Class 2: Racialised natures
Christos Zografos, PhD
JUH-UPF Public Policy Centre, Department of Political and Social Sciences, Pompeu Fabra University,
Barcelona, Spain
christos.zografos@upf.edu
Masters in Environmental Studies
Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic
November 2018
C:\Users\U53969\Desktop\PSPC_WEB.png

This class
•Three concepts:
–Environmental racism
–Environmental justice
–Othering
–
1

READING QUESTION
“…the uncontrolled growth of weeds and their emerging dominance in the landscape do appear to
symbolize disorder, decay, and the absence of control that accompany years of political and fiscal
neglect. Socially speaking, the significance of weeds is not what they do but, rather, what they
represent; the same can be said for the abandoned autos, heaps of garbage, discarded needles,
condoms, and drug paraphernalia, and broken glass that are pervasive throughout the park”
(Brownlow, 2006, p.242)
Why, according to Brownlow, have disorder and decay fallen upon Cobbs Creek?
2

Disorder and decay in Cobbs Creek
•Why?
–A key factor/ key change that brought about disorder and decay
–
•Loss of social (community) control mechanisms that ensured park security for everyone
•
•What reasons produced this phenomenon?
Racism: racism-induced and racism-related decisions
1.Decisions of a man in power (Rizzo)
2.Public Administration neglect of park, community, and its services
3.Change in gang culture
3
3

1. Decisions of a man in a seat of power
•
•Frank (“The Big Bambino”) Rizzo: Police Commissioner turned Mayor
–Cuts park budget by 50%
–Reduces mounted Park Guard
–Removes park benches
•
•Copyright: Bill Achatz/AP
4

•Police Commissioner & then Mayor Rizzo:
–his actions led to a loss of surveillance (local community social control) mechanisms
•Actions: Rizzo policies
–1974: Mayor Rizzo cuts park budget by 50% (compared to previous admin)
–reduce importance of mounted Park Guard (personal vendetta) through its reduction: from 500 guards
to 24 and its integration with the Philadelphia Police Department,
–removal of park benches upon which members of the community would sit and observe “the world
passing by”. This also led to elimination of an important element of community self-surveillance
(benches)

2. Result of neglect (of racist-origins)
•Budget cuts started with Mayor Rizzo but continued: since early 80s (i.e. 3 decades=no increase)
•steady decline in budgetary spending on the park further compounded the problem
•budget cuts followed almost exact pattern as exodus of whites from the area (racism within
Philadelphia’s powerful decision-making institutions)
5
brownlow charts.pdf brownlow charts.pdf

3. Change in gang culture
•
•
•The 50s: the “organic” gangs
–“Homegrown” gangs’ informal agreement over park's neutrality
•Late 60s – early 70s: Black Power
–Cobbs Creek’s early gangs (and informal security) quietly disappear
•Late 70s: the power vacuum
–Decline of black identity movement
–Outmigration
•The 80s: end of the agreement
–Violent gangs: no agreements, unwritten or otherwise
–
•
•
•John: “The park was sort of that neutral ground because everybody came to the park, and you had
picnics out there and all kinds of things in that community – cook outs”
•Tom: “It was an unwritten agreement that the park would be neutral”
•
•
6

The 50s:  Gangs' informal agreement over park's neutrality
Late60s +early70s:
•growing pressure of black power movement to cease black-on-black violence and focus energy and
anger on greater social and political wrongs
•Cobbs Creek’s early gangs quietly disappear: informal park security they ensured also disappears
late 1970s:
•decline of black identity movement
•and outmigration of middle-class blacks leaves power vacuum
1980s: re-emergence of gangs
•structure and membership not like “organic, homegrown gangs of the 1950s and 1960s”
•more violent forms and structures mimicked gang activity in cities like L.A., Chicago, and New
York, where there were no agreements, unwritten or otherwise
•End of agreement: emergence of violence

The bigger picture
•Must analyse loss of social control mechanisms from wider perspective of evolution of power
relations within city’s history
–civil rights movement, racial struggles, economic decay, etc.
–racist and racially explosive period: significant, if disproportionate, roles
•Rizzo’s decisions to dismantle local social control mechanisms in Cobbs Creek: a form of social
control
–means to control social organization and activity of politically active
–by removing primary public arena (the Park) of intercourse and exchange
7
7

