Space exploration: Colonialism? Exploitation? Or can it become something new?
This is an essay I really enjoyed researching and writing when I was completing my master’s at LSE. So, naturally, I want to share it with as many of you as I can.
This essay was a requirement for completing a module LSE offers called Digital Media Futures. Interested in Media technologies or not, I still stand by my proclamation that everyone should study the course material at least once.
Especially now, when space tourism seems like a very real possibility. There will be a time when celebrities will poetically twirl a daisy against the backdrop of the literal universe. That time is 2025.
I remember completing the majority of the research for this paper under the skylit windows of Kahalia Cafe in Brick Lane. My mouth was agape most of the time as I delved through the makers of this essay- the research papers that changed my worldview. Of course, somewhere along the way, my entire imagination began to be challenged- that’s when the enjoyment actually began.
And in my heart, under some cloudy, some sunny London skies, a secular agape for this universe we live in bloomed.
I hope you feel so too.
Enjoy!
PS: I know she’s a little long :/ :)
For most of humanity, Space was an imaginary place. In contemporary times, Sci-Fi novels and movies have helped people navigate the unknown beyond the confines of earthly bounds. Historically, the practice of astrology guided imaginaries of Space, symbolically differing across cultures. Throughout the history of mankind, Space became a reference point for human beings to situate themselves in this world. From cave paintings of the sun, moon, and stars to dreamtime stories of Aboriginal communities, it lent its hand to the creation of mythologies and folklore. However, as Alice Gorman argues, ‘with the launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957, human interaction with space moved from the imaginary realm to the reality realm.’[1] With this movement came new imaginations of Space and new intentions for the need to explore it. In this essay, I argue that Space exploration does repeat narratives of colonial exploitation, however, alternative narratives are possible through genuine efforts of collaboration.
To understand how narratives surrounding Space exploration repeat narratives of colonial exploitation, it is important to understand the philosophies that make up Settler Colonialism. Patrick Wolfe, characterising dominant features of settler colonialism, argued that:
“The primary object of settler colonisation is the land itself.”[2]
Settlers’ logic, intimately tied to land, aims at the occupation, reimagination and remaking of occupied spaces. The settler’s myth perpetuates that the modern world was built through the hard work of colonisers. This myth essentially erases the cultural and material significance and efforts of indigenous communities that originally occupied the land. They classified this land as frontiers or Terra Nullius, meaning ‘land without a master.’
The logic of settler colonisation has historically been the driving force behind exploratory expeditions. Colonial narratives slipped in imaginings of Space exploration, even before space exploration became a reality. Popular media distributed imageries of alien abduction, violence and the abundance of invaluable resources present in the unexplored extraterrestrial space. While these imageries seem like wistful thinking of an over-imaginative mind, violence, abduction, and exploitation of land for resources were the realities of colonised people. Interestingly, under the narratives of violence dispensed by extra-terrestrial beings were the ideations used to justify colonisation. The idea being that of ‘if we don’t go to Space first, they will come to us.’ Creating a perception of a threat that often doesn’t exist has been an easy justification for the violence of colonisation.
Contextualising the origins of space exploration exposes the logic of settler colonisation that makes up its underbelly. The success of Sputnik-1 marked the beginning of the Space Race. During the Cold War, Space exploration became a tool of imposing ideological domination that escaped earthly bounds. As a dominion of the Cold War arms race, Space exploration’s first aim was to assert and assist military domination, which was instrumental for the violence that enabled colonisation.
The ‘rocket’ itself was first developed in Nazi Germany utilising the labour from concentration camps to deathly ends. The purpose of the instrument was to aid in the colonial desires of Nazi Germany. Consequently, after the Nazi surrendered, both USA and USSR used their captives to develop ballistic missiles and subsequently the first rocket to go into space. Narratives surrounding these expeditions framed history along the lines of convenience. An excerpt from satirist Tom Lehrer’s song about the Apollo 11 mission effectively captures this. Talking about Wernher von Braun, the Nazi responsible for developing the first rocket, he wrote-
“Don’t say that he’s hypocritical, Say rather that he’s apolitical…”[3]
A lot can be assessed from the narratives and material artefacts that were produced by the nation-state to promote space exploration during its infancy. The foremost reason given for Space exploration was ‘the compelling urge of man [sic] to explore and to discover.’[4] Presented as a natural inclination, exploration was given a biological disposition and hailed as a heroic act, which concealed other motives such as military, political, ideological, or cultural advantage. Furthermore, a language of ‘conquest’ was and is still used to describe projects of space exploration, revealing control over space as the primary object of the nation-states’ efforts. Likewise, the material artefacts in Space, such as the Tranquillity Base and the US flag on the moon, represent one of the major motivations of the Space race, which was to imprint a certain national, ideological, and colonial meaning on extra-terrestrial bodies. [5]
Nothing embodies fantasies of Exit like Space exploration. Alice Gorman argues that ‘Wilderness’ is conceived as a landscape untouched by the ravages of modern industrial society and is worth preserving precisely because there has been no human interaction with it.[6] Historically, indigenous land was viewed as wilderness, with the advent of Space exploration, Space was seen as the true Wilderness. Exit strategies emerging from fantasies of Wilderness Exit argue for escaping the Earth to establish long-term human survival and evolution. It emerges as a dangerous distraction from the realities of environmental degradation and capitalist overloads.
