Digital & Print Membership
Yearly + Receive 8 free printed back issues
$420 Annually
Monthly + Receive 3 free printed back issues
$40 Monthly
Nicholas Galanin
Art as a Weapon Against Colonialism

The first in a series of hide paintings for guiding the escape of Indigenous remains and objects in non-Indigenous Institutions to return to their home communities, Architecture of return, escape (Metropolitan Museum of Art) is a mapped escape plan for objects held in the Met in New York City.
The work is a plan for wayfinding during decolonization; requiring return, building new structures for good ways of being. Of the few objects held in display cases, many more (including human remains, and ceremonial objects not intended for public view) are held in museum archives. The cost and processes required to travel and visit these archives limits access to cultural knowledge and inheritance for Indigenous communities, and continues the removal of the objects from their land and people. While institutions control the air temperature, humidity, uv exposure and dust, they are unable to adequately care for these objects in cultural or spiritual ways.
Painting information on hides to remember, and instruct has a long history in many Indigenous communities, particularly for recording significant events or feats of bravery. In this series of work, the hide paintings depict a floor plan referencing a visitors guide and architecture blueprints for building. The objects themselves are unwilling visitors to the museum, and the painting builds a route for escape and vision for reunification of cultural inheritance with community. In the painting, the galleries of the museum containing Indigenous American objects (along with elevators and stairs coming from the archives) are marked with a red dashed line leading to the exit. The exit from the museum is also an entrance for our cultural at.óow (ceremonial objects) imprisoned in these spaces, an entrance for return to land, community and culture. The work serves as a reminder of the past, and as a plan for a good way forward; where stolen objects, human remains and works sold under duress can return home for their own health, for the health of the communities that created them, and for the health of the communities that took them.
EIP: Your art speaks volumes, and is often deliberately “provocative”; tell us first about your life outside of the art you do, the person from which the expression comes?
NICHOLAS: My life is deeply shaped by my connection to the Land, water, community, and family. Beyond my art practice, I navigate my days with a sense of responsibility to these relationships, recognizing that they ground both my work and my existence.
A typical day begins early with children going to school, I often try to get outside—whether walking, running or simply being present with the Land, I love witnessing the seasons and nature’s clock. Living in Alaska, the Land is powerful, a teacher and provider. The weather and its natural rhythms influence so much of my practice and understanding. Summers are busy harvesting. Winters provide time for creating with less distraction.
Family is at the heart of my life. I prioritize being present for my children, supporting them in their education and growth, and sharing the values and knowledge passed down to me through continuum. This extends to my community, where mentorship and collaboration are part of daily experience—through conversations, shared meals, or working alongside others.
Much of my time is spent engaging with creative disciplines— researching, reading, listening and exploring ideas. Music is an integral part of this exploration, providing both a creative outlet and a meditative practice. Some days are dedicated to carving, others to the music studio, or working on projects that require research and concept. The throughline remains the same: honoring Indigenous knowledge, challenging structures that seek to erase it, and creating space for future generations.
Resistance is also present in my daily life—whether through showing up for movements that support Indigenous sovereignty, engaging in conversations about Land and imagined futures. I move forward with gratitude and a commitment to my people, my culture, and the responsibilities that come with both.

EIP: How would your children & family describe you as an artist?
NICHOLAS: Not that I would speak for my children on this, but I can lead with what knowledge they have access to. My children have understood that this practice is not separated from our life, our connection to Land, to sustenance, culture and continuum, how it is connected to language, to our survival and to time generationally, how it contributes to health and well being. My children have been raised to understand that the studio is free and alive, shifting with objects and projects that hold story. Often the work has generative dialogue that reaches into silenced history that is not taught in school systems. They are allowed to explore in the studio with the tools and material, some of my children continue their own creative practice in their own time and space. Music, Lingit formline, carving, jewelry etc. I am so grateful for them to have access to something that has been so enriching and meaningful to my life experience.
EIP: In all your years of work, what would be your favorite piece you have ever worked on?
NICHOLAS: I don’t spend enough time looking back to celebrate works or favorites. The process of creating and exploration includes growth and new thought, new perspective and experiment. I am so grateful for opportunities to travel and meet with other cultures and communities, any work that allows for this is thought of as a blessing and form of higher learning.
EIP: Your work often explores themes of Indigenous identity and culture. How has your heritage shaped your perspective as an artist, and what role does storytelling play in your art?
NICHOLAS: All of my work is rooted in my cultural understanding and connection to place. I was speaking with my friend Jeffrey Gibson who had invited me to present to his students and Jeffrey mentioned something I never really noticed about my practice. Jeffrey said I was a storyteller. I know that creative practice can change the world. I know that creative practice can provide clarity, focus and vision. This is transmission of thought, this is survival, this is responsibility and necessity. Culturally speaking our community had no word for art, yet the visual form and language was everywhere. It is part of existence and life.
