Edited by Moira Dustin, Nuno Ferreira and Susan Millns
Gender and Politics
Series Editors
Johanna Kantola
University of Tampere Tampere, Finland
Sarah Childs Birkbeck, University of London London, UK
The Gender and Politics series celebrated its 7th anniversary at the 5th European Conference on Politics and Gender (ECPG) in June 2017 in Lausanne, Switzerland having published more than 35 volumes to date. The original idea for the book series was envisioned by the series editors Johanna Kantola and Judith Squires at the frst ECPG in Belfast in 2009, and the series was offcially launched at the Conference in Budapest in 2011. In 2014, Sarah Childs became the co-editor of the series, together with Johanna Kantola. Gender and Politics showcases the very best international writing. It publishes world class monographs and edited collections from scholars—junior and well established—working in politics, international relations and public policy, with specifc reference to questions of gender. The titles that have come out over the past years make key contributions to debates on intersectionality and diversity, gender equality, social movements, Europeanization and institutionalism, governance and norms, policies, and political institutions. Set in European, US and Latin American contexts, these books provide rich new empirical fndings and push forward boundaries of feminist and politics conceptual and theoretical research. The editors welcome the highest quality international research on these topics and beyond, and look for proposals on feminist political theory; on recent political transformations such as the economic crisis or the rise of the populist right; as well as proposals on continuing feminist dilemmas around participation and representation, specifc gendered policy felds, and policy making mechanisms. The series can also include books published as a Palgrave pivot.
More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14998
Moira Dustin · Nuno Ferreira
Susan Millns
Editors
Gender and Queer
Perspectives on Brexit
Editors
Moira Dustin School of Law
University of Sussex Brighton, UK
Nuno Ferreira School of Law
University of Sussex Brighton, UK
Susan Millns School of Law
University of Sussex Brighton, UK
Gender and Politics
ISBN 978-3-030-03121-3 ISBN 978-3-030-03122-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03122-0
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifcally the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microflms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specifc statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affliations.
Cover credit: oxygen/Getty Images
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
This book is dedicated to Hege Skjeie, who made an important contribution to gender equality in Norway and beyond, and was an enthusiastic collaborator on this and many other initiatives.
Preface
We wish to thank all contributors to this book for the effort and energy they have dedicated to their pieces and to the project more generally. Their enthusiasm and commitment throughout were clear proof that the topic was urgent and the project had merit.
We also wish to thank the Sussex European Institute (http://www. sussex.ac.uk/sei/) and the School of Law, Politics and Sociology (LPS) of the University of Sussex (http://www.sussex.ac.uk/lps/) for their fnancial and logistical support throughout this project. Thanks to this support we were able to hold the workshop ‘Feminist and Queer Perspectives on Brexit’ on 17 November 2017, at the University of Sussex, and the event ‘Looking Forward: Gender and Equality postBrexit’ on 4 July 2018, at the Houses of Parliament, which Seema Malhotra MP was kind enough to host.
Our heartfelt desire is that this collection will not only offer a signifcant contribution to the growing body of academic literature on Brexit, but also—and perhaps most importantly—raise awareness and help to identify policy avenues in relation to the potential gender and queer impacts of Brexit. Our wish is that the contributions in this collection help academics, policymakers and civil society understand these potential impacts better and address them more effectively.
Brighton, UK
August 2018
Moira Dustin Nuno Ferreira
Susan Millns
5 The Vulnerable, the Dependant and the Scrounger: Intersectional Refections on Disability, Care, Health and Migration in the Brexit Project 93 Dieuwertje Dyi Huijg
6 The Potential Effects of Brexit on the Cross-Border Circulation of Private Family Law Judgments; with a Particular Focus on Questions Relating to Gender 125 Lara Walker