Furthermore, Gorman noted that within the space race model, the interests of largely white, male, able-bodied, American astronauts, space administrators, scientists and politicians were presented as universal human values.[7]
Therefore, only certain bodies can Exit or fantasise about Exiting, those of able-bodied white men. Furthermore, Sarah Sharma argues that Exit stands in direct contradiction to care.[8] She defines ‘care’ as that which responds to the uncompromisingly tethered nature of human dependency and the contingency of life, the mutual precariousness of the human condition.[9] Able-bodies are perceived to care independently and therefore are most likely to fantasise about Exiting.
Women, on the other hand, are subjected to biopolitical management and have historically been unable to choose when to exit or enter unequal power relations.[10] Within the patriarchal system, the labour of care falls on the woman’s shoulders. Notably, the same binaries constructed within a patriarchal system are subject to technologies that support exit. Marxist feminist scholars argue that “Mommy has been technologically extended in a very particular way as part of male exit and the extension of man.”[11]
Many limitations exist within such conceptions of Exit and Exit strategies. Human imagination that creates imageries of Space are limited by the histories of mankind. Therefore, they imply the supremacy of a particular species over others, viewing history in terms of a species imperative to expand, protect life and intelligence by distributing humans across the solar system and even the galaxy.[12] Furthermore, since human histories are not without influences of power, they repeat dominant thoughts that lie on the colonialist, capitalist side of the spectrum. David Valentine argues that exit strategies emerging from apocalyptic fantasies are bound by capitalistic tendencies. He illustrates through the example of NewSpacers, who seek to escape Earth’s gravity and establish space settlements which they see as essential to long-term human survival and evolution.[13] He argues that NewSpacers are excellent capitalists, viewing market forces as key to the settlement of space.[14]
Valentine proposes a different kind of Exit. He argues for exiting the assumption that the encounter with space will simply produce a repetition, extension, or logical conclusion of history, human sociality, exchange relations or any other human phenomena that have emerged on the surface of our planet[15].
In a nutshell, the early logic of Space exploration viewed space as another frontier that needed to be conquered, an actual Terra Nullius. The exploration by the colonial state was motivated, if not explicitly, by the possibility of further settlement, then for the preservation of its existing spatial extent on Earth[16]. During the Cold War, it was about which country would emerge ideologically dominant by conquering Space. However, by its end, the focus shifted towards resource extraction. US President George H.W. Bush, in 1989, famously said,
‘For, even 20 years ago, we recognised that America’s ultimate goal was not simply to go there and go back — but to go there and go on.’
Hinting towards a movement from the symbolic significance of conquering Space to the material significance of conquering Space.
Resource extraction has historically been one of the major motivators of colonial expeditions. Many countries with a colonial past recall its beginning as one of resource exploitation. Newer logics feeding Space exploration emerge from potential resource extraction, tying in with existing colonial military logics in a way that creates a new way of thinking about the ‘openness’ of outer space to the logics of empire, in what Alan Marshall (1995) calls ‘res (things) nullius.’[17]
After the end of the George H. W. Bush era of “return to the moon” programs, significant funding from private corporations was invited by NASA. This included the potential to provide crew to the International Space Station (ISS) after the retirement of the space shuttle. This marked the privatisation of space exploration and a movement away from traditional colonial imaginaries. However, newer logics of settler colonisation have played out in contemporary times during the exploration of Antarctica. Seen as the ‘perfect’ settler colony, Antarctica’s indigenous population were pushed out under the pretence of resource exploration. Today, Antarctica remains a land over-exploited.