EIP: Can you speak about the importance of reclaiming traditional art forms and narratives in contemporary Indigenous art?
NICHOLAS: The receipts of time (or the gaps) are well documented and represented in art collections, in museums, in language, in books and media. Indians and dinosaur bones are often experienced together by public school visits to the museum. Anthropology and romanticism is something we still navigate. My grandfather created work in an era where customary education had been purposefully broken, where our clan houses had been dismantled and our language forcefully removed. Our ceremonies were banned, our knowledge and Land extracted. To continue to relearn language and song, to provide and share harvests from the Land with elders, to teach the youth is care. Creating in continuum and building is power, consumption is colonial. This is a living community and the work we do exists because of those whose shoulders we stand on.
EIP: Much of your work touches on the resistance against colonialism and cultural erasure. How do you view the role of art as a form of protest or political expression?
NICHOLAS: Its voice in a space where our voices have been silenced, in a timeline where the media seeks to control and profit from our humanity at the expense of Land and life. Free Palestine, Free Congo, Free Sudan and Land Back. I am listening and learning. I have so much respect for those that voice and work towards collective liberation. We have seen so much backlash and it is clear that economic power is a tool with a means to oppress. Art is an opportunity.
EIP: What have been some of the most challenging or rewarding moments you’ve faced when addressing difficult historical and political subjects through your work?
NICHOLAS: Everything comes with challenges, whether it is fighting censorship or seeking funding to realize projects. I have fought for projects,I have fought for words to remain in text and for language and intention of work to be clearly stated. Words are a battlefield and the pushback can be proof of impact. Early on it felt great to have access and participation, through time I’ve seen that we are also being consumed. Understanding spiritual connection to place grounds me, knowing that the Land provides and cares is a powerfully humbling understanding. The challenge I look forward to most is growth.
EIP: If you could reflect into your youth and childhood, what moments have been deeply ingrained in you that have now become or affected a part of your artistic practice?
NICHOLAS: Growing up around the cultural art form was very inspiring and powerful, my fondest memories include the smell of red cedar in my uncle’s shop, the tools, the knives and all of my fathers jewelry making equipment. Music played a roll in this as well, instruments and song were always shared and loved in my family. In grade school I was practicing Lingit formline and drawing as often as possible, building and trying to understand this visual language with guidance from my father and uncle. We moved around often and the imagery connected me back to home in a meaningful way, it instilled pride in my culture and carried many other life teachings beyond the creative process. It is life work, it connects us with the community, to ceremony, to song, to Land and water, to past present and future. I wanted to understand more and this cultural art form had provided that insight, it still continues to provide more understanding. Through this work I learned that all is possible and for me that is incredibly powerful.

EIP: Do you feel like your art makes political statements? If this is so, have you always approached your work this way?
NICHOLAS: Yes. Indigenous existence is political. Land is political, water is political, air is political when the systems that consume and extract, damage, remove or forcefully seek to control it/us continue to exist. My initial training in the creative world began with customary apprenticeships carving wood and metals. I think the most continual aspect in my practice was something I still try to maintain to this day, which is to keep the mind open.
EIP: In light of growing global inequality, what do you believe are the most pressing issues that world governments need to prioritize?
NICHOLAS: Collective liberation, human rights for all, climate crisis, access to healthcare, affordable housing, and clean water. We can envision a better future.
EIP: Was there a specific moment or experience that made you realize the political potential of your work?
NICHOLAS: In order to access my culture I had to navigate institutions, museums and academia. So much of our culture had been intentionally removed through genocide. Learning about my history is highly political. My grandparents in an internment camp, my Unangax family forcefully removed from their villages. Boarding schools, forced assimilation, language removal. Erasure. The impacts still surface through living generations, we are still fighting to protect herring, salmon, waterways and for sovereignty and Land rights. My survival is political in a homeland that sought to remove us. There is a necessity and responsibility to bring voice to these conversations.
EIP: Can you talk about your connection to the youth, whether it’s your children or children you might work with. How do they respond to your work and what has been your focus if any when educating them using creativity?
NICHOLAS: Our culture lives through shared knowledge and continuum, I have and continue to take on apprentices and understand this as a form of living knowledge. Some were taught that if it had not been for museums who “care” for our at.óow (sacred objects) then we would not have them. This is myth created by settler supremacists, the same kind of mythology that calls any non-Eurocentric spiritual belief primitive, this is the same mythology that still continues to disregard Indigenous science. I like to speak about kooteeya (totem poles) when talking about this. In our communities the kooteeya is carved raised and returns back to the forest in its life. In colonial society these have been removed, preserved with arsenic and placed into collection. The preservation is in the knowledge and understanding of how to create the kooteeya, in the preservation and protection, care of the forests that provide the cedar to create the totem. The preservation and care has to be literal care for the community that stewards this knowledge, not just the fetishized object. I am starting a 2 year apprenticeship where I will train and work with younger artists, starting with tool making, design, cultural protocol and carving. The students will work with me over the course of this time and upon completion will have carved and raised a 25ft totem. This is knowledge transmission.