•Loss of social control mechanisms must be analysed from a wider perspective of power relations'
evolution within Philadelphia's recent history
–civil rights movement, racial struggles, economic decay, etc.
–the legacy of an overtly racist and racially explosive period in Philadelphia’s political history;
one in which both the city’s governing, white elite and local black activists play significant, if
disproportionate, roles.
•Rizzo’s decisions to dismantle local social control mechanisms in Cobbs Creek can be seen as a
form of social control
–as a means of controlling social organization and activity among politically active black
community during a period of racial upheaval
–by removing/ controlling their primary public arena (the Park) of social intercourse and political
exchange

Argument 1
•Racism produces environmental degradation
•Because: it offloads environmental ‘bads’ to non-white communities, by both depriving them of
resources and reducing their own capacities to maintain a healthy environment
•Evidence:
–The racist-motivated actions of Mayor Rizzo
–The changes in gang culture
8

EVIDENCE:
•The racist-motivated actions of Mayor Rizzo in Philadelphia (60s-80s) that reduced city resources
dedicated to maintaining the park and African American community’s social control mechanisms (park
security)
•The changes in gang culture, which were related to race struggles and which transformed the park
(without social control mechanisms) into a space of illegality and violence

Environmental racism
•
•
•
•The term: Reverend Dr. Benjamin F. Chavis Jr. – The UCCCRJ report (1987)
•
•Jepson, 2007: “intentional or unintentional…
o…racial discrimination in environmental decision-making, …
o…systematic exclusion of people of color from the mainstream environmental movement, …
o…negligent enforcement of environmental protections, laws and regulations along racial lines, …
o…and disproportionate distribution of environmental burdens on racial and ethnic minorities where
they live, work, and play”
–
•Source: http://blackkudos.tumblr.com
9

DEFINITION (from encyclopeadia of Environment & Society): intentional or unintentional racial
discrimination in environmental decision-making, systematic exclusion of people of color from the
mainstream environmental movement negligent enforcement of environmental protections, laws and
regulations along racial lines, and disproportionate distribution of environmental burdens on
racial and ethnic minorities where they live, work, and play.
THE TERM
•Civil rights leader Reverend Dr. Benjamin F. Chavis, Jr. first articulated the term environmental
racism for a US audience during the presentation of the 1987 report Toxic Waste and Race in the
United States (at the National Press Club in Washington D. C.)
•THE REPORT done  by the United Church of Christ Commission on Racial Justice (UCCCRJ) was the
first national study to document the strong correlation between race and hazardous landfill
locations at a national level.
•In 1982, popular protest and mobilization against the planned hazardous waste dump for 40 thousand
cubic yards of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)-contaminated soil in Warren County, a predominantly
African-American community in North Carolina, is widely viewed the transformative event in the
environmental justice movement.
•During the Warren County struggle over the planned waste dump, church activists and Chavis, drew
widespread attention to the unequal burden of African Americans to hazardous waste storage sites
and the community’s marginalization in environmental decision making
ENDEMIC TO US HISTORY: Parallel story deeply rooted in ideological constructions of race, nature,
and society
•Colonial dispossession of Native American homelands to their expulsion from national parks and
wilderness areas for the benefit of 19th century white, middle-class tourists and
environmentalists, such as John Muir.
•For the African-American community, slavery’s expropriation of environmental knowledge,
reconstruction-era land loss, and consequent rural exodus to segregated urban centers, forcibly
reconfiguring the community’s relationship to the natural world.
•In the 20th century, racial and ethnic minorities [e.g. Hispanos] have faced increasing
environmental hazards as they represent large percentages of the urban working class exposed to the
toxic threats of industrial society in the workplace to neighborhoods yet excluded from the
mainstream environmental movement.