7 Who Speaks for the Zambrano Families? Multi-level Abandonment in the UK and EU
Iyiola Solanke
8 Unaccompanied Migrant Children and the Implications of
Ingi Iusmen
9 The Impact of Brexit on Gender and Asylum Law in the UK
Christel Querton
10 Queering Brexit: What’s in Brexit for Sexual and Gender Minorities?
Carmelo Danisi, Moira Dustin and Nuno Ferreira
11 Brexit: The Likely Impact on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Rights in the United Kingdom
Peter Dunne Part III Voices from UK Countries
12 Brexit and the Work–Family Confict: A Scottish
Michelle Weldon-Johns
notes on contributors
Columba Achilleos-Sarll is a Ph.D. ESRC funded student at the University of Warwick in the Politics and International Studies (PAIS) department. She previously gained an M.Phil. in International Relations from the University of Oxford. Her research lies at the intersection between feminist and postcolonial theory, UK foreign policy and the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda. She recently published in the Journal of International Women’s Studies: ‘Reconceptualising Foreign Policy as Gendered, Sexualised and Racialised: Towards a Postcolonial Feminist Foreign Policy (Analysis)’.
Nazneen Ahmed is a Research Associate on the AHRC Connected Communities research project ‘Making Surburban Faith: Design, Material Culture and Popular Creativity in Suburban Faith Communities’ and is based in the geography department at UCL. She is also an embroiderer and writes literary fction, poetry and children’s fction. Her unpublished novel was recently shortlisted for Penguin Random House’s Write Now mentorship scheme.
Amy Barrow is a Senior Lecturer at Macquarie Law School (Sydney, Australia). Amy researches on the intersection between gender, international law, peace and security; and law and society in Hong Kong and other Asian contexts. Amy is a member of the WILPF Academic Network, a think tank connecting academics and peace activists working on issues of gender, peace and security. She is a founding member of the Everywoman Everywhere Coalition, which grew out of the Initiative on
Violence against Women at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. Along with Joy Chia, she co-edited the book Gender, Violence and the State in Asia published by Routledge in 2016.
Eugenia Caracciolo di Torella is an Associate Professor at Leicester Law School. Her main research interest is in the area of gender equality at both domestic and EU level. She is particularly interested in the policies and legislation for the reconciliation of work and family life, an area where she has published extensively. On the topic of gender equality, she has co-authored reports for the European Commission and the European Parliament (FEMM committee).
Since 2009, she regularly contributes to the EU Commission founded project PROGRESS aimed at raising awareness of gender equality. She is a member of the AHRC founded Families and Work Network (University of Reading).
Carmelo Danisi is a Research Fellow at the University of Sussex and Adjunct Professor of International Law at the University of Bologna— Forli campus. After a Ph.D. scholarship (University of Genova, Italy— 2009/2012), he has been employed at the University of Bologna as postdoc fellow for three years (2012/2015). In 2015, he was a Endeavour Research Fellow at the Australian National University with the project ‘The principle of the best interests of the child in the context of migration’. He is the author of a number of publications in the feld of international human rights law, especially in relation to non-discrimination and migration in the framework of the ECHR and the EU. He has been involved in several research projects concerning EU and international law, involving legal analysis for the EU Agency for fundamental rights, the Western Sahara and EU external policy, and gender-based violence. At the University of Sussex, he has joined the SOGICA Project’s Research Team (an ERC funded project).
Peter Dunne is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Bristol. His scholarship focuses on the areas of family law, medical law and European Union law. He has a particular interest in the intersections of law, gender and sexuality. Peter regularly publishes in leading peer-reviewed journals, including Social and Legal Studies and Medical Law Review. His scholarship has been referenced by numerous public bodies, including the Equality Authority of Ireland and the Hong Kong Inter-Departmental Working Group on Gender Recognition. In 2015, Peter was invited to
provide expert evidence to the UK Parliament’s Transgender Equality Inquiry. With Marjolein van den Brink, Peter is currently undertaking EU-funded research into the equality rights of trans and intersex populations in Europe. Prior to entering academia, Peter worked as a human rights advocate in the USA and Europe.