{
"article":
{
"title" : "Nicholas Galanin: Art as a Weapon Against Colonialism",
"author" : "Nicholas Galanin",
"category" : "interviews, visual",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/nicholas-galanin-art-as-a-weapon-against-colonialism",
"date" : "2025-03-21 17:28:00 -0400",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/NGA24-06_The-Imaginary-Indian_Nicholas-Galanin.jpg",
"excerpt" : "",
"content" : "The first in a series of hide paintings for guiding the escape of Indigenous remains and objects in non-Indigenous Institutions to return to their home communities, Architecture of return, escape (Metropolitan Museum of Art) is a mapped escape plan for objects held in the Met in New York City.The work is a plan for wayfinding during decolonization; requiring return, building new structures for good ways of being. Of the few objects held in display cases, many more (including human remains, and ceremonial objects not intended for public view) are held in museum archives. The cost and processes required to travel and visit these archives limits access to cultural knowledge and inheritance for Indigenous communities, and continues the removal of the objects from their land and people. While institutions control the air temperature, humidity, uv exposure and dust, they are unable to adequately care for these objects in cultural or spiritual ways.Painting information on hides to remember, and instruct has a long history in many Indigenous communities, particularly for recording significant events or feats of bravery. In this series of work, the hide paintings depict a floor plan referencing a visitors guide and architecture blueprints for building. The objects themselves are unwilling visitors to the museum, and the painting builds a route for escape and vision for reunification of cultural inheritance with community. In the painting, the galleries of the museum containing Indigenous American objects (along with elevators and stairs coming from the archives) are marked with a red dashed line leading to the exit. The exit from the museum is also an entrance for our cultural at.óow (ceremonial objects) imprisoned in these spaces, an entrance for return to land, community and culture. The work serves as a reminder of the past, and as a plan for a good way forward; where stolen objects, human remains and works sold under duress can return home for their own health, for the health of the communities that created them, and for the health of the communities that took them.EIP: Your art speaks volumes, and is often deliberately “provocative”; tell us first about your life outside of the art you do, the person from which the expression comes?NICHOLAS: My life is deeply shaped by my connection to the Land, water, community, and family. Beyond my art practice, I navigate my days with a sense of responsibility to these relationships, recognizing that they ground both my work and my existence.A typical day begins early with children going to school, I often try to get outside—whether walking, running or simply being present with the Land, I love witnessing the seasons and nature’s clock. Living in Alaska, the Land is powerful, a teacher and provider. The weather and its natural rhythms influence so much of my practice and understanding. Summers are busy harvesting. Winters provide time for creating with less distraction.Family is at the heart of my life. I prioritize being present for my children, supporting them in their education and growth, and sharing the values and knowledge passed down to me through continuum. This extends to my community, where mentorship and collaboration are part of daily experience—through conversations, shared meals, or working alongside others.Much of my time is spent engaging with creative disciplines— researching, reading, listening and exploring ideas. Music is an integral part of this exploration, providing both a creative outlet and a meditative practice. Some days are dedicated to carving, others to the music studio, or working on projects that require research and concept. The throughline remains the same: honoring Indigenous knowledge, challenging structures that seek to erase it, and creating space for future generations.Resistance is also present in my daily life—whether through showing up for movements that support Indigenous sovereignty, engaging in conversations about Land and imagined futures. I move forward with gratitude and a commitment to my people, my culture, and the responsibilities that come with both.EIP: How would your children & family describe you as an artist?NICHOLAS: Not that I would speak for my children on this, but I can lead with what knowledge they have access to. My children have understood that this practice is not separated from our life, our connection to Land, to sustenance, culture and continuum, how it is connected to language, to our survival and to time generationally, how it contributes to health and well being. My children have been raised to understand that the studio is free and alive, shifting with objects and projects that hold story. Often the work has generative dialogue that reaches into silenced history that is not taught in school systems. They are allowed to explore in the studio with the tools and material, some of my children continue their own creative practice in their own time and space. Music, Lingit formline, carving, jewelry etc. I am so grateful for them to have access to something that has been so enriching and meaningful to my life experience.EIP: In all your years of work, what would be your favorite piece you have ever worked on?NICHOLAS: I don’t spend enough time looking back to celebrate works or favorites. The process of creating and exploration includes growth and new thought, new perspective and experiment. I am so grateful for opportunities to travel and meet with other cultures and communities, any work that allows for this is thought of as a blessing and form of higher learning.EIP: Your work often explores themes of Indigenous identity and culture. How has your heritage shaped your perspective as an artist, and what role does storytelling play in your art?NICHOLAS: All of my work is rooted in my cultural understanding and connection to place. I was speaking with my friend Jeffrey Gibson who had invited me to present to his students and Jeffrey mentioned something I never really noticed about my practice. Jeffrey said I was a storyteller. I know that creative practice can change the world. I know that creative practice can provide clarity, focus and vision. This is transmission of thought, this is survival, this is responsibility and necessity. Culturally speaking our community had no word for art, yet the visual form and language was everywhere. It is part of existence and