Environmental justice
q
q
q ACTIVITY: So: what is environmental justice?
1.Direct paraphrasing (in layman’s words): explain environmental justice to your mom who calls you
today to ask how are things!
•What it involves? Its objective?
•Its key elements or dimensions?
2.Present in class
•EJ: concept closely related to environmental racism
•Normative dimension out of environmental racism
•What should be done then to avoid environmental racism?
–
q Watch Justice Matters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKqR0e54qhA
q Watch Environmental justice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dREtXUij6_c
•
10

Questions for presentations:
-Why is your example a good example of environmental (in)justice?
-ASK REST of the class:
-What do you think of their definition? Did they leave something out?
-What do you think of their example? Good?
5 min per group for: ppt + Q&A

An answer
•Key objective:
–Justice: everyone treated fairly
–Justice: distributive, remedial, preventive
•Dimensions
1.Not only race: but also, gender, class (income), etc.
2.Not only distribution: but also, procedural; representational
3.National and international levels
4.Not only burden of uneven goods, but also uneven access to goods
–
11

“How can we break down and re-imagine a system that is built up on those inequities”
(“…unable to profit from resources, and are made sick or poor”)

Justice
•Waskey, 2007:
•Justice as fair treatment
–Justice = a system of rewards and punishments that are designed to fit the actions of those
receiving justice
•Types:
–Distributive
–Remedial
–Preventative
•
12
Source: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/EJ/EJ_ricardolevinsmorales.jpg

JUSTICE
Fundamentally, it is the moral principle that a person should receive the type of treatment that he
or she deserves.
[Injustice is seen as a departure from a naturally occurring moral order.
•In Western civilization, concepts of natural justice or divine justice have been the grounds or
inspiration for developing numerous moral concepts.
•Similar notions of a cosmic moral law expressive of justice are to be found around the world.
•In all cases they involve ideas of fair treatment
•To some are due rewards and to some are due punishments, but in all cases fairly delivered.
•Justice = a system of rewards and punishments that are designed to fit the actions of those
receiving justice]
[JUSTICE AND THE ENVIRONMENT
•In the case of justice and the environment, there are a range of views over what is and what is
not justice.
•And these lie at the heart of what a state should establish in its governing of the relations
between people. ]
TYPES:
•Justice distributive when some authority acts to allocate available resources
•Justice remedial when authority acts to remedy wrongs by re-storing what was lost.
•Justice preventative when it acts as a form of equity to prevent irreparable harms from taking
place.

Environmental justice: not only race
•Expanding scope
–Initially: race
–Robert Bullard: “Racism trumps class”
–
•Expand to cover lower socio-economic groups and other minorities (First National People of Color
Environmental Leadership Summit, 1991)
–Socio-economic status; class; other vulnerable groups: women, children and poor
•Robert Bullard:
•“even middle income African Americans are more likely to live in polluted neighbourghoods”
–Study: “African Americans making $50-60k income are more likely to live in polluted neighborhoods
than White Americans who make just $10k/y
•“minority neighborhoods (regardless of class) carrying a greater burden of localized costs than
either affluent or poor white neighborhoods”
13

Robert Bullard (http://www.ciesin.org/docs/010-278/010-278chpt2.html#fn50):
“… strong association between race and the location of hazardous-waste facilities. Race was by far
the most prominent factor in the location of commercial hazardous-waste landfills, more prominent
than household income and home values. For example, the commission study found:
Household incomes and home values were substantially lower when communities with hazardous-waste
facilities were compared to communities in the surrounding county without such facilities. Mean
household income was $2,745 less and mean value of owner-occupied homes was $17,301 less. The
minority percentage of the population remained the most significant factor differentiating these
groups of communities.
Growing empirical evidence shows that toxic-waste dumps, municipal landfills, garbage incinerators,
and similar noxious facilities are not randomly scattered across the American landscape. The siting
process has resulted in minority neighborhoods (regardless of class) carrying a greater burden of
localized costs than either affluent or poor white neighborhoods. Differential access to power and
decision making found among black and white communities also institutionalizes siting disparities.”
Initially, “environmental racism” only addressed explicit racist acts in hazardous wastes storage
unit locations and the consequent distributive inequities of environmental burdens and toxic
exposures. Over the past decade, the grassroots environmental justice movement and academic
community, to a lesser degree, have expanded the application of “environmental racism” to include
institutional discrimination in decision-making process and procedure of environmental policy
making. In 1991, grassroots activists led the First National People of Color Environmental
Leadership Summit. The Summit resulted in the acceptance of 17 Principles
of Environmental Justice that expanded claims of communities of color to participate as equal
partners in environmental planning, policy implementation, and enforcement. Moreover, the Summit
broadened the scope of environmental justice to include concerns from all vulnerable groups—such as
women, children, and the poor.