Moira Dustin is a Research Fellow at the University of Sussex. She is working on the European Research Council project SOGICA—Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Claims of Asylum: a European human rights challenge (2016–2020), which explores the status and legal experiences of asylum-seekers across Europe claiming international protection on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity (SOGI) and will determine how the European asylum systems can treat more fairly asylum claims based on the claimant’s SOGI. She has a Ph.D. in Gender Studies from the London School of Economics where she is a Visiting Fellow at the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE). Before joining the University of Sussex, Moira was Director of Research and Communications at the Equality and Diversity Forum, a network of equality and human rights organisations, where she coordinated the Equality and Diversity Research Network. Moira has also worked at the Refugee Council, providing advice and information and developing national services for refugees and asylum-seekers.
Nuno Ferreira is a Professor of Law at the University of Sussex. Previously, he was a Senior Lecturer at the University of Liverpool (2012–2016) and Lecturer at the University of Manchester (2006–2012). He has also been a Visiting Professor at Wuhan University (China) and the School of Law of the University of Lisbon (Portugal). Nuno did his undergraduate law studies at the University of Coimbra (Portugal) and University of Bologna (Italy) and is a member of the Portuguese Bar. He worked as a legal consultant at the Legal Affairs and Litigation Department of the Portuguese Securities Market Commission (CMVM) and as a research fellow at the Centre of European Law and Politics at the University of Bremen (ZERP) (Germany). Nuno’s teaching and research focus on human rights, European law, children’s rights and asylum and refugee law. Nuno is a Horizon 2020 ERC Starting Grant recipient, leading the project SOGICA—Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Claims of Asylum (2016–2020), and Co-director of the Sussex Centre for Human Rights Research.
Marzia Fontana is Honorary Research Associate at the Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex. She has researched and written extensively on gender equality, international trade, labour markets, unpaid work and gender-aware economy-wide modelling. She has worked on collaborative projects with various international organisations such as ILO, FAO, UN Women, UNCTAD, UNDP, UNIDO, the World Bank and IFPRI and has feldwork experience mostly in South and South-East Asia. Recent publications include a study on gender equality in trade agreements for the FEMM Committee of the European Parliament and a paper on gender equality and inclusive industrial development for UNIDO.
Yvonne Galligan is a Professor of Comparative Politics at Queen’s University Belfast. She is also Director of the Queen’s Gender Initiative and founding Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Women in Politics. She has authored and/or edited 7 book publications, 6 booklength reports for national and European agencies, 20 authored/co-authored journal articles, as well as over 50 other publications including chapters in peer-reviewed volumes. Professor Galligan presently leads the QUB team in the 2016–2019 Horizon 2020 SAGE project—Systemic Action for Gender Equality (in Higher Education). She is expert in the political, legislative and legal aspects of national and European policy relating to gender equality. She is a member of the Royal Irish Academy’s Ethical, Political, Legal and Philosophical Studies Committee, a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences and member of the Royal Society of Arts. In 2014, she received an OBE for her services to Higher Education in Northern Ireland. In July 2017, she received an Honorary Doctorate of Social Science from Edinburgh University.
Aisha K. Gill, CBE is a Professor of Criminology at University of Roehampton, UK. Her main areas of interest and research are health and criminal justice responses to violence against black minority ethnic and refugee women in the UK, Iraqi Kurdistan and India. She has been involved in addressing the problem of violence against women and girls/‘honour’ crimes and forced marriage at the grass-roots level for the past eighteen years. Her recent publications include articles on crimes related to the murder of women, femicide, coercion and forced marriage, child sexual exploitation and sexual abuse in South Asian communities, female genital mutilation and sex-selective abortions. She is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and editorial member of the Feminist Review Collective.