life.EIP: Can you speak about the importance of reclaiming traditional art forms and narratives in contemporary Indigenous art?NICHOLAS: The receipts of time (or the gaps) are well documented and represented in art collections, in museums, in language, in books and media. Indians and dinosaur bones are often experienced together by public school visits to the museum. Anthropology and romanticism is something we still navigate. My grandfather created work in an era where customary education had been purposefully broken, where our clan houses had been dismantled and our language forcefully removed. Our ceremonies were banned, our knowledge and Land extracted. To continue to relearn language and song, to provide and share harvests from the Land with elders, to teach the youth is care. Creating in continuum and building is power, consumption is colonial. This is a living community and the work we do exists because of those whose shoulders we stand on.EIP: Much of your work touches on the resistance against colonialism and cultural erasure. How do you view the role of art as a form of protest or political expression?NICHOLAS: Its voice in a space where our voices have been silenced, in a timeline where the media seeks to control and profit from our humanity at the expense of Land and life. Free Palestine, Free Congo, Free Sudan and Land Back. I am listening and learning. I have so much respect for those that voice and work towards collective liberation. We have seen so much backlash and it is clear that economic power is a tool with a means to oppress. Art is an opportunity.EIP: What have been some of the most challenging or rewarding moments you’ve faced when addressing difficult historical and political subjects through your work?NICHOLAS: Everything comes with challenges, whether it is fighting censorship or seeking funding to realize projects. I have fought for projects,I have fought for words to remain in text and for language and intention of work to be clearly stated. Words are a battlefield and the pushback can be proof of impact. Early on it felt great to have access and participation, through time I’ve seen that we are also being consumed. Understanding spiritual connection to place grounds me, knowing that the Land provides and cares is a powerfully humbling understanding. The challenge I look forward to most is growth.EIP: If you could reflect into your youth and childhood, what moments have been deeply ingrained in you that have now become or affected a part of your artistic practice?NICHOLAS: Growing up around the cultural art form was very inspiring and powerful, my fondest memories include the smell of red cedar in my uncle’s shop, the tools, the knives and all of my fathers jewelry making equipment. Music played a roll in this as well, instruments and song were always shared and loved in my family. In grade school I was practicing Lingit formline and drawing as often as possible, building and trying to understand this visual language with guidance from my father and uncle. We moved around often and the imagery connected me back to home in a meaningful way, it instilled pride in my culture and carried many other life teachings beyond the creative process. It is life work, it connects us with the community, to ceremony, to song, to Land and water, to past present and future. I wanted to understand more and this cultural art form had provided that insight, it still continues to provide more understanding. Through this work I learned that all is possible and for me that is incredibly powerful.EIP: Do you feel like your art makes political statements? If this is so, have you always approached your work this way?NICHOLAS: Yes. Indigenous existence is political. Land is political, water is political, air is political when the systems that consume and extract, damage, remove or forcefully seek to control it/us continue to exist. My initial training in the creative world began with customary apprenticeships carving wood and metals. I think the most continual aspect in my practice was something I still try to maintain to this day, which is to keep the mind open.EIP: In light of growing global inequality, what do you believe are the most pressing issues that world governments need to prioritize?NICHOLAS: Collective liberation, human rights for all, climate crisis, access to healthcare, affordable housing, and clean water. We can envision a better future.EIP: Was there a specific moment or experience that made you realize the political potential of your work?NICHOLAS: In order to access my culture I had to navigate institutions, museums and academia. So much of our culture had been intentionally removed through genocide. Learning about my history is highly political. My grandparents in an internment camp, my Unangax family forcefully removed from their villages. Boarding schools, forced assimilation, language removal. Erasure. The impacts still surface through living generations, we are still fighting to protect herring, salmon, waterways and for sovereignty and Land rights. My survival is political in a homeland that sought to remove us. There is a necessity and responsibility to bring voice to these conversations.EIP: Can you talk about your connection to the youth, whether it’s your children or children you might work with. How do they respond to your work and what has been your focus if any when educating them using creativity?NICHOLAS: Our culture lives through shared knowledge and continuum, I have and continue to take on apprentices and understand this as a form of living knowledge. Some were taught that if it had not been for museums who “care” for our at.óow (sacred objects) then we would not have them. This is myth created by settler supremacists, the same kind of mythology that calls any non-Eurocentric spiritual belief primitive, this is the same mythology that still continues to disregard Indigenous science. I like to speak about kooteeya (totem poles) when talking about this. In our communities the kooteeya is carved raised and returns back to the forest in its life. In colonial society these have been removed, preserved with arsenic and placed into collection. The preservation is in the knowledge and understanding of how to create the kooteeya, in the preservation and protection, care of the forests that provide the cedar to create the totem. The preservation and care has to be literal care for the community that stewards this knowledge, not just the fetishized object. I am starting a 2 year apprenticeship where I will train and work with younger artists, starting with tool making, design, cultural protocol and carving. The students will work with me over the course of this time and upon completion will have carved and raised a 25ft totem. This is knowledge transmission."