Three dimensions of EJ (Schlosberg, 2007)
•Distributive EJ: equal distribution of risks and benefits
–E.g. environmental racism = toxic environments disproportionally for African Americans; or for
poor
–
•Procedural EJ : fair and meaningful participation
–Outright exclusion: e.g. Franco-era hydro-electric projects – e.g. Riba-roja Ebre
–Participatory exclusions: e.g. water basin plans (water allocation) – e.g. CHE
–
•Recognition EJ: ways of life, local knowledge, cultural difference
–‘Where Green Ants Dream’: recognise aborigine cultural conceptions of space (for animal activity
not to be disturbed) as equally valid as mining interests
14

URKIDI AND WALTER 2011
E.g. current US law: fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people irrespective of race,
colour, nat’l origin, or other qualification in the development of environmental policies, laws,
and regulations
Distributive EJ: equal distribution of risks and benefits
•E.g. environmental racism = toxic environments disproportionally for African Americans; or for
poor
Procedural EJ dimension: fair and meaningful participation in decision-making
•Formal exclusion: when some views/ priorities are outright excluded from decision making –
examples of this from several Franco-era hydro-electric projects (e.g. Riba-Roja de l’Ebre, etc.)
that inundated villages to construct dams; examples also from contemporary dam construction and
massive wind farm projects in China
•Participatory exclusions: when multiple views are part of the decision-making process, but the
planning authority has no obligation to take views into account for the design of the project but
simply to answer (e.g. in written) to concerns raised; e.g. CHE water basin plan
Recognition dimension: recognise community ways of life, local knowledge, cultural difference
•URKIDI AND WALTER, 2011
•According to Fraser (1995), in the case of ‘rec- ognition’ the conditions for a just society are
defined as the recog- nition of the personal dignity of all individuals. Recognition not only
refers to the individual right to self-recognition (Honneth, 2001), but most importantly, to the
RECOGNITION OF COLLECTIVE IDEN- TITIES AND THEIR PARTICULAR NEEDS, CONCERNS AND LIVELIHOODS.
•Recognition is particularly relevant to indigenous communities. For years, these groups have
demanded THE RECOGNITION AND PROTEC- TION OF THEIR CULTURE, LIVELIHOOD AND TERRITORIAL RIGHTS. They
have OB- TAINED NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SAFEGUARDS DUE TO THEIR VULNERABILITY AND
HISTORICAL DISCRIMINATION and by focusing on defining their indigeneity (Kirsch, 2007; Valdivia,
2005). Although signatory countries do not always respect it, ILO Convention 169 obliged signing
countries (e.g. Chile, Argentina) to consult indige- nous communities before deciding on activities
affecting them. Decision-making processes, however, usually do not take indige- nous communities
truly into account, forcing them to engage in procedural disputes to defend their rights (Baker and
McLelland, 2003).
•EXAMPLES
•E.g. ‘Where Green Ants Dream’; recognise aborigines’ cultural conceptions of space/ ecology
(desert = space where ants dream) as equally valid as mining interests
•E.g. enclosure of English commons: recognise informal (i.e. no proof of evidence) access rights of
landless peasants – FROM PREVIOUS CLASS
•E.g. recognise rights to land (e.g. access to non-timber forest products) based on custom and in
the absence of “formal” (e.g. written) documentation – e.g. cases of concessions for commercial
forestry in Brazil and Chile (Araucania; Bio-bio), where communities previously had non-formally
recorded access rights

EJ at national level
•National aspect: “not only within cities, but also urban-rural divide”
•
•Terra Alta wind farms:
–Protests at macro-concentration
–Inequities: energy generation vs. energy consumption
•A neo-colonial relation between a centre and “extractive” periphery
–Procedural aspects: behind closed-doors agreements
15

See: Zografos, C. and Martínez-Alier, J., 2009. The politics of landscape value: a case study of
wind farm conflict in rural Catalonia. Environment and Planning A, 41(7), pp.1726-1744.