Cathrine Holst is a Professor of Sociology at the University of Oslo. She is also connected to ARENA Centre for European Studies and CORE—Centre for Research on Gender Equality. Holst’s research interests are political sociology and democracy research, feminist and political theory, European integration, and gender and family policy. She is currently leader of a large research project on the role of experts in policymaking, ‘Expertization of public inquiry commissions’ (EUREX). Holst has published in journals such as Science and Public Policy, Acta Sociologica and International Studies in the Philosophy of Science and is editor of several recent and forthcoming special issues including in European Politics and Society, Social Epistemology and Journal of Public Deliberation. Her most recent book is Expertisation and Democracy in Europe (2018).
Dieuwertje Dyi Huijg is completing her doctoral research in sociology at the University of Manchester. Based on phenomenological conversations with racially privileged feminist activists from São Paulo (Brazil), her thesis concerns a theoretical exploration of intersectional agency at the junction of structural advantage and structural disadvantage. Her perspective as a disabled intra-EU migrant in the UK, refections on tension in the intersectional impact of the Brexit Project and a resurrected interest in the gendered impact of free trade agreements led to the current study.
Ingi Iusmen is a Lecturer in Governance and Policy at the University of Southampton. Her research tackles key questions about the European policy process, especially as it relates to child care issues and the provision of children’s rights at EU and national levels. She has published in leading journals such as the Journal of Common Market Studies, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, the Journal of European Public Policy, Wes European Politics, and the British Journal of Politics and International Relations. Her books include Children’s Rights, Eastern Enlargement and the EU Human Rights Regime (2014, sole-authored, Manchester University Press) and The EU as a Children’s Rights Actor: Law, Policy and Structural Dimensions, co-edited with Helen Stalford (2016, Budrich Academic Publishers).
Benjamin Martill is Dahrendorf postdoctoral fellow in Europe after Brexit at the London School of Economics and Political Science. His research interests lie at the nexus of European studies and International
Relations. He is editor (with Uta Staiger) of Brexit and Beyond: Rethinking the Futures of Europe (UCL Press) and his work has been published in Security Studies, International Politics and the Journal of Political Ideologies.
Susan Millns is a Professor of Law at the University of Sussex. Susan Millns holds postgraduate degrees from the University of Kent (D.Phil.), the University of Paris I (Panthéon-Sorbonne) (Diplôme d’Etudes Approfondies; Droit Public Comparé des Etats Européens) and the European University Institute, Florence (LL.M. International, European and Comparative Law). She taught previously at the University of Liverpool (1991–1997) and the University of Kent (1997–2006) before taking up a Chair in Law at Sussex. She has also held visiting fellowships at the European University Institute (Florence) from 2000 to 2001 as a Jean Monnet Fellow and from 2002 to 2004 as a Marie Curie Fellow in the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies. She presently holds visiting professorial appointments at the University of Lille 2 and the Université Paris Descartes.
Christel Querton is a Barrister at Lamb Building specialising in asylum, immigration and human rights law. She is currently a doctoral candidate funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council at Newcastle University Law School researching the international protection in the EU of persons feeing armed confict from a gender perspective. She teaches the M.A. in Refugee Protection and Forced Migration Studies at the University of London. Christel is also a Trustee of the Asylum Research Centre Foundation and an Advisory Committee member of the Women’s Project at Asylum Aid. She previously worked at Asylum Aid and Wilson Solicitors LLP.
Emma Ritch is the Executive Director of Engender, Scotland’s feminist policy and advocacy organisation. Her interests include women and the economy, intersectionality, violence against women, and the relationship between women’s equality and women’s human rights. She is a member of the First Minister’s Advisory Council on Women & Girls, the Scottish National Action Plan for human rights leadership forum, the advisory group of the Scottish Women’s Rights Centre and the Scottish Women’s Budget Group. She chairs the Rape Crisis Scotland board, is vice-convener of the board of Close the Gap and is a board member of the European Women’s Lobby.