}
,
"relatedposts": [
{
"title" : "Mercy Over Speed: Revolutionizing Our Political Imagination",
"author" : "Sue Ariza",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/mercy-over-speed",
"date" : "2025-12-11 13:40:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_Mercy_Speed.jpg",
"excerpt" : "2025 was a masterclass in haste.",
"content" : "2025 was a masterclass in haste.Policies rushed to enact a merciless agenda that benefit only the few—President Donald Trump scrapped Biden’s AI executive order within hours of taking office, wiping out safety and transparency requirements as we enter a new digital age. Immigration officials were ordered to quadruple immigration arrests overnight. Food assistance was frozen while billions in relief funds sat unused; hunger used as a pawn in the longest government shutdown in American history. Entire communities pushed not just to autopilot, but to survival—by algorithms that cannot see them, by bureaucracies that cannot pause long enough to understand them, by political actors who confuse immediacy with leadership.Of course, the real crisis isn’t speed on its own. It’s what speed erases: attention, nuance, reflection, and the fundamental truth that human beings are not statistics or administrative burdens. Perhaps nowhere was this clearer than in the State Department’s human rights reports earlier this year. In the name of “streamlining,” references to prison abuse, LGBTQIA+ persecution, and attacks on human rights defenders were quietly removed. The language was technocratic—reduce redundancy, tidy up the narrative—but the effect was ideological: whole communities and categories of suffering erased from national memory.Because the truth is, what speed strategically, ruthlessly, obliterates is the one crucial political practice we need most: mercy.Our world has taught us to think of mercy in opposition to speed, too soft for our lived realities, though it’s anything but that: Mercy is the commitment to respond to harm, conflict, or complexity with clarity rather than panic—with discernment instead of reflex. Mercy is the refusal to collapse a person, an idea, or a crisis into something smaller than it is. Mercy is political imagination: the capacity to see beyond what urgency allows and stay with one another long enough to resist the reflexes that turn disagreement into instant judgment—so we can listen before we attack or defend.But what does mercy actually demand of us? For us to reclaim it politically, we first must understand what it means and how it offers a counter-rhythm to our frantic culture of speed and instant gratification.The word itself tells a story. Mercy comes from the Latin merces—wages, payment, the price of goods. Ancient Romans understood it as a transaction. But early Christians shifted the word toward the sacred: the spiritual reward for showing kindness where cruelty was expected. They moved a word about the marketplace into a vocabulary of grace.Judaism’s rachamim, Islam’s rahma, Buddhism’s karuṇā, and Hinduism’s dayā all insist on the same truth: mercy is a way of recognizing the sacredness in others.That transformation mirrors what mercy asks of us now: to move beyond the logic of exchange, beyond what is earned or owed. It asks us to look at someone who has caused pain, and instead of asking What do they deserve? ask, What does healing require here? It is seeing beyond someone’s worst moment and choosing curiosity over condemnation.But mercy is more than individual forgiveness. It is a way of moving through the world that assumes people are larger than their failures; that redemption remains possible; that, importantly, time is not a scarce resource, but something we can afford to give. Mercy requires attention—what French philosopher Simone Weil called “the rarest and purest form of generosity.” It is why American novelist James Baldwin described love as an active emotion: the daily labor of truly seeing another person, especially when the systems around us tell us to look away.The problem, however, is that attention is precisely what our culture has made almost impossible to give. We are overstimulated, overextended, algorithmically hijacked, not only bearing witness to incredible amounts of suffering, but scrolling past it. We don’t refuse mercy because we’re cruel. We refuse it because we’ve built a world that makes stopping feel unimaginable—impractical.This is why mercy is not opposed to speed; it is opposed to false urgency. There are moments when mercy requires swift, decisive intervention. The problem is not action—it’s reaction: the unexamined acceleration that mistakes immediacy for moral clarity and treats nuance as an inconvenience.Consider how the culture of speed is destabilizing basic public systems. Take the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that feeds more than 42 million Americans. This year, households faced unprecedented threats to their benefits—not because their needs had changed, not because the money didn’t exist, but because the administration chose to let billions in contingency funds sit untouched. The crisis wasn’t a failure of capacity. It was a political choice dressed up as inevitability.Or look at the rush to implement AI—a race happening not because anyone has thought deeply about what these systems are for, but because companies fear being the last to adopt them. Across industries, AI is being plugged into hiring platforms, healthcare systems, education tools, corporate workflows, and crisis-response mechanisms, often with little understanding of the consequences. “Innovation” has become a justification to move faster than ethics, oversight, or even common sense can keep up. In that scramble to avoid falling behind, speed becomes a substitute for understanding what people actually need and for the mercy that governance requires.A merciful politics would insist that deliberation is not inefficiency but protection, and that slowing down is an ethical requirement. Because the stakes of leadership and governance without it are real: if AI systems are going to help determine who gets hired, who gets healthcare, who receives support, which students get flagged for discipline, then refusing to slow down is not neutrality—it is a political choice with human costs.Our addiction to speed also shapes how we respond to political disagreement. Our culture no longer rewards thinking or meaningful conversation. Instead, it rewards reacting. Watch how career Democrats responded to New York Assembly member Zohran Mamdani’s mayoral campaign in November. Rather than engaging with his proposals on housing, healthcare, or municipal governance, establishment voices moved immediately to demonization. