ensure sovereignty in the face of what they regarded as imperialist ambitions, differentiating those approaches from the typical extractive approaches of European powers. The final section presents the chapter’s general conclusions, indicating that Argentina and Chile’s approaches should not be subsumed into Eurocentric concepts and perspectives, and that colonialism is not a useful concept to assess both countries’ attitudes toward Antarctica.
This chapter provides evidence of colonialism in Antarctica through the enacting of different types of borders. Using a postcolonial geographical analysis, it unpacks how these borders manifest and influence human behaviour across space, identity/hybridity and knowledge. The analysis reveals multiple Antarctic spaces and identities, and a distinct gatekeeping of knowledge. These all contain a paradox: the effects of colonial borders linger within Antarctic Treaty System rules and rule-making, separating decision-makers from each other and from Antarctica. At the same time, humans going to Antarctica connect with the collective interest of Antarctica by performing these very rules. The chapter shows how the five main gateways to Antarctica – Hobart, Christchurch, Punta Arenas, Ushuaia and Capetown – are spaces where the enacting of this paradox can be seen most clearly. Gateways are bordering spaces where Gateway states can exert influence upon Antarctic governance; they are also transition spaces to Antarctica via collective bordering practices. The new term extracolonialism is coined to focus on the coexistence of these two dynamics and the different ways in which they are bordered. The chapter argues that the term does two things. First, it acknowledges the legacies of the colonial past instead of avoiding them, particularly in relation to borders; second, it incorporates the sense of performative power of action in new collective spaces where humans work in relationship with Antarctica as nature rather than objectifying it.
This is the first major exploration of how – and if – colonialism can be a useful concept in analysing Antarctica, and whether Antarctica can help reveal the analytical limits of colonialism as a concept. It is a contribution to the wider project of critical Antarctic studies, which challenges Antarctic exceptionalism and argues that Antarctica has always been integrated within global political and economic structures. In the introduction the editors lay out the justification for the book and the questions to be examined, followed by 12 substantive chapters. The first set of chapters focuses on case studies from Latin America, France, the USSR, eastern Europe and China, with analytical approaches from heritage studies, political philosophy, international relations and history. The second set takes up thematic questions related to animals and colonialism, bordering and frontiers, capitalism, field science practices and identities, religion, political domination, and knowledge practices. Finally, a postscript takes a more reflective approach to the relationship between colonialism and Antarctica and places it within the larger context of ongoing scholarly discussions. Overall the book provides an argument for the relevance of colonialism for thinking about Antarctica, and vice versa, and a set of perspectives on both the advantages and the potential limitations of such approaches.
A focus on religion can offer a helpful perspective for thinking about colonialism in Antarctica. Using case studies from Britain, Argentina, Chile and the United States, this chapter explores the relationship between colonialism and religion in the twentieth-century history of Antarctica. Although Antarctica is in many ways quite different from examples of the close relationship that colonialism and religion have had in many other parts of the world, the chapter argues that religion has nonetheless supported colonial practices in Antarctica. Religion has provided a motivation for colonial engagement with Antarctica, has supported colonial claims to the continent and has played a role in domesticating Antarctic space as part of the process of settler colonialism. Reflecting the inherent imprecision of the words ‘colonialism’ and ‘imperialism’ in Antarctic history, a study of religion can help to demonstrate the colonial roots of Antarctic activities, even when the protagonists themselves may not have thought of themselves as involved in a colonial enterprise. Ultimately, however, it is science and not religion that has done most to support colonialism in Antarctica, meaning that the religious history of the continent has frequently been overlooked.
This chapter develops the idea of the origins and procedures of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) as colonial by relying on republican political thought and, more specifically, on the concept of domination. Thus, the chapter provides a valuable political-philosophical perspective on a discourse in the Antarctic humanities regarding the unfairness and injustice of the ATS. Focusing on domination helps to highlight the exact wrong of colonialism that is present in Antarctic governance, i.e. a group of states denying participation in decision-making about Antarctica to the rest of the world. This chapter discusses domination during the three stages of ATS’s development: the territorial claims, the negotiations of the Antarctic Treaty and the institutionalisation that followed. First, the problematic origins of the ATS are analysed by looking at the power imbalance present during territorial acquisition. Next, the chapter discusses the negotiations, which reflected existing hierarchies in the international arena. Then, it explains how domination was solidified through institutionalisation, which established the two-tier system that protects the interests of the original 12 signatories to the Antarctic Treaty to this day. The chapter concludes with republican strategies to minimise domination, and their applicability to the ATS. The chapter argues that the ATS’s transition away from domination and toward a postcolonial Antarctic future requires that decision-making be open to all states.
The French government and French scientists viewed the Antarctic and Southern Ocean region not as a separate and exceptional space, but rather as a necessary, contiguous part of the French imperial frontier. France’s Antarctic territories became key sites in the experimental rocketry programme that grew to define the French space agency, CNES. This chapter puts Antarctic rocketry experiments in the context of the French space programme’s other colonial ventures, at Hammaguir in the Algerian Sahara and Korou in French Guiana. Each of these locations served as a rocket testing and launch site. As rocketry experiments helped French scientists ‘conquer’ the challenge of going to space, they also contributed to the conquering, or in some cases reconquering, of imperial territory. In all three cases, continued sovereignty over imperial territory was necessary to French scientific and technological achievement. Rather than replacing colonialism, expansion into Antarctica and the exploration of outer space required it.
The introduction begins by laying out why colonialism has been considered controversial in the context of Antarctica, despite growing acceptance that imperialism, capitalism and various forms of geopolitical competition have shaped human presence in Antarctica and human attitudes to its governance. Following evaluation of various definitions of colonialism, and its relationship to concepts such as imperialism and capitalism, the authors present different ways in which colonialism may be relevant to Antarctica. These include the attitudes that informed actions toward Antarctic resources and territory, and the way in which global power structures were reproduced in the Antarctic Treaty. The authors then consider how Antarctica may reveal the limits of the utility of colonialism as an analytical concept, before moving on to a description and overview of the individual chapters in the book.
This chapter aims to analyse whether, to what degree and in what way the strategies and techniques used by numerous creators of master narratives with regard to Historic Sites and Monuments (HSMs) in Antarctica can be considered colonial practices. The chapter is based on the assumption that HSMs are transformed from neutral sites into so-called lieux de mémoire – places of memory filled with meanings and stories. For the analysis, Soviet/Russian, Polish and Chinese HSMs were chosen. Four areas have been analysed: toponyms, technological achievements, historical markers and memory-makers, and funerary landscapes. Based on an analysis of HSMs, one can observe that they are powerful instruments supporting colonial narratives, based on two main pillars: superiority and priority, demonstrated on different levels: religious, ideological and technological.