International dimension
•“And even see that injustice on a global level”: small island nations forced to directly confront
consequences to rising sea-levels but haven’t played any significant role in the indurstries that
are causing climate change”
–Tuvalu:
•Possibly first country (nation) to disappear because of climate change effects
oSLR – lies only 2m above SL
•GDP: 135/175 (World Bank)
•Per capita CO2 emissions (in metric tn, 2014) (knoema.com) = “0”
•Tuvalu = 0.06
•Spain = 5.31
•China = 7.82
•USA = 16.63
•Pacific Islands region = 0.03% of global CO2 emissions (germanwatch.org)
•
16
Source: KYODO/ www.japantimes.co

https://germanwatch.org/download/klak/fb-tuv-e.pdf
Posed as posssibly the first country (nation) to disappear
CONSIDER: JUSTICE AS TREATMENT ACCORDING TO ONE’S ACTIONS
“And even see that injustice on a global level”: small island nations forced to directly confront
consequences to rising sea-levels but haven’t played any significant role in the indurstries that
are causing climate change”

Uneven goods
•Uneven bads but also uneven goods
–“poor urban planning policies…but those trees get planted in the neighbourhoods that are already
green”
–“benefits of programmes enjoyed by communities that are doing just fine”
•Unequal distribution of environmental goods
–
•Heynen et al., 2006:
–“inequitable distribution of urban canopy cover within Milwaukee”
–“those … with higher median household income, non-Hispanic White residents, and low housing-
vacancy rates are more likely to have greater total canopy cover”
•
•
17

Heynen, N., Perkins, H.A. and Roy, P., 2006. The political ecology of uneven urban green space: the
impact of political economy on race and ethnicity in producing environmental inequality in
Milwaukee. Urban Affairs Review, 42(1), pp.3-25.

OTHERING
•
18

OUTLINE FOR THIS PART OF THE PPT
The rationale for considering “othering” and “coloniality”: must consider how racism works as
ideology
The colonial matrix of power
•Gives different rights (e.g. over land) and obligations
Othering: coloniality based at “the modern opposition” (Noble)
•What is othering
•How it works
How othering and coloniality produce environmental injustice: evidence from AUS
Argument expansion 1: persistence of coloniality (through associations of indigenous populations
with violence, backwardness, etc.) used to justify violent takeover of their lands in
“post-colonial” societies
•The case of Canadian mining in Guatemala
Argument expansion 2: the safe acceptance of “the other” used to justify procedural environmental
injustice [in ex-metropolitan societies]
•The Terra Alta case of (wind) energy generation in Catalonia

Environmental racism: in research
•Strong quantitative and geospatial approaches to “prove” statistically racial discrimination
•Critics:
–Assume racism and discrimination are discrete, overt acts that can be measured
–Study racism as an ideology operating in a particular political economic system
•Racism as ideology: premised on practice of othering
19

Seminal publication of Robert Bullard’s Dumping in Dixie (1990).
•Drawing from strong quantitative and geospatial approaches, social scientists have attempted to
“prove” statistically racial discrimination.
•However, critics have strongly underscored the “racial pitfalls” of highly empiricist approaches
that assume racism and discrimination are discrete, overt acts or social artifacts that can be
measured through quantitative analysis.
•Critics argue that this position belies any attempt to examine racism as an ideology operating in
a particular political economic system.
[* belie: to show something to be false, or to hide something such as an emotion]
Racism as ideology: premised on practice of othering
•Othering serves to justify (“explain”) reasonableness of racism
Racism as ideology: two key elements
1.“othering”
2.Coloniality of power
reasonableness = soundness

Activity
•Watch this video: John Pilger - Imperialism in Australia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3qItZbRAcg
–* Warning: there is explicit mention of cruelty and extreme violence
•Read the two texts: “Othering”
–Discuss: What is “othering”?
–What does “othering” do?
•
20

OTHERING 101: WHAT IS “OTHERING”?
•By “othering”, we mean any action by which an individual or group becomes mentally classified in
somebody’s mind as “not one of us”. •Rather than always remembering that every person is a complex
bundle of emotions, ideas, motivations, reflexes, priorities, and many other subtle aspects, it’s
sometimes easier to dismiss them as being in some way less human, and less worthy of respect and
dignity [and equal rights], than we are.
•https://therearenoothers.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/othering-101-what-is-othering/
•
21