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer withheld his endorsement entirely. His ideas required discussion, which takes time and attention. His vision challenged party orthodoxy, which requires deliberation to refute or incorporate. Instead of dialogue, we see instant censure, moral panic, and swift punishment.The speed of the response is the point. It signals that dissent is tolerable only when it can be quickly absorbed or quickly dismissed. Ideas that require conversation are treated as threats simply because they resist rapid processing. The issue isn’t whether Mamdani’s proposals are correct (and of course, it remains to be seen how they will actually be implemented); it’s that the reflex to demonize rather than debate reveals a political culture that has forgotten how to think collectively.We see this punitive speed logic everywhere. Students disciplined for language before conversations can happen. Social movements judged by headlines rather than the work. Communities criminalized in real time by social media cycles that flatten context into consumable outrage. We’ve built a society quicker to punish than to understand, quicker to condemn than to contextualize.But mercy could help us move differently. Mercy would refuse to relegate a person or an idea to a caricature simply because the truth requires time. Mercy asks us to hold uncertainty long enough to respond with discernment rather than reflex. It asks us to think—together.Legal scholar Matthias Mahlmann writes that dignity is “subversive,” an insistence that every human life carries irreducible worth. But dignity has a temporal requirement: you cannot witness another person’s humanity at speed. You cannot attend to the complexity of a life if you’re only interested in the fastest possible outcome.This is why systems built around optimization always feel so violent. Algorithmic welfare reviews, automated policing, real-time public shaming—all of them demand that human beings be compressed into categories that can be processed quickly. The violence isn’t just in the outcome; it’s in the refusal of attention itself.Mercy and dignity are inseparable. Dignity names the inherent worth that every person carries; mercy is the discipline that protects that worth in practice. Dignity says there is something unbreakable in each of us. Mercy is how we honor that unbreakable thing, especially when harm or conflict tempts us to forget it. What would shift if our reflex wasn’t How fast can we react?, but How deeply can we understand? What becomes possible when we refuse to hurry past another person’s humanity?Mercy is not sentiment. It is resistance. It is the refusal of dignity fatigue. It is the discipline of witnessing: in political policy, in the conversations we have, in how we treat each other’s failures and hopes. 2025 taught us what haste can destroy. The question now is whether we’re willing to build something slower—and more human—in its place."
}
,
{
"title" : "What We Can Learn from the Inuit Mapping of the Arctic",
"author" : "William Rankin",
"category" : "excerpts",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/inuit-mapping-arctic",
"date" : "2025-12-02 12:49:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/Cover_EIP_Template-Inuit_Map.jpg",
"excerpt" : "This excerpt is from RADICAL CARTOGRAPHY by William Rankin, published by Viking, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House, LLC. Copyright © 2025 by William Rankin.",
"content" : "This excerpt is from RADICAL CARTOGRAPHY by William Rankin, published by Viking, an imprint of Penguin Publishing Group, a division of Penguin Random House, LLC. Copyright © 2025 by William Rankin.In 1994, the Berkeley geographer Bernard Nietschmann made a famous claim about the power of mapping in the global struggle for Indigenous rights. It was a claim about how the tools of historical oppression could be reclaimed by the oppressed: “More Indigenous territory has been claimed by maps than by guns. This assertion has its corollary: more Indigenous territory can be defended and reclaimed by maps than by guns.” The idea was that by putting themselves on the map—documenting their lives and their communities—Indigenous peoples would not be so easy to erase. Nietschmann was working in Central America, often heroically, during a time of violence and displacement, and he inspired a generation of researchers and activists interested in flipping the power structure of state-centric cartography on its head.But despite the spread of bottom-up mapping projects in the past 30 years, perhaps the most successful example of Indigenous mapping actually predates Nietschmann’s call to action. Just one year prior, in 1993, the Inuit of northern Canada signed a treaty creating the territory of Nunavut—the largest self-governing Indigenous territory in the world—and mapping was central to both the negotiation and the outcome. It remains one of the rare cases of Indigenous geographic knowledge decolonizing the world map.So why hasn’t the Inuit project been replicable elsewhere, despite decades more work on Indigenous mapping? The answer lies in the very idea of territory itself, and in particular in one of the most threatened parts of the Inuit landscape today: ice. The winter extent of Arctic sea ice reached