Gabrielle Hecht argues that extraction (of all kinds) has powered the large-scale rearrangement of substances that materially constitutes the Anthropocene.[18] I argue that this is a result of humans’ limited imaginaries of the future, which leads to the infliction of the same conditions on other spaces and planets that we inflicted on colonised land.
I highly recommend watching Mickey 17 to get a better idea of this limitation of human imagination.
Be it for ideological dominance or resource extraction, colonisation has always translated into violence and the displacement of the indigenous population. It stemmed from the settlers’ logic that while occupation of space means that the settlers’ way of life lives, the deprivation of space means that indigeneity dies.[19] Indigenous spaces are occupied for a multitude of reasons, stretching from politico-military to capitalistic advantages. Symbolic, emotional, and physical violence is meted out to support the settlers’ logic. Colonisation extends from physical space scapes to that of the indigenous minds, culture, community, and knowledge systems. It attempts to erase and systematically disable indigenous communities from participating in discourses. They have extended this courtesy towards discourses surrounding astronomy as well.[20]
Gorman argues that space scapes can be visualised as a three-tiered vertical landscape,[21] including-
i. Space landscapes on the surface of the Earth, these comprise launch facilities and tracking stations.
ii. Organic landscapes in orbit and on the surface of other planets and their moons, which comprise satellites, rocket stages, landers, and debris.
iii. Outside the solar system, these are spaces devoid of human material cultures. [22]
Therefore, ventures of Space exploration have been one of the bilateral consequent colonisation. Supporting infrastructure belonging to the first tier of the vertical landscape requires land. Indigenous lands have historically been seen as ‘terra nullius’; therefore, for the colonisers, these are empty, remote spaces, untouched by modernity, perfect for constructing infrastructures that support colonial space explorations. However, these infrastructures are located within an existing cultural landscape that demonstrates the continuity of space exploration with terrestrial colonial enterprises.[23]
For instance, in 1947, a joint agreement between Britain and Australia established the Woomera Rocket Range.[24] The Indigenous land of Woomera was viewed to be barren by the colonising states; however, for the indigenous population, the land had value and worked in harmony with the seasons to support indigenous life.
Reinscribing of Indigenous space towards ‘peaceful’ settler space exploration[25] for the ‘greater good’ does not take away from the violence, erasure, and the consequences of resettlement. As Danis Goulet succinctly put:
“Everything has been built on colonial structures that were not made to include us”[26]
Unravels the argument that Space exploration is beneficial for everyone.
Why, then, is Space exploration still hailed as paramount for the entirety of humanity? To answer this question, we need to untangle the power dynamics that lend importance to ‘Western Sciences.’ Western sciences, supported by positivist philosophies, are viewed as objective and seen as universally true. Michel Foucault argued that scholarship is ‘not a matter of emancipating truth from every system of power, but of detaching the power of truth from the forms of hegemony, social, economic and cultural, within which it operates at present.’[27]Astronomy as a branch of Western Science has been established in dominant discourses as a benign, neutral study based on observations. However, even sciences based on observations are born into and exist in a cultural context. For instance, despite phrenology initially being viewed as a positivist science, its racial assumptions have been exposed.
Therefore, categorising knowledge systems as working with objective truths only leads to the reproduction of the cultural context in which it was conceived.
Hyper-dependence on the axiom of the scientific method is a consequence of colonisation and racism, leading to the erasure of indigenous knowledge systems. For indigenous thought, space exploration is not tied to the military or resource extraction. For them, space exploration is an interaction rather than a transaction. Like other knowledge systems, indigenous communities across the globe have been engaged with space.[28] However, they differ from other knowledge systems in their treatment of Space. For instance, when M. J. Young asked several Inuit about the Moon landings, they said:
“We didn’t know this was the first time you white people had been to the moon. Our shamans have been going for years. They go all the time…We do go to visit the moon and the moon people all the time. The issue is not whether we go to visit our relatives, but how we treat them and their homeland when we go (Young, 1987: 272).” [29]
For the indigenous knowledge systems, phenomena are considered in a holistic sense and are viewed as relational and connected to humans. Indigenous knowledge systems are expansive and contain information spanning relatively longer timescales.[30] They view space not from the perspective of exploring or colonising it but as a scape that needs to be understood from a respectable distance.
