Talk:Extractivism

Untitled

For an assignment I have to edit a wikipedia article so I wanted to edit part of this article. I thought it would be important to expand on the direct impacts extracivism has on Indigenous communities. Specifically how their ways of life are attacked as well as their homes by having these destructive practices happen to the earth. They are unable to practice their culture and traditions because of the destruction and barriers extractivism causes. Because of this, extractivism is a form of colonialism against indigenous peoples. I also wanted to add a case study of the Asubpeeschoseewagong First Nation also known as the Grassy Narrows First Nation in Canada and the logging/clear cutting that took place on their land until they started a blockade.

Bibliography

1. Willow, Anna J. Indigenous ExtrActivism in Boreal Canada: Colonial Legacies, Contemporary Struggles, and Sovereign Futures.  Humanities 2016, 5, 55

2. Alberto Acosta. “Extractivism and Neoextractivism: Two Sides of the Same Curse.” In Beyond Development: Alternative Visions from Latin America. Edited by Miriam Lang and Dunia Mokrani. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute, 2013, pp. 61–86. 

3. Henry Veltmeyer, and James Petras. The New Extractivism: A Post-Neoliberal Development Model or Imperialism of the Twenty-First Century. London: Zed Books, 2014.

4. “Resistance Recognized: Grassy Narrows' Blockade Wins Award.” CBCnews, CBC/Radio Canada, 25 May 2015, www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/grassy-narrows-12-year-blockade-against-clear-cutting-wins-award-1.3085692.

5. “10 Years Later: Grassy Narrows Blockade.” Amnesty International Canada, 4 Mar. 2014, www.amnesty.ca/blog/10-years-later-grassy-narrows-blockade.

Mamtamanhas (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mam - as a white settler, I encourage you to do exactly what you have outlined. From the Amazon basin to Grassy Narrows, Resource Extraction almost always takes place on unceded Indigenous land, and Indigenous people have no veto power over it, and derive no royalties, yet they bear the costs. 172.103.217.135 (talk) 07:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Not neutral, January 23, 2023

The article presents "extractivism" as a fact just like it does with neoliberalism. Both concepts have been contested by mainstream economists. Opinions of experts contrary to the extractivist concept have been omitted or suppressed from the article. Sietecolores (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sietecolores. I'm not too clear on what you mean here. What does it mean to contest a concept? I think you might be concerned about my reversion of an edit you made several weeks ago. That edit was also unclear. Do you mean that mainstream economists have argued that extractivism isn't a useful concept? In what way? Can you be more precise? Do you have a source other than an opinion piece? (Peer review is nice.) I think it would be great for you to add other scholars' perspectives if you can be clearer, (and I suggest keeping it out of the lead at first, because the lead is supposed to summarize the article). I hope you'll add something to clarify! Larataguera (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Given by whom it is written the said argument by Minister Eyzaguirre is a valid criticism. Sietecolores (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure, maybe it's a notable opinion, but I don't think your edit made it clear what the opinion is. I went back and read Eyzaguirre's piece, and he's comparing Australia's raw material exports with Chile's, pointing out that Australia develops their own supply chain technology, while Chile imports that technology. Maybe he's arguing that these are both extractivist economies (because they export so many raw materials), but that Australia benefits from their extractivism, while Chile just sells ore and doesn't capitalise on their opportunity? It's a little oblique – I mean he never says that outright – but I think that's the gist of it. So what's the critique? (other than a criticism of Chile's economic policies?) He talks about these concepts "closing ourselves in our own positions" – but it isn't really clear to me who he's responding to or what position we're being closed into.

