Little did I realize when I wrote something recently that some of the readers would ingest it with a colour that it was never intended to have. The subject was the too frequent contemporary use of the term “settlers” to describe those who are not described as indigenous.
One reader said in surprise and disapproval that my piece indicated that I was saying that “Might is right”. It spoke no such thing. Perhaps she brought that perspective into the reading room with her.
Here is what I wrote:
I resent the term
"settlers". Even those who claim to be indigenous are
"settlers", migrants if you wish. The world is continuously in
motion. Whether it be climate change, wars, poverty hunger, discrimination,
persecution or conquest, the world and its people and animals are constantly in
movement. The so called indigenous peoples have no greater claim to this land
than any others. We are all inhabitants of this planet. And the planet itself
is in motion. We are all stewards of this planet, because it is the only home
we have. Don't tell me colonialism is wrong when we are looking eagerly to Mars
and other planets in the universe for our survival. We all live here, black,
brown, white, red, yellow. We are prisms on the rainbow of life. Forget
ownership. Think stewardship.
I must say how distressed I
was at this reader’s interpretation. I reread what I had written very
carefully. What had I said to lead someone to this interpretation. I asked
others with whom I had shared it. None of us could see such a position
expressed in what I had written.
It was the overuse of the word
"Settlers" in an the article I had just read that got to me. I am so tired of sitting and listening repeatedly to sanctimonious speeches of how
we are on the unceded territory of the Mi’kmaq. The word "Settlers" is
used as if to shame those of us who are not "indigenous" and to make us feel like we must apologize for our very
presence here.
It is not that in any way I think that our collective European ancestors treated the indigenous populations well, at least for the most part. They did not. And it has been well into the present that we have needed to acknowledge that. But one cannot undo the past. I think one has to start looking forward from now, rather than continuously to the past, at least after one acknowledges the wrongs of the past. One has to move away from the concept of being victims and take charge of where one is at.
But the
mistreatment of the indigenous population of this or other continents was not
the subject of my article. That is really a separate, although related issue. My
article was about this notion of ownership or entitlement to the land we are
living on.
We have a lot to learn from the
traditional respect for nature that the indigenous peoples of this and other
continents had. Even the Druids had a respect for the natural order in what is
now Britain and Ireland. But their life was not pristine.
These are old understandings of the
order of things that precede modern times. But time does not stand still. Nor
does reality. We have to adapt as the natural order routinely does.
This concept of some peoples being
more entitled to a piece of land than those who come after is, in my view unsustainable. No one is entitled to an unreserved use and occupation of land. But
those who do occupy land should be caretakers and respecters of the land and
the natural environment.
Indigenous history is oral in nature.
And one's oral history tends to reinforce and sometimes invent the good aspects of past events by
one’s ancestors. We talk about the indigenous people of North America being
here since "time immemorial". All that means is "a very long
time, long before we know anything about it".
Yes, 25,000 to 30,000 years of
occupation is a long time. And 400 to 1000 years is, in comparison, relatively
short. But in the five to seven million years of hominid existence, and the two
or two point five million years of the first presumed migrations out of Africa,
these time periods are both flecks of sand in the time piece of human history.
My article is merely saying that we
as one humanity have been on the move for a very long time. And we are
continuing to be on the move for the reasons set out in my article. This movement
or migration is only going to increase in the next fifty years and on. So, if
we want to survive as a people, then we have to learn to look forward and discover
ways to live together.
If the planet continues to move in
the direction it is currently heading, then exploration of space may be an
option for survival of human beings. I would, however, like to think that,
collectively, we have the skills to ensure that life on this planet can be
sustained. But the colonizers of the past, some for greed, some for adventure
and, yes, many for survival, thought that new frontiers were the only way
forward.
I have witnessed those who profess to
accept the shame of European colonization voice excitement at the prospect of
space exploration and settlement. This seems so inconsistent.
I wish the resources spent on space
exploration were being spent on a sustainable future for us and other life
forms on this planet. If colonization of space is to take place, one can only
hope that we have learned from the errors of the past.
Sadly, I do not think we do learn.
Sadly, history does tend to repeat itself. In that event, maybe the end of
humanity would not be a bad a thing.
