{"title":"Land means the world: narratives of place and colonial ecological violence in the media framing of the Bears Ears National Monument","authors":"Amanda Ricketts","doi":"10.1080/23251042.2023.2267832","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTSettler colonialism shapes the governance of public land in what is now called the United States, contributing to eco-social disruptions for Indigenous populations. The Bears Ears National Monument was established in December 2016 in an unprecedented collaboration between the federal government and an inter-tribal coalition. Less than a year later, in December 2017, the Trump administration issued a presidential proclamation removing and bisecting 85% of the protected land for energy exploration. I analyze media coverage of Bears Ears National Monument from December 2016 to December 2017 to observe the effects of this framing on elimination projects of the settler state in public land conflicts. I find through the repeated erasure and redirection of Indigenous narratives, local media coverage centralizes the interests of the settler state by classifying land as an asset, making settler political concerns the central contentious issue. To understand how colonial ecological violence shapes the governance of public land, like the case of the Bears Ears National Monument under the Trump administration, scholars should attend to how the media advances narratives of place and contributes to cultural elimination.KEYWORDS: Colonial ecological violencesettler colonialismBears Ears National Monumentpublic landmedia AcknowledgmentsI would like to extend thanks to Raoul Lievanos, Kari Norgaard, Ryan Light, Claire Herbert, and the members of the Janet Smith Cooperative, whose comments and support made the writing of this article possible.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationNotes on contributorsAmanda RickettsAmanda Ricketts, MS, is a PhD student at the University of Oregon. Their research focuses on social movements, space and environment, and narratives of place and colonial ecological violence in public land management.","PeriodicalId":54173,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Sociology","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2023.2267832","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ABSTRACTSettler colonialism shapes the governance of public land in what is now called the United States, contributing to eco-social disruptions for Indigenous populations. The Bears Ears National Monument was established in December 2016 in an unprecedented collaboration between the federal government and an inter-tribal coalition. Less than a year later, in December 2017, the Trump administration issued a presidential proclamation removing and bisecting 85% of the protected land for energy exploration. I analyze media coverage of Bears Ears National Monument from December 2016 to December 2017 to observe the effects of this framing on elimination projects of the settler state in public land conflicts. I find through the repeated erasure and redirection of Indigenous narratives, local media coverage centralizes the interests of the settler state by classifying land as an asset, making settler political concerns the central contentious issue. To understand how colonial ecological violence shapes the governance of public land, like the case of the Bears Ears National Monument under the Trump administration, scholars should attend to how the media advances narratives of place and contributes to cultural elimination.KEYWORDS: Colonial ecological violencesettler colonialismBears Ears National Monumentpublic landmedia AcknowledgmentsI would like to extend thanks to Raoul Lievanos, Kari Norgaard, Ryan Light, Claire Herbert, and the members of the Janet Smith Cooperative, whose comments and support made the writing of this article possible.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Additional informationNotes on contributorsAmanda RickettsAmanda Ricketts, MS, is a PhD student at the University of Oregon. Their research focuses on social movements, space and environment, and narratives of place and colonial ecological violence in public land management.
移民殖民主义塑造了美国公共土地的治理,对土著居民造成了生态社会的破坏。熊耳国家纪念碑于2016年12月在联邦政府和跨部落联盟之间前所未有的合作下建立。不到一年后,即2017年12月,特朗普政府发布了一项总统公告,将85%的受保护土地拆除并一分为二,用于能源勘探。我分析了2016年12月至2017年12月熊耳国家纪念碑的媒体报道,以观察这一框架对公共土地冲突中定居者国家消除项目的影响。我发现,通过对土著叙事的反复抹除和重定向,当地媒体的报道通过将土地归类为资产来集中定居者国家的利益,使定居者的政治关切成为核心争议问题。为了理解殖民生态暴力如何塑造公共土地的治理,比如特朗普政府时期的熊耳国家纪念碑(Bears Ears National Monument),学者们应该关注媒体如何推进地方叙事,并促进文化消除。关键词:殖民生态暴力定居者殖民主义熊耳国家纪念碑公共土地媒体致谢我要感谢Raoul Lievanos, Kari Norgaard, Ryan Light, Claire Herbert和Janet Smith合作社的成员,他们的评论和支持使本文的写作成为可能。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。关于撰稿人samanda Ricketts的说明samanda Ricketts,硕士,俄勒冈大学的博士生。他们的研究重点是社会运动,空间和环境,以及公共土地管理中的地方和殖民生态暴力的叙述。
期刊介绍:
Environmental Sociology is dedicated to applying and advancing the sociological imagination in relation to a wide variety of environmental challenges, controversies and issues, at every level from the global to local, from ‘world culture’ to diverse local perspectives. As an international, peer-reviewed scholarly journal, Environmental Sociology aims to stretch the conceptual and theoretical boundaries of both environmental and mainstream sociology, to highlight the relevance of sociological research for environmental policy and management, to disseminate the results of sociological research, and to engage in productive dialogue and debate with other disciplines in the social, natural and ecological sciences. Contributions may utilize a variety of theoretical orientations including, but not restricted to: critical theory, cultural sociology, ecofeminism, ecological modernization, environmental justice, organizational sociology, political ecology, political economy, post-colonial studies, risk theory, social psychology, science and technology studies, globalization, world-systems analysis, and so on. Cross- and transdisciplinary contributions are welcome where they demonstrate a novel attempt to understand social-ecological relationships in a manner that engages with the core concerns of sociology in social relationships, institutions, practices and processes. All methodological approaches in the environmental social sciences – qualitative, quantitative, integrative, spatial, policy analysis, etc. – are welcomed. Environmental Sociology welcomes high-quality submissions from scholars around the world.