Hege Skjeie was Professor of Political Science at the University of Oslo. Her research specialized on Nordic and European equality institutions, human rights law and policy, citizenship, political representation, ideational power and elite politics. Public positions of trust included among others the Committee on Post-Public Employment Restrictions, which decides on interim periods for former cabinet ministers, state secretaries and political advisers when they leave public offce for private sector jobs/appointments (2009–) and the frst joint Equality Tribunal, which monitors all Norwegian non-discrimination and equality legislation (2006–2009). Skjeie chaired the Gender Equality Commission (2010–2012) which delivered two comprehensive public inquiry reports to the government (NOU 2011:18 and NOU 2012: 15). For her academic and public service, she received the ECPR/ECPG Gender & Politics Career Achievement Award in 2017.
Iyiola Solanke holds the Chair in EU Law and Social Justice at the University of Leeds and an Academic Bencher of Inner Temple. Her recent publications include Discrimination as Stigma (Hart, 2017) and EU Law (Pearson, 2015).
Mary-Ann Stephenson is the Director of the Women’s Budget Group. She has worked for women’s equality and human rights for over twenty years as a campaigner, researcher and trainer. She was previously Director of the Fawcett Society and a Commissioner on the Women’s National Commission. She is a founder member of Coventry Women’s Voices and a board member at Coventry Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre. She has a Ph.D. in Law from the University of Warwick.
Mari Teigen is the Head of CORE—Centre for Research on Gender Equality and NORDICORE—Centre for Research on Gender Equality in Research and Innovation. Her current research specialises on analysis of gender equality policy; social elites, gender quotas in corporate boards, gender segregation in the labour market and in research and innovation. Teigen is member of the National Publication Committee; board member Centre for Gender Research, University of Oslo; member of the programme board of the BALANSE, the Research Council of Norway; co-editor of Comparative Social Research, member of the editorial board of Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies; Sosiologisk Tidsskrift; NORMA International Journal for Masculinity Studies.
Lara Walker is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Sussex. Her research is in the feld of private international law of the family and focuses mainly on child abduction and maintenance.
Michelle Weldon-Johns is a Law Lecturer at Abertay University. Her main research interest is employment and equality law, with a specifc focus on the boundaries between work and family life from an employment law perspective. She has a particular interest in work–family confict from the standpoint of working fathers and alternative family models. Her research has primarily been from a UK and EU perspective, but some of her work has adopted a comparative analysis including Sweden and the USA. She has also done some research on employment law and Scotland.
PART I
Setting the Context to Gender and Queer Perspectives on Brexit
Brexit: Using Gender and Queer Lenses
Moira Dustin, Nuno Ferreira and Susan Millns
1 it’s not only about trade and Migration
On 23 June 2016 the people of the United Kingdom (UK) voted in a referendum narrowly in favour of leaving the European Union (EU). This historic result, which has led to the UK Government’s decision to end the UK’s more than four-decade long membership of the EU in 2019, has important consequences that will be felt far into the future. Such consequences may affect people across the EU and beyond, but the greatest impact will be felt by individuals living in the UK. Some people will meet the challenges that lie ahead with resilience and will take full advantage of the opportunities that regaining some law-making competences and a new form of politics promise. Others may be less fortunate and may see the rights and protections offered by the
M. Dustin · N. Ferreira (*) · S. Millns
Sussex Law School, School of Law, Politics and Sociology, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK
M. Dustin et al. (eds.), Gender and Queer Perspectives on Brexit, Gender and Politics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03122-0_1
EU starkly withdrawn, leaving them more vulnerable and with diminished horizons and fewer prospects and resources than previously.
Much has been said about Brexit, but the bulk of the debate and commentary has focused broadly on matters such as trade and migration (see Sect. 2). Very little has so far been said about the way Brexit matters from gender and queer perspectives.1 This collection examines the opportunities and challenges, the rights and wrongs, and the prospects and risks of the Brexit debate from this particular perspective—that of gender and sexuality. Women and gender and sexual minorities have been historically marginalised and their voices have tended to be less audible in political debates—both nationally and at the European level. In essence, this collection explores how Brexit might change the equality, human rights and social justice landscape, but from gender and queer viewpoints. We envisage that Brexit will impact upon women and gender and sexual minorities in a variety of ways and will potentially present particular challenges for these groups.
Our starting point is the breakdown of voting in the referendum which demonstrates that, overall, men and women do have different views of Brexit (as do different generations) (Cain 2016; Clarke et al. 2017). Furthermore, in the political sphere, and in terms of party politics, Brexit has seen opportunities created for female politicians and paved the way for Britain’s second female Prime Minister. Additionally, Brexit impacts upon a myriad of policy areas that are highly important to women and gender and sexual minorities—employment law, discrimination law, single market, free movement, migration, citizenship rights, to name but a few.
This collection will examine a number of core themes and poses fundamental research questions around the barely recognised gendered and queer dimensions of Brexit, exploring the risks and opportunities for women and queer communities in the UK and in Europe. These questions include, but are not limited to the following:
1 ‘Queer’ will be used in this context to refer to all non-heterosexual and non-cisgender dimensions of the Brexit debate. The term ‘queer’ will be used interchangeably with ‘sexual and gender minorities’. We acknowledge that not everyone we wish to refer to may identify with either one or the other, but we will use them as shorthand for practical reasons.
• What does Brexit mean for women and queer people in politics in Britain today?
• How will the human rights of women and of gender and sexual minorities be affected by Brexit?
• How does Brexit impact upon debates in the UK on intersectionality?
• What is the impact of withdrawal from the single market on women and gender and sexual minorities, particularly in relation to free movement rights?
• What is the impact of Brexit trade policy for women and gender and sexual minorities?
• What does Brexit mean for citizenship and national identity from gender and queer perspectives?
• What is the impact of Brexit on children and families and does this have a gender or queer dimension?
• Is there a gender and queer perspective on Brexit and devolution?
• What can be learnt from other countries about the potential impact of Brexit for women and gender and sexual minorities?
This collection will answer these and other questions by offering a multidisciplinary, policy-oriented and intersectional analysis of Brexit from a gendered and queer perspective. The importance of doing this becomes even clearer, if one considers the academic and policy debates about Brexit so far.
2 a Myriad of takes on brexit
Academic and policy commentary on Brexit has been extensive and has led to prolifc activity in practically all academic disciplines and policy sectors. In the light of the continuous outpouring of Brexit news and developments, the most obvious outlet for such commentary has become blogs, amongst them The UK in a Changing Europe, 2 the LSE’s Brexit blog, 3 the Monckton Chambers’ Brexit blog, 4 The Brexit Blog, 5 and the CEP Brexit Blogs. 6
2 http://ukandeu.ac.uk
3 http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/.
4 https://www.monckton.com/brexit-blog/.
5 http://thebrexitblog.ideasoneurope.eu/.
6 http://cep.lse.ac.uk/BREXIT/blogs.asp
These outlets consider a range of relevant aspects, most frequently relating to trade and migration issues. In such blogs, we can also fnd some short pieces on the gender dimensions of Brexit, such as in relation to residency rights and child care (Shutes 2017), the views of women on Brexit (Guerrina et al. 2016), gender dimensions of Brexit beyond employment rights (Guerrina 2016), the EU’s contribution to gender policies in the UK (O’Brien 2016), and women’s participation in the Brexit political process (Achilleos-Sarll 2017). On the queer dimensions of Brexit, there are also some blog pieces, although these are rare (Danisi et al. 2017). Equally, as blog pieces, these are necessarily short and present very narrow analyses of particular issues.
More encompassing, complex and nuanced analyses of the gender and queer dimensions of Brexit can be found in a handful of journal articles. Amongst these, it is worth mentioning pieces that have explored the overall gendered dimension of the Brexit process (Guerrina and Masselot 2018), links to political developments across the Atlantic (Hozic and True 2017), family life and migration (Majella 2017), political parties’ voting choices (Heppell et al. 2