The islands are our elder siblings, the taro plant is our elder sibling and we humans are the younger in the family that binds together natural phenomena, all sentient beings and those that dwell in what some call the supernatural
- Carlos Andrade
As we all know surf tourism and coastal development has seen coastal land come under proprietorship of wealthy corporations, developers and landowners. This has prompted surfers to join indigenous communities and protest against such take over. To solve such disputes Commonwealth governments resort to English common law where the foreshore and seabed are treated as ‘Crown Land’. The Crown’s assumption is that it has authority over the foreshore, and that it is to be held in trust for the benefit of ‘all’. Although I don’t understand how exclusive ownership accomplishes this. The foreshore has become a legally controlled ‘objective’ resource with distinct and impenetrable boundaries, a territory with marked and defined and clear-cut boundaries – legally and geographically.
But there are vast differences between this way of thinking about the foreshore/seascape and the way some other groups think about it. There can be very different conceptions of property, of how humans and the natural world are related and how one can form relationships with the ‘supernatural’.
For example: In the Māori world-view (tikanga Māori) on Aotearoa [New Zealand] the land, sea, sky, and waters are seen as indivisible, and Māori do not see the land above the high water mark, tidal land, and the sea bed as distinct entities, although being dominated by different energies. The natural world is indivisible, one with the spiritual world, with all things having a life force (mauri) and spirit (wairua). Families, such as those living near a beach, have an obligation to care for resources, both physically and spiritually. People are connected to the foreshore and its resources through genealogy (whakapapa), narratives (korero), and naming. Stories about toheroa and the other creatures of the foreshore and fore dune abound. Part of the identity of Māori is based on very different ideas about borders and boundaries, over very different ways of making sense of the world, as well as very different conceptions of the way life should be lived.
Ultimately the contest regarding coastal development (and, indeed, surf tourism and exclusive rights) is being fought according to particular rules that only favour an English common law world-view. And it riles me because we are not just talking about a ’space’. We carry these seascapes and foreshores in our emotions, blood, thoughts, dreams and memories. They are not just ‘things’ or ‘resources’. Experiences of the environment are far more than that. Any ‘battle’ over foreshores and seascapes then are battles over identity, social values and who controls meaning; not just access to or value of resources. The questions and consequences are bigger than that. We need to ask ourselves who is going to control our being-in-the-world, and who is to determine the natures of the relationships that are formed? I vote “NO” to some lame-ass prick in a wig.
Seascape in blood, dream, memory. Word! And that translates into the real, physical, grounded body and the health of that body. Clif is not just being some dandy poet or pampered scholar here (both inappropriate classifications that couldn’t be less true, to say the least)…he’s talking about the place and co-existence of our species among many! Thanks Clif, for this and for introducing me to the Kooyang Sea Country Plan through your previous blog post:
http://kurungabaa.net/2008/10/25/kooyang-sea-country-plan/
nice .. very nice indeed. The State of Australia I live in not so long ago had a ‘Coastal Policy’ that while working within the European constructs we are stuck with put these concepts of spiritual connection to the forefront and i was fortunate enough to travel about for a few years spruiking the policy to all that would listen and many that would not. This policy has been put aside in recent years as it was perceived to be holding up development. Now we are in a fine mess because European approaches to land management based on ownership that Australians have taken on and exploded to a mythological status where home ownership is THE grail .. well i digress .. angry. May they all fall into the sea and dissappear up their own canal(estate) Thank you Clif
Having been to the US, France and other places, as many have, I am relieved that as imperfect as it may be, at least we have no ‘private’ ownership of the inter-tidal zone, in this case I refer to the zone up to the high water mark.
Generally we can all walk here and enjoy (Defence ‘Land’ is an issue though).
Not perfect, but better than having resorts and fences grabbing and excluding all that they claim right up to, and into the sea itself.
This reminded me of a Werner Herzog film about land claims set in Australia titled Where the Green Ants Dream. There is a beautiful scene in the movie in which a tribal elder is brought to the courtroom to speak on behalf of the tribe, yet he is the last person left alive who speaks his language and therefore his words cannot be translated to the rest of those in attendance. As Clifton asks, “who controls meaning?”