Maybe in a comparison between Australia's economy and Chile's economy extractivism isn't a useful concept, but that's a pretty narrow context. Are we supposed to extrapolate that extractivism is never a useful concept? That the concept is being critiqued as a whole? That seems a bit much. Maybe you could write something like, "Minister Eyzaguirre writes that extractivism isn't a useful concept in comparing his country's economy to the economy of Australia, because both countries export a lot of raw materials, but Australia gets more advantage by developing supply chain technology." Or something like that? We need some context to understand the critique. If extractivism is really not a helpful way to think about the world economy, there are probably scholars writing about that in a more general context if you search for it... Larataguera (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, the article uses politically charged language such as "Global South" and "Neoliberalism". This is not the way we write here in Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch). Sietecolores (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to argue that this article doesn't have problems. It's frankly a mess. But I'm confused as to why you'd be concerned about the words Global South and Neoliberalism. Those are words that are frequently used in a variety of reliable sources, so I expect we would use them. Larataguera (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Even reliable sources use sometimes wording that is not neutral, for example Gamergate which was created to imply a scandal. Global South and Neoliberalism are used in some political discourses to convey certain views. As said before, these are politically loaded terms. We should agree on this. Sietecolores (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your concerns are so vaguely stated (which political discourses to convey which views? Gamergate??!) I just don't know how to respond constructively to your concerns. I agree the article needs work, but possibly not for the same reasons you do. In any case, if reliable sources use sometimes wording that is not neutral then that's the wording we must use – for better or worse. Although we can balance sources with one perspective using sources from another perspective, and I invite you to do that if you can clearly render those sources. So far everything you've written seems really vague to me. Please try to be clearer if you can. Thanks!Larataguera (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The point is clear: First, critical voices are missing (e.g. Eyzaguirre and Linera) and second the article uses politically loaded language in an improper way. Sietecolores (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Did this go anywhere, or did the user who created this topic just driveby tag NPOV and then add one opinion piece from a popular news source to represent "some scholars" thoughts in the lead? Regardless of how problematic that is, adding a source to the lead and nowhere else doesn't follow WP:LEAD. This should be reverted, discussed further, and if the NPOV claim is going to be brought, better sources need to be brought along with it.--Hobomok (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Basically, the opinion piece was added, I reverted, then the article was tagged, and this discussion followed. The discussion never went anywhere. I'm still not exactly sure what the problem is. But the article isn't super great, so I hadn't been overly concerned about the tag. Larataguera (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

this edit was added later, so maybe Sietecolores, did that edit address your NPOV concern? That sentence is a little unclear. What does it mean that scholars "put into question the novelty of the concept?" Most concepts have roots in earlier work. Details about that earlier work seem useful. Maybe that should be elaborated in the body? Larataguera (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Larataguera, the edit was a much needed improvement that puts the concept in the wider context of Latin American political discourse. Some concerns remain such as the use of loaded and contested term "neoliberalism" as matter of fact. I suggest that the tag to be moved down or replaced by inline tags in the problematic sections. Sietecolores (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Inline tags would definitely be clearer and more helpful. I still don't understand the concern about the term "neoliberalism". It's a related concept, so I think reliable sources often use the term to describe globalised free-trade capitalist policies that encourage extractivist economies. But maybe it can be minimised or explained better? If you'll tag your concerns maybe I can address them.Larataguera (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the term neoliberalism. Sounds like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 22:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree as the @Neoliberalism article says “ The term has multiple, competing definitions, and is often used pejoratively” Chidgk1 (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Andrea Cori and Salvatore Monni

Not only is the added source by Andrea Cori and Salvatore Monni focused in Ecuador as a case study and has potentially undue weight for not representing a widespread point of view, but it is not used or mentioned anywhere else in the article, failing WP:LEAD. The mention should be removed as such. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

POV

This is an extremely poor article that treats a concept as an absolute fact. In doing so, it treats the concept of "extractivism" as synonymous with the concept of extractive industry. See the prison-industrial complex article to see how articles on these sorts of concepts should be handled - it makes it clear upfront that it's dealing with a concept, and does not confuse it with prisons in general. Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

What specific changes would you like to see? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree with you Eldomtom2, the article conflates a concept used a current in political economy with the extractive industries themselves (mainly mining). Sietecolores (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Propose Change of Title And Focus to "Resource Extraction"

Hi all, I went searching for an article on "Resource Extraction", and was led here. I suggest we transform an abstract concept of "Extractivism", in a concrete reality called "Resource Extraction".

Mining, fossil fuel, and logging companies all practice resource extraction. We need an article on this process, which, incidentally, is the driving force behind climate change and biodiversity loss.

However, "extractivism" is perhaps a theory that someone who practices resource extraction might have, but that kind of concept would only be a paragraph on the resource extraction page. For instance, logging companies don't see a forest ecosystem, they see what they call "natural resources", which they feel are theirs to take. That is extractivism perhaps. But it is not a Wikipedia page.

Could some editor with better wiki chops than I please suggest a title change? I don't want to just do it and get my head chopped off, and I don't know how. thanks 172.103.217.135 (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)