In the recent issue of
Polar Record, there is an article about "Post-colonial Antarctica: an emerging engagement" by Klaus J. Dodds. The abstract admits that the title is actually misleading, as it states:
"Although ‘post-colonialism’ is a term that covers a great diversity of theoretical and political perspectives, it is generally agreed that it is united in its critical evaluation of colonialism and associated practices. Antarctica, thus far, has not attracted a great deal of attention from post-colonial scholars."
Well, you could argue that it is not only post-colonial scholars that have not been attracted to that continent yet, but in fact also any sort of colonial power...
Nevertheless, the author blazes on:
"By drawing on the limited engagement with Antarctica thus far, it is proposed that there are the intellectual resources for a deeper interrogation of polar colonialism and associated practices such as territorial claiming and base construction."
Fair enough, there is both territorial claiming (and quarelling at overlapping sector claims) as well as base construction and maintenance of presence. One of the best examples for that is the United States Antarctic Program (USAP) with its base at all strategic positions (Palmer St. on the Peninsula, McMurdo ST. in the Ross Sea, and Amundsen-Scott St. on the Pole, plus a varying number of field camps at other locations).
As readers are reminded of repeatedly by N. Johnson in his "BigDeadPlace" book as well as website (see previous posts), any and all of these stations are first about being there, and staying there, with "scientific projects" being the "front" of these operations.
But back to Antarctica as being post-colonial. The abstract of the paper ends by optimistically proclaiming the following:
"The paper is intended to be a starting point for a more sustained and potentially unsettling engagement with post-colonial Antarctic projects."
First I thought it was a hoax, clearly it could not be a joke, given its placement in an otherwise quite serious peer-reviewed journal. A reference to
Post-colonial Austria came to mind, which I came across just recently on
Distraction Economy, a blog about "attention and its deficits" ;)
Just to mention that briefly, that post discusses the (fictional) post-colonial history of Austria.
Given the fact that Austria is often conceived as suffering from being no more than an amputated version of its former Austro-Hungarian empire - although that empire was by no means as extensive as the British empire, where similar "post-imperialism" could be assumed - the story was given an extra twist by proposing Malaysia (of all countries) as its former colonial power...
But the bit where I am still wondering is the "post-" in "colonial". What make the author assume that there is any such thing in Antarctica?
Although I am no historian, I would argue that Antarctica could only be described as "pre-colonial" or "quasi-colonial" at best, if one wanted to employ the term "colonial" at all. The fact remains that although claims have been staked, and permanent human presence in the form of "research stations" have been established and are maintained by several nations, some of them even as "family societies" with even the odd child being born "Antarctican", the Antarctic Treaty has been negotiated and established exactly for one reason, and that is to arrest (and postpone) all such claims, debates and resulting attempts of industrial exploitation. And, to get back on the aspect of "science" being a "front" to such a presence, the Antarctic Treaty requires signatory states to "perform substantial scientific activity".
So far, the treaty has fulfilled its goals, and the human presence as well as political interest in Antarctica has been limited to the so far hypothetical scenario where real "colonialism" could eventually take place.
Labels: Antarctic Stuff