Space is treated and conceived with respect and reverence. Many Indigenous communities link the creation of both the heavens and landscapes through their sacred folklore. In the Pitjantjatjara Dreamtime stories, an aboriginal community of Australia, rituals were established as Minyanderri, an amorous old man pursuing seven sisters, moved through the landscape. When the spirits of the sisters went to the sky, they became the stars of the Pleiades constellation.[31]
Many scholars have pushed for a collaboration between indigenous knowledge systems and space agencies. Tristan Jefferey et. al. proposed Two-Eyed Seeing as an approach of inquiry and solutions in which people come together to view the world through an Indigenous lens with one eye (perspective), while the other eye sees through a Western lens.[32] Waziyatawin (2008), Leanne Betasamosake Simpson (2017), Natchee Blu Barnd (2018) and others in their works illustrate the ways Indigenous people make and remake space. Including these systems of thought is crucial for constructing new blueprints for how we think about space.[33]
Interestingly, there have been instances of the involvement of indigenous knowledge in ‘Western sciences.’ The variability of various red giant stars and Betelgeuse was observed by the Aboriginal people centuries before Western science.[34] Therefore, dismissing indigenous knowledge by questioning its scientific basis is equivalent to dismissing millennia of experiences, history, and identity. Inclusion and recognition of the different ways that indigenous knowledge systems organise knowledge would aid in understanding the significance of space-scapes for those outside the spacefaring elites.[35] Ultimately, the goal of the collaboration is not to express a singular kind of realism but to advance and enhance understanding.
Get Gauri Sinha’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
In conclusion, scientific ventures of space exploration draw from the logic of settler colonisation as its philosophical basis, feeding back into it through the prioritisation of ‘Science’ over Indigenous epistemologies. Early ventures of Space exploration, tied to settlers’ logic, were intended to explore space for establishing ideological dominance. Consequently, newer scientific ventures of space exploration, intent on doing so, but for resource extraction. Such logics of space exploration are limited in their imagination, as they view history in terms of a species imperative and simply reproduce historically existent conclusions and conditions in their imaginings of Space. Alternate narratives are possible because alternate knowledge systems do exist. Through genuine efforts of collaboration between various epistemological systems, new avenues of imagining will open. The conversation should not be about the scientific knowledge systems that enable space exploration, but the philosophical knowledge systems that dictate how space exploration is treated. The ultimate goal of space exploration should not be one of transaction, but of advancing understanding.
References
1. Artist +. Mavericks, “Spotlight: Danis Goulet on Indigenous Futurism in Film.” This Is Worldtown, 21 Dec. 2017, http://thisisworldtown.com/indigenous-media-makers-spotlight-ft-danis-goulet/.
2. Calluccie, Shakeah. “How Contributions from Christopher Columbus’ Sephardic Astronomer Illustrate Complex Legacies of Exploration and Conquest.” UW Stroum Center for Jewish Studies, THE HENRY M. JACKSON SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, 6 Nov. 2020, https://jewishstudies.washington.edu/sephardic-studies/how-contributions-from-christopher-columbus-sephardic-astronomer-illustrate-complex-legacies-of-exploration-and-conquest/
3. Gorman, Alice. “The Cultural Landscape of Interplanetary Space.” Journal of Social Archaeology, vol. 5, no. 1, 2005, pp. 85–107., https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605305050148.
4. Green, Lesley J. F. “‘Indigenous Knowledge’ and ‘Science’: Reframing the Debate on Knowledge Diversity — Archaeologies.” SpringerLink, Archaeologies, 11 Apr. 2008, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11759-008-9057-9.
5. Hecht, Gabrielle. “View of Interscalar Vehicles for an African Anthropocene: On Waste, Temporality, and Violence: Cultural Anthropology.” Journal.culanth.org, Stanford University, 2018, https://journal.culanth.org/index.php/ca/article/view/ca33.1.05/53
6. Indigenous Values Initiative. “What Is the Doctrine of Discovery?” Doctrine of Discovery, 16 Jan. 2023, https://doctrineofdiscovery.org/what-is-the-doctrine-of-discovery/.
7. Jeffery, Tristan, et al. “Two-Eyed Seeing: Current Approaches, and Discussion of Medical Applications.” BCMJ, BC Medical Journal, 2021, https://bcmj.org/articles/two-eyed-seeing-current-approaches-and-discussion-medical-applications#:~:text=ABSTRACT%3A%20Two%2DEyed%20Seeing%20is,sees%20through%20a%20Western%20lens.
8. Neilson, Hilding R., et al. “Indigenizing the next Decade of Astronomy in Canada.” ArXiv.org, 7 Oct. 2019, https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.02976.