Othering (Gabriel, 2012)
•A "modern opposition of the relation between a Self and an Other” (Noble, 2015): othering
(creation of an “other”)
•Othering: dominant ideology of colonial culture (Rieder, 2008)
–Explain East (Other) to the West (Self); e.g. Muslim early encounters
–Binary relation: European Self vs. non–European Other
–Establish own identity through opposition to and vilification of Other
•Deny Other those characteristics that define the Self
–E.g. reason, dignity, love, pride, heroism, nobility, human rights
–Ready for: exploitation, oppression, etc. – denying essential humanity
•Said: Western identity and culture forged by othering logic
–Dehumanizes or devalues other people
–E.g. primitives, uncivilized, orientals, blacks, non-believers, women
–Denying Other her own voice, i.e. opportunity to speak for herself
–Instead: attributing qualities, opinions of own culture and identity
•
22

Key element/ Ideology at basis of racism: dominant ideology of colonialist culture
•Explains Eastern world to the Western world, using the binary relationship of the European Self
confronting the non–European Other from overseas (Rieder, 2008)
•For example: medieval representations of Muslims as “men of blood and violence” – probably partly
due to experiencing contact with them as conquerors (Fletcher, 2003) tricked into slavish
submission by an impostor who posed himself as a prophet (Muhammad) through a mixture of base
incentives – the sensual paradise – and lies (Levitin, 2018 - LRB)
OTHERING = The process of casting a group, an individual or an object into the role of the ‘other’
and establishing one’s own identity through opposition to and, frequently, vilification of this
Other. The Greeks’ use of the word ‘barbarian’ to describe non-Greeks is a typical example of
othering and an instance of nationalism avant la lèttre. The ease with which the adjective ‘other’
generated the verb ‘to other’ … is indicative of the usefulness, power and currency of a term that
now occupies an important position in feminist, postcolonial, civil rights and sexual minority
discourses.
Othering is a process that goes beyond ‘mere’ scapegoating and denigration – it denies the Other
those defining characteristics of the ‘Same’, reason, dignity, love, pride, heroism, nobility, and
ultimately any entitlement to human rights. Whether the Other is a racial or a religious group, a
gender group, a sexual minority or a nation, it is made rife for exploitation, oppression and
indeed genocide by denying its essential humanity, because, as the philosopher Richard Rorty put
it, “everything turns on who counts as a fellow human being, as a rational agent in the only
relevant sense – the sense in which rational agency is synonymous with membership of our moral
community” (Rorty, 1993, p. 124).
Some authors (notably Said, 1985, 1994) have argued that Western identity and culture are
fundamentally forged by an othering logic, one that dehumanizes or devalues other people, such as
primitives, uncivilized, orientals, blacks, non-believers, women and so forth. An essential feature
of othering is denying the Other his/her own voice, denying him/her the opportunity to speak for
him/herself and instead attributing qualities, opinions and views that refer to one’s own identity
and culture.

Argument 2
•Othering produces environmental injustice (and transformation)
•Because: it allows mobilising resources that facilitate distributive/ procedural/ recognition
injustice
•(Related to the use of/ access to nature and natural resources)
•
•Racism as ideology: premised on practice of othering
–Othering serves to justify (“explain”) reasonableness of racism
•
23

