Lately, I’ve been doing some thinking about the old idea of the commons, that meadow, pasture-land, woods that the people hold in common. In old English practice, this was what helped to provide for the commoners daily substance. There were the King’s/Queen’s land, the noble lands, and the commons. If George and Mary wanted a bird for dinner, they could either poach (with all those consequences) off the lands belonging to the nobility, or see what they could get from the commons. In the old colonial areas of the United States (and I would imagine Canada) there are still some commons to be found (i.e. Boston Commons). These were originally used to pasture cows and horses, etc. Now these commons serve more as a park than as a necessity for the commoners.
Out in the Western United States, we have vast tracks of land that have similar purposes (we tend to call them National Parks, National Forests and Grasslands, National Monuments, etc.). These are officially managed by the Federal government, but are watched by various groups with various ideological backgrounds (think of the Sierra Club on one side and the NRA on another). This means that there is lots of “dialogue” about how these lands should be used or not used.
But what about those places that no national organization had designated as a form of “commons”?
One of the things I found interesting regarding the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster was there was no dialogue around who “owns” or “belongs to” the Gulf. Sure, there were Op Ed pieces regarding how the spill was going to effect the fishing industry and/or wild-life recovery. But I didn’t hear any arguments regarding the fact that the Gulf is a type of commons.
In one of Patrick O’Brian’s Maturin and Aubrey series of books, O’Brian address what is at stake when a commons is fenced in and privatized, with the consequential loss of livelihood. I see the same thing happening, but with no real outcry from the people for whom this would affect the most. Lest you think this is an old issue, look at what is being reported about oil “harvesting” practices off of Santa Barbara,California.
If we are striving to live in a just world, what does it mean to have a “commons” that provides needs for all people? How do the needs of the creatures of the world taken into account? How does our own consumption of natural resources affect the commons? What are the ways in which we can live in partnership with all things?
Blessed be,
Joel
No comments:
Post a Comment