9. Salazar, Joseph Anthony. “Multicultural Settler Colonialism and Indigenous Struggle in Hawaiʻi : The Politics of Astronomy on Mauna a Wākea.” ScholarSpace, University of Hawaii, 1 Dec. 2014, https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/101135.
10. Sharma, Sarah. “Exit and the Extensions of Man.” Transmediale/ Archive, 2017, https://archive.transmediale.de/content/exit-and-the-extensions-of-man.
11. Smiles, Deondre. “The Settler Logics of (Outer) Space.” The Settler Logics of (Outer) Space, Society + Space, 26 Oct. 2020, https://www.societyandspace.org/articles/the-settler-logics-of-outer-space.
12. Valentine, David. “Exit Strategy: Profit, Cosmology, and the Future of Humans in Space.” MyMuse, Anthropological Quarterly, 2012, https://muse-jhu-edu.gate3.library.lse.ac.uk/article/488890.
13. Wolfe, Patrick. “Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology.” Taylor & Francis, Postcolonial Studies, 2010, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13688790120077542.
Notes
[1] Gorman, Alice. “The Cultural Landscape of Interplanetary Space.” Journal of Social Archaeology, vol. 5, no. 1, 2005, pp. 85–107., https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605305050148
[2] Wolfe, Patrick. “Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology.” Taylor & Francis, Postcolonial Studies, 2010, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13688790120077542.
[3] Tom Lehrer, 1965, quoted in Gorman, Alice. “The Cultural Landscape of Interplanetary Space.” Journal of Social Archaeology, vol. 5, no. 1, 2005, pp. 85–107., https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605305050148.
[4] Logsdon, 1983 quoted in Gorman, Alice. “The Cultural Landscape of Interplanetary Space.” Journal of Social Archaeology, vol. 5, no. 1, 2005, pp. 85–107., https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605305050148.
[5] Gorman, Alice. “The Cultural Landscape of Interplanetary Space.” Journal of Social Archaeology, vol. 5, no. 1, 2005, pp. 85–107., https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605305050148.
[6] Gorman, Alice. “The Cultural Landscape of Interplanetary Space.” Journal of Social Archaeology, vol. 5, no. 1, 2005, pp. 85–107., https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605305050148.
[7] Gorman, Alice. “The Cultural Landscape of Interplanetary Space.” Journal of Social Archaeology, vol. 5, no. 1, 2005, pp. 85–107., https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605305050148.
[8] Sharma, Sarah. “Exit and the Extensions of Man.” Transmediale/ Archive, 2017, https://archive.transmediale.de/content/exit-and-the-extensions-of-man.
[9] Sharma, Sarah. “Exit and the Extensions of Man.” Transmediale/ Archive, 2017, https://archive.transmediale.de/content/exit-and-the-extensions-of-man.
[10] Sharma, Sarah. “Exit and the Extensions of Man.” Transmediale/ Archive, 2017, https://archive.transmediale.de/content/exit-and-the-extensions-of-man.
[11] Sharma, Sarah. “Exit and the Extensions of Man.” Transmediale/ Archive, 2017, https://archive.transmediale.de/content/exit-and-the-extensions-of-man.
[12] Valentine, David. “Exit Strategy: Profit, Cosmology, and the Future of Humans in Space.” MyMuse, Anthropological Quarterly, 2012, https://muse-jhu-edu.gate3.library.lse.ac.uk/article/488890.
[13] Valentine, David. “Exit Strategy: Profit, Cosmology, and the Future of Humans in Space.” MyMuse, Anthropological Quarterly, 2012, https://muse-jhu-edu.gate3.library.lse.ac.uk/article/488890.
[14] Valentine, David. “Exit Strategy: Profit, Cosmology, and the Future of Humans in Space.” MyMuse, Anthropological Quarterly, 2012, https://muse-jhu-edu.gate3.library.lse.ac.uk/article/488890.
[15] Valentine, David. “Exit Strategy: Profit, Cosmology, and the Future of Humans in Space.” MyMuse, Anthropological Quarterly, 2012, https://muse-jhu-edu.gate3.library.lse.ac.uk/article/488890.
[16] Grandin, 2019 quoted in Smiles, Deondre. “The Settler Logics of (Outer) Space.” The Settler Logics of (Outer) Space, Society + Space, 26 Oct. 2020, https://www.societyandspace.org/articles/the-settler-logics-of-outer-space.