Othering produces environmental injustice
•Because it allows to mobilise resources that facilitate distributive (unequal distribution of
environmental goods and bads, e.g. toxic environments for the benefit of colonisers), and/or
procedural and representational (e.g. no participation in decisions taken for the environment)
injustice
EVIDENCE/ CASE/ EXAMPLE (Ashcroft, 2009, pp. 79-82, Terra Nullius): De-humanising indigenous
populations (don’t belong to community of “men”) to facilitate (e.g. mobilise military resources
for) land (and other NR) dispossession
Captain Cook names Australia ‘Terra Nullius’ (land belonging to nobody), i.e. empty land, meaning
land not inhabited by humans
This means that white colonisers have the right (given by the Kind/ Queen of England) to occupy its
lands by any means (incl. the use of force)
Why ‘Nullius’?
Because aborigines are not human
•Aborigines are “part of nature”: European observers categorised them like that based on “noble
savage” idea
•Britannica: uncivilized man, who symbolizes the innate goodness of one not exposed to the
corrupting influences of civilization” (i.e. part of nature/ not civilisation that is a human
artifact – and corrupts)
•There are no human communities: there is no established political system or existing code of law
•(Claiming sovereignty = bringing aborigines under ‘civilizing’ protection of British Crown)
•There is no recognisable tenure in the land
•But what = tenure? Land claims and conflicts for two centuries
As inhabitants = animals, place is unpopulated (i.e. land can be occupied)
•Of course this was a very humanised world; el.g. Aborigines manipulated landscapes/ ecosystems for
hunting with fire
•Rather than children of Nature, they made nature part of culture (via Dreaming, etc.): nature not
polarised from its human inhabitants
What justifies invasion and take over of lands?
•Othering nomadic life
•Absence of agriculture = European mind = unable to comprehend owner’s relationship with land
•Rights of occupation established by Bible. According to John Locke:
•“God gave the World to Men to make use of it … [and] the Earth…for the support and comfort of
their being”
•Where there has been no improvement of nature, men had not acted according to Genesis (to create
property)
•Where there was no evidence of “use” such as agriculture, buildings, monuments, and temples, it
was assumed that people did not have a concept of landed property, hence could not been seen as
possessors
•Example of this: Establishment of settler colonies in Australia, which impose the domination of
agrarian culture, stealing the land belonging to hunter-gatherers
•Also: grazing lands of African savannah (“lost Edens in need of protection and preservation” from
indigenous human occupants)

Terra Nullius
•
•
•
•Captain Cook: Australia Terra Nullius
–“land belonging to nobody”
–White colonisers have right to occupy
•Aborigines not human - “part of nature”
–“Noble savage”
•No human communities:
–No established political system or existing code of law
–No recognisable tenure in land
•As inhabitants = animals, the place is unpopulated, i.e. the land can be occupied
•OTHERING:
–Denying humans (aborigines) that they are humans (links to racism)
–Denying them their rights (to land)
•Collection of the Philosophical Institute of Victoria Hulton Archive—Getty Images
24

EVIDENCE/ CASE/ EXAMPLE (Ashcroft, 2009, pp. 79-82, Terra Nullius):
Captain Cook names Australia ‘Terra Nullius’ (land belonging to nobody), i.e. empty land, meaning
land not inhabited by humans
This means that white colonisers have the right (given by the Kind/ Queen of England) to occupy its
lands by any means (incl. the use of force)
Why ‘Nullius’?
Because aborigines are not human
•Aborigines are “part of nature”: European observers categorised them like that based on “noble
savage” idea
•Britannica: uncivilized man, who symbolizes the innate goodness of one not exposed to the
corrupting influences of civilization” (i.e. part of nature/ not civilisation that is a human
artifact – and corrupts)
•There are no human communities: there is no established political system or existing code of law
•(Claiming sovereignty = bringing aborigines under ‘civilizing’ protection of British Crown)
•There is no recognisable tenure in the land
•But what = tenure? Land claims and conflicts for two centuries
As inhabitants = animals, place is unpopulated (i.e. land can be occupied)

Terra Nullius: well…
•
•But this was a very humanised world
•Aborigines manipulated landscapes/ ecosystems with fire for hunting
–Make access easier through thick and prickly vegetation
–Maintain vegetation to encourage new growth and attract game
–Encourage development of useful food plants (cooking, warmth, spiritual reasons)
•Aboriginal burning changed Australia’s climate (study):
–By burning (altering vegetation), Aboriginals altered the local climate
–They extended the dry season and delayed the start of the monsoon season
25
IMAGE: ABORIGINES USING FIRE TO HUNT KANGAROOS BY JOSEPH LYCETT, APPROXIMATELY 1775-1828. (NLA
NLA.PC-AN2962715-S20)