a record low earlier this year, and a new low is predicted for the winter ahead. Yet the shrinking ice isn’t just an unshakable sign of Arctic warming; it’s also a poignant reminder of what Nietschmann got right—and what he missed—about the relationship between cartography and power. In particular, it shows how Inuit conceptions of space, place, and belonging are rooted in a dynamic, seasonal geography that’s often completely invisible on Western-style maps.The story begins in the 1970s, when the young Inuit leader Tagak Curley, today considered a “living father” of Nunavut, hired the Arctic anthropologist Milton Freeman to lead a collaborative mapping project of unprecedented scope and ambition. Freeman taught at McMaster University about an hour outside Toronto; he was white, but his wife, Mini Aodla Freeman, was Inuit (she was a translator and later a celebrated writer). Freeman assembled a team of other anthropologists and Arctic geographers—also white—to split the mapping into regions. They called their method the “map biography.” The goal was to capture the life history of every Inuit hunter in cartographic form, recording each person’s memories of where, at any point in their life, they had found roughly three dozen species of wildlife—from caribou and ptarmigan to beluga, narwhal, and seaweed. Each map biography would be a testimony of personal experience.After the mapping was split into regions, about 150 field-workers—almost all Inuit—traveled between 33 northern settlements with a stack of government-issued topographic maps to conduct interviews. Each hunter was asked to draw lines or shapes directly on the maps with colored pens or pencils. The interviewers stayed about 10 weeks in each settlement, visiting most hunters in their own homes, and the final participation rate was an astonishing 85 percent of all adult Inuit men. They collected 1,600 biographies in total, some on maps as large as 10 feet square.Then came the cartographers, back in Ontario: one professor and a team of about 15 students. The first map below (Figure 1) shows how the individual map biographies were transformed into summary maps, one for each community. For every species, the overlap of all hunters’ testimony became a single blob, and then blobs for all species were overlaid to make a complete map. The second map (Figure 2) shows one of the finished atlas pages along the Northwest Passage. The immediate impression is that the Arctic is in no way an empty expanse of barren land and unclaimed mineral riches. It is dense with human activity, necessary for personal and collective survival. The community maps combined to show almost uninterrupted Inuit presence stretching from northern Labrador to the Alaska border.Figure 1: Top left is a simplified version of a “map biography” from a single Inuit hunter, showing his birthplace and the places he hunted caribou, fox, wolf, grizzly bear, moose, and fish at various points in his life. (The original biography would have been drawn over a familiar government-issued topographic map.) The other three maps show how multiple biographies were then combined into patterned blobs for all hunters and all species. (Map courtesy of William Rankin/ Penguin Random House LLC.)Figure 2: A two-page spread from the finished atlas showing the seven kinds of animals hunted from the settlements of Igloolik and Hall Beach, in an area about 500 by 300 miles: caribou, polar bear, walrus, whale, fish, seal, and waterfowl. (Because of the large number of individual species recorded in the map biographies, some species were grouped together in the final maps.) The blobs are a strong, even overpowering figure atop an unusually subtle ground. Notice in particular how difficult it is to distinguish land and water areas, since the dark shading extends beyond coastlines even for individual species. This map in fact includes the Northwest Passage—the famous sea route around the tip of North America—but the crucial Fury and Hecla Strait (named after the two British ships that first learned of, but did not navigate, the passage in 1822) is almost entirely obscured. (Map courtesy of William Rankin/ Penguin Random House LLC.)Nothing about the cartography was meant to be subversive—or even controversial. For the cartographers, the only message was that the Inuit hunted a variety of species over large areas. But look again at the finished map in Figure 2. Yes, a foreground is layered over a background in the usual way, but the visual argument is strikingly different from a typical layered map in, say, a census atlas, where the foreground data doesn’t stray beyond crisp pre-existing borders. Here, in contrast, even the basic distinction between land and water is often obscure. The maps’ content is the facts of species and area; the maps’ argument is that Inuit culture is grounded in a substantially different understanding of territory than the one Western cartography was designed to show.As a result, this new atlas shifted the negotiations between the Inuit and the Canadian government decisively. Not only did the maps provide a legal claim to the Inuit-used land, documenting 750,000 square miles—an area the size of Mexico—but also a claim to the sea, showing an additional 325,000 square miles offshore.It took many years for the full implications to play out, but the erosion of the land–water boundary became central to the Inuit vision. At the time, wildlife on land was managed by the regional Northwest Territories government, while offshore marine species were the responsibility of centralized federal agencies. The Inuit used the atlas to win agreement for a new agency with equal responsibility over both. At the same time, the Inuit also improved their position by offering their offshore claims as evidence the Canadian government would use—not just in the 1980s, but even as recently as 2024—to resist foreign encroachment in the Northwest Passage. The final agreement in 1993 granted the Inuit $1.15 billion in cash, title to