[17] Marshall, 1995, quoted in Smiles, Deondre. “The Settler Logics of (Outer) Space.” The Settler Logics of (Outer) Space, Society + Space, 26 Oct. 2020, https://www.societyandspace.org/articles/the-settler-logics-of-outer-space.
[18] Hecht, Gabrielle. “View of Interscalar Vehicles for an African Anthropocene: On Waste, Temporality, and Violence: Cultural Anthropology.” Journal.culanth.org, Stanford University, 2018, https://journal.culanth.org/index.php/ca/article/view/ca33.1.05/53
[19] Povinelli, 2002; Wolfe, 2006 quoted in Salazar, Joseph Anthony. “Multicultural Settler Colonialism and Indigenous Struggle in Hawaiʻi: The Politics of Astronomy on Mauna a Wākea.” ScholarSpace, University of Hawaii, 1 Dec. 2014, https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/101135.
[20] Neilson, Hilding R., et al. “Indigenizing the next Decade of Astronomy in Canada.” ArXiv.org, 7 Oct. 2019, https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.02976.
[21] Gorman, Alice. “The Cultural Landscape of Interplanetary Space.” Journal of Social Archaeology, vol. 5, no. 1, 2005, pp. 85–107., https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605305050148.
[22] Gorman, Alice. “The Cultural Landscape of Interplanetary Space.” Journal of Social Archaeology, vol. 5, no. 1, 2005, pp. 85–107., https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605305050148.
[23] Gorman, Alice. “The Cultural Landscape of Interplanetary Space.” Journal of Social Archaeology, vol. 5, no. 1, 2005, pp. 85–107., https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605305050148.
[24] Gorman, Alice. “The Cultural Landscape of Interplanetary Space.” Journal of Social Archaeology, vol. 5, no. 1, 2005, pp. 85–107., https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605305050148
[25] Smiles, Deondre. “The Settler Logics of (Outer) Space.” The Settler Logics of (Outer) Space, Society + Space, 26 Oct. 2020, https://www.societyandspace.org/articles/the-settler-logics-of-outer-space.
[26] Artist +. Mavericks, “Spotlight: Danis Goulet on Indigenous Futurism in Film.” This Is Worldtown, 21 Dec. 2017, http://thisisworldtown.com/indigenous-media-makers-spotlight-ft-danis-goulet/.
[27] Foucault, 1980, quoted in Green, Lesley J. F. “‘Indigenous Knowledge’ and ‘Science’: Reframing the Debate on Knowledge Diversity — Archaeologies.” SpringerLink, Archaeologies, 11 Apr. 2008, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11759-008-9057-9
[28] Young, 1987 quoted in Smiles, Deondre. “The Settler Logics of (Outer) Space.” The Settler Logics of (Outer) Space, Society + Space, 26 Oct. 2020, https://www.societyandspace.org/articles/the-settler-logics-of-outer-space.
[29] Young, 1987 quoted in Smiles, Deondre. “The Settler Logics of (Outer) Space.” The Settler Logics of (Outer) Space, Society + Space, 26 Oct. 2020, https://www.societyandspace.org/articles/the-settler-logics-of-outer-space.
[30] Neilson, Hilding R., et al. “Indigenizing the next Decade of Astronomy in Canada.” ArXiv.org, 7 Oct. 2019, https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.02976.
[31] Robinson, 1966, quoted in Gorman, Alice. “The Cultural Landscape of Interplanetary Space.” Journal of Social Archaeology, vol. 5, no. 1, 2005, pp. 85–107., https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605305050148.
[32] Jeffery, Tristan, et al. “Two-Eyed Seeing: Current Approaches, and Discussion of Medical Applications.” BCMJ, BC Medical Journal, 2021, https://bcmj.org/articles/two-eyed-seeing-current-approaches-and-discussion-medical-applications#:~:text=ABSTRACT%3A%20Two%2DEyed%20Seeing%20is,sees%20through%20a%20Western%20lens.
[33] Neilson, Hilding R., et al. “Indigenizing the next Decade of Astronomy in Canada.” ArXiv.org, 7 Oct. 2019, https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.02976.
[34] Hamacher, 2018, quoted in Neilson, Hilding R., et al. “Indigenizing the next Decade of Astronomy in Canada.” ArXiv.org, 7 Oct. 2019, https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.02976.
[35] Gorman, Alice. “The Cultural Landscape of Interplanetary Space.” Journal of Social Archaeology, vol. 5, no. 1, 2005, pp. 85–107., https://doi.org/10.1177/1469605305050148
