Class #23: Heather Davis and Zoe Todd, “On the Importance of a Date, or Decolonizing the Anthropocene”


Heather Davis and Zoe Todd point out the failure of the Anthropocene, as a name to be assigned to today’s epoch. The start date that is being chosen for the Anthropocene is mid twentieth century 1964.  They are drawing connections saying that the Anthropocene, is explicitly linked to the beginnings of colonization. By linking the Anthropocene with colonization, it draws attention to the violence at its core, and calls for the consideration of Indigenous philosophies and processes of Indigenous self-governance as a necessary political corrective, alongside the self-determination of other communities and societies violently impacted by the white supremacist, colonial, and capitalist logics instantiated in the origins of the Anthropocene. They feel that the Anthropocene betrays itself in its name: in its reassertion of universality, it implicitly aligns itself with the colonial era. Heather Davis and Zoe Todd propose a 1610 start date to coincide with colonization period .By starting the date in the mid twentieth century we are failing by not taking into account the cyclical history and interest of specific groups of people. The logic of the colonization is the same as the logic of the Anthropocene. The Anthroposcene erases differences through genocide and climate change. Under colonialism there was an imposition of Universalist ideals, imposing the right way to live, and economy. In terms of land it forces a landscape, climate, and ecosystem. Colonialism is a process of trying to create the same version of what the homeland is.  They also put into place racial/ social hierarchies. The Anthropocene and colonialism are based on severing of relations between land, people, animals, and language. Colonization has always been about changing the biosphere. As well the Anthropocene stands for massive environmental and climate change. Under colonialism and the name Anthropocene relocation of vulnerable people, mass extinction, the erasure of difference, and radical transformation of the biosphere.
This is definitely my favorite reading we’ve had all semester, and that is because this reading traces back the history of forgotten people, and discusses their relationship with nature. Also I think its interesting how important labels can be. These researchers took into account that they’re a larger story that was going untold when they originally decided to label the Anthropocene as starting in 1964. I think it is extremely important to account for the voices of vulnerable, oppressed, and wiped out civilizations. While these people’s lives and livelihood were erased, the biosphere and environment these indigenous people called home was also altered and damaged. I think from this article we can get a clear understanding of how nature in the eyes of humans dramatically changed and was simply seen as a resource for our own personal gains. Toda we still unfortunately we still have this mindset due to industrialization and capitalism, but now we are aware of the major consequences that face us regarding nature. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Kenneth Goodpaster: On Moral Consideration

Kenneth Goodpaster leads us through many principles and perceptions of different philosophers to tackle the overall question, “ to whom principles of morality apply?” In order to begin to develop an answer for this question, we must first understand the framework of moral consideration, and then proceed to the application of this framework. Goodpaster presents to us distinct viewpoints on the sorts of entities that can and should receive moral consideration. He believes that neither rationality nor the capacity to experience pleasure and pain are necessary conditions on moral considerability. Instead, the simple act of being alive, for Goodpaster is a plausible criterion in terms of moral consideration. He believes that the universe of moral consideration is more complex that just individual persons and their joys ad sorrows. Goodpaster begins to draw the distinction between rights and considerability. He believes that the notion of rights are more specific that those of considerbaili...
Read more

Rolston, Duties to Ecosystems

Holmes Rolston talks about the separate duties that humans and organisms owe to the ecosystem through distinct lenses. He states that the apparent harmony in ecosystems is superficial. Like business, politics, and sports ecosystems thrive on competition. He talks about how environmental necessity involves conflict, selection pressure, niche fittedness, environmental support, etc. These section pressures will routinely drive adaptation and counter adaptation; therefor the ecosystem is forcing a check on competitions by forced cooperation.   He believes us humans need to see that, an ecosystem has no centeredness at all, and we ought to simply value organisms for their evolutionary journey and purpose. The members of the biotic community have no shared needs; each species is individualistic in the sense that they are focused on the needs of their own survival.   He further explains how an ecosystem is far from being a satisfactory community, instead it is rath...
Read more