about 17 percent of the land in the “settlement area,” representation on several new management agencies, a share of all natural-resource revenue, broad hunting and fishing rights, and a promise that the territory of Nunavut would come into being on April 1, 1999.It’s easy to count this project as a success story, but it’s also important to remember that it depended both on the government’s own interest in negotiation and on the willingness of Indigenous peoples, or at least their leadership, to translate their sense of space onto a map, solidifying what had previously been fluid. It also meant abandoning claims to ancestral lands that had not been used in living experience and provoking new boundary disputes with neighboring, and previously amicable, Indigenous groups. These tradeoffs have led some scholars to critique mapping as only “drawing Indigenous peoples into a modern capitalist economy while maintaining the centrality of state power.” But for the Inuit, the alternatives seemed quite a bit worse.With the more recent proliferation of Indigenous mapping initiatives elsewhere—in Latin America, Africa, and Asia—the tradeoffs have been harder to evaluate. Most governments have shown little interest in addressing Indigenous claims, and when bottom-up mapping has been pushed instead by international nonprofits interested in environmental conservation, the downsides of mapping have often come without any of the upsides.Yet it’s not just the attitude of the state that’s been different; it’s also the cartography. In nearly all these other cases, the finished maps have shown none of the territorial inversion of the Inuit atlas. Instead, Indigenous knowledge is either overlaid on an existing base map in perfectly legible form, or it’s used to construct a new base map of a remarkably conventional sort, using the same visual vocabulary as Western maps.Did the Inuit project just show the data so clearly that its deeper implications were immediately apparent? No, not really, since the great irony here is that the cartographers were in fact quite dissatisfied. Follow-up surveys reached the conclusion that the atlas was only “moderately successful” by their usual mapmaking standards.The Inuit atlas was a kind of happy accident—one that doesn’t conform to any of the usual stories about Indigenous mapping, in Canada or elsewhere. The lesson here isn’t that maps should be as Indigenous as possible, or that they should be as orthodox as possible. These maps were neither. My take is simpler: the atlas shows that maps can, in fact, support alternative conceptions of space—and that showing space in a different way is crucial.The possibilities aren’t endless, but they’re broader than we might think. Plotting different sorts of data is a necessary step, but no less important are the relationships between that data and the assumptions of what lies below. For the Inuit, these assumptions were about land, water, and territory. These were in the background both visually and politically, and they were upstaged by an unexpectedly provocative foreground. The layers did not behave as they were meant to, and despite the tradeoffs, they allowed an Indigenous community to fight for their home and their way of life."
}
,
{
"title" : "Malcolm X and Islam: U.S. Islamophobia Didn’t Start with 9/11",
"author" : "Collis Browne",
"category" : "essays",
"url" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/readings/malcolm-x-and-islam",
"date" : "2025-11-27 14:58:00 -0500",
"img" : "https://everythingispolitical.com/uploads/life-malcolm-3.jpg",
"excerpt" : "",
"content" : "Anti-Muslim hate has been deeply engrained and intertwined with anti-Black racism in the United States for well over 60 years, far longer than most of us are taught or are aware.As the EIP team dug into design research for the new magazine format of our first anniversary issue, we revisited 1960s issues of LIFE magazine—and landed on the March 1965 edition, published just after the assassination of Malcolm X.The reporting is staggering in its openness: blatantly anti-Black and anti-Muslim in a way that normalizes white supremacy at its most fundamental level. The anti-Blackness, while horrifying, is not surprising. This was a moment when, despite the formal dismantling of Jim Crow, more than 10,000 “sundown towns” still existed across the country, segregation remained the norm, and racial terror structured daily life.What shocked our team was the nakedness of the anti-Muslim propaganda.This was not yet framed as anti-Arab in the way Western Islamophobia is often framed today. Arab and Middle Eastern people were not present in the narrative at all. Instead, what was being targeted was organized resistance to white supremacy—specifically, the adoption of Islam by Black communities as a source of political power, dignity, and self-determination. From this moment, we can trace a clear ideological line from anti-Muslim sentiment rooted in anti-Black racism in the 1960s to the anti-Arab, anti-MENA, and anti-SWANA racism that saturates Western culture today.The reporting leaned heavily on familiar colonial tropes: the implication of “inter-tribal” violence, the suggestion that resistance to white supremacy is itself a form of reverse racism or inherent aggression, and the detached, almost smug tone surrounding the violent death of a cultural leader.Of course, the Nation of Islam and Elijah Muhammad represent only expressions within an immense and diverse global Muslim world—spanning Morocco, Sudan, the Gulf, Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, and far beyond. Yet U.S. cultural and military power has long blurred these distinctions, collapsing complexity into a singular enemy image.It is worth naming this history clearly and connecting the dots: U.S. Islamophobia did not begin with 9/11. It is rooted in a much older racial project—one that has always braided anti-Blackness and anti-Muslim sentiment together in service of white supremacy, at home and abroad."
}
]
}