79
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Dingman
perspective recognizes the likelihood of resource development and ―does not equate climate change
with opportunity‖, a view that is reflected by Simon (ibid: 917). Thirdly, is the perspective most
closely associated with IKCC and the view favored by the authors. Wilson & Smith (ibid: 919) note
that this voice ―is much needed in a world that privileges economic growth over environmental
wellbeing.‖
Though these internal divisions on the challenges and benefits of climate change are significant, this
debate was not the intention of Kunuk and Mauro‘s film. Centered on climate change, it is notable
that the environmental observers are acknowledged by name, a quality also demonstrated in the
Gearheard et al study. This represents a grand departure from bygone years when photographic
representations of indigenous individuals and groups went by the sole identifier of ―Eskimo‖:
―Eskimo Man reading a copy of the Saturday Evening Post, 1913‖; ―An Eskimo man enjoying some
music on a record player, 1922‖; and ―A beautiful Eskimo girl, 1929‖ (―Vintage‖, 2012). While the
photos alone represent aspects of changing communities, this colonial practice objectified
individuals as nameless beings with no voice of their own.
IKCC, however, transcends the constraints of Western thought production, thereby embedding an
authentic, if unfamiliar, account of Arctic change articulated by Inuit. There is no room for cultural
misrepresentation, marginalization or for status-quo political ideology. Indeed putting a human face
and name to each participant redirects the commonly held view that the Arctic is heading toward
unmitigated corporate development in a land thought to be largely absent of identifiable human life.
Just as the Arctic cannot be reduced to nothing more than an economic frontier, the impact of
climate change on the human experience cannot disregard the accounts of Inuit knowledge-makers.
Yet the antithesis persists, which is the reason why Kunuk advocates self-generated Inuit knowledge.
"Over the years,‖ he notes, ―nobody has ever listened to these people. Every time [the discussion is]
about global warming, about the Arctic warming, it‘s scientists that go up there and do their work.
And policy makers depend on these findings. Nobody ever really understands the people up there‖
(Dixon, 2010: 11). Kunuk‘s remark is a stark reminder that to the extent that some scientists have
made a great effort to recognize and respect the knowledge of Arctic indigenous peoples, there is
still a long road ahead. But it is not scientists alone who are responsible for bridging the gap; policy
makers, industrialists and academic‘s alike must be held to account. That said, there are indications
that western thought production is taking a modest turn towards locating Arctic indigenous peoples
as significant actors on the circumpolar stage.
As echoed by Ferris (2013: 24), much of the research which has focused on Arctic indigenous
peoples as victims ―may miss the broader picture. Some [academics] have argued that the focus
should be on the ‗agency‘ of indigenous communities – their ability to shape the future‖. A 2013
report to the U.S. Congress concurs. Quoting the Arctic Human Development Report it states, ―the
rise of solidarity among indigenous peoples organizations in the region is surely a development to be
reckoned with by all those interested in policy issues in the Arctic‖ (O‘Rourke, 2013: 38).
As such, IKCC could be seen as an agent of change in the global debate on climate change. It‘s as if
the film‘s participants have turned the tables on the viewer and said: ―this is our story. What is your