Of course this was a very humanised world; el.g. Aborigines manipulated landscapes/ ecosystems for
hunting with fire
1.Fire
manipulationhttps://www.dpaw.wa.gov.au/management/fire/fire-and-the-environment/41-traditional-abor
iginal-burning)
•Aboriginal people populated the Australian continent some 40,000 to 60,000 years ago, the major
cause of fires would have been lightning. Aboriginal people learnt to harness the naturally
recurring fire caused by lightning and other sources to their advantage, which resulted in skilful
burning of landscapes for many different purposes.
•Most of the fires were relatively low intensity and did not burn large areas. This constant use of
fire by Aboriginal people as they went about their daily lives most likely resulted in a fine
grained mosaic of different vegetation and fuel ages across the landscape. As a result, large
intense bushfires were uncommon.
•Fire was used to:
•make access easier through thick and prickly vegetation
•maintain a pattern of vegetation to encourage new growth and attract game for hunting
•encourage the development of useful food plants, for cooking, warmth, signalling and spiritual
reasons.
2.Aboriginal burning changed Australia’s
climatehttp://theconversation.com/how-aboriginal-burning-changed-australias-climate-4454): Study by
U Western Australia and UW-Madison
•Well known that different vegetation types can alter evaporation, roughness, and surface
reflectivity, leading to changes in the weather and climate.
•We showed that the climate responded significantly to reduced vegetation cover in the pre-monsoon
season. We found decreases in rainfall, higher surface and ground temperatures and enhanced
atmospheric stability. In other words, there was a decline in the strength of the early monsoon
“phase”.
•Results lead us to suggest that by burning forests in northwestern Australia, Aboriginals altered
the local climate. They effectively extended the dry season and delayed the start of the monsoon
season.
Rather than children of Nature, they made nature part of culture (via Dreaming, etc.): nature not
polarised from its human inhabitants

Terra Nullius: agriculture
•
•
•Ashcroft, 2009: What justifies take over of lands?
•No agriculture: European mind = unable to comprehend owner’s relationship with land
•Rights of occupation established by Bible; according to John Locke:
–“God gave the World to Men to make use of it … [and] the Earth…for the support and comfort of
their being”
–Where there has been no improvement of nature, men had not acted according to Genesis
–Where no evidence of “use” such as agriculture, buildings, monuments, and temples, it was assumed
that people did not have a concept of landed property, hence could not been seen as possessors
•Painting by Eugene von Guérard
26

EVIDENCE/ CASE/ EXAMPLE (Ashcroft, 2009, pp. 79-82, Terra Nullius):
Source: Ashcroft, B., 2009. Caliban's voice: The transformation of English in post-colonial
literatures. Routledge.
What justifies invasion and take over of lands? AT A DEEPER, IDEOLOGICAL LEVEL, OR ELSE AT THE
LEVEL OF A COSMOVISION
•Othering nomadic life
•Absence of agriculture = European mind = unable to comprehend owner’s relationship with land
•Rights of occupation established by Bible. According to John Locke:
•“God gave the World to Men to make use of it … [and] the Earth…for the support and comfort of
their being”
•Where there has been no improvement of nature, men had not acted according to Genesis (to create
property)
•Where there was no evidence of “use” such as agriculture, buildings, monuments, and temples, it
was assumed that people did not have a concept of landed property, hence could not been seen as
possessors

Terra Nullius: imposing agrarian ecologies
•
•
•
•
•
•Establishment of settler colonies in Australia, which impose the domination of agrarian culture,
stealing the land belonging to hunter-gatherers
•
•Published by Kerry and Co, Australia, 1884-1917, MAAS Collection, 85/1284-1628
27

Othering and violent land dispossession (environmental justice)
•Australia seen as “Terra Nullius” because Aborigines are (othered as) not humans, which justifies
the violent dispossession of their lands
–distributive injustice re: resource allocation (who gets what)
•
•Aborigines have…
–…neither voice in the process of deciding what to do with those lands (procedural EJ)…
–…nor recognition of their rights to land (recognition EJ)
28

Take-away points
•Environmental racism – environmental justice
–Not only race; socio-economics, class, gender, religion too
–Distributive, but also procedural and representational
–Uneven bads; but also uneven goods
–At both nat’l and int’l level
–
•Othering: helps forge an ideology for environmental discrimination and injustice
–E.g. colonialism: discrimination naturalised through othering that permitted (justified the use of
force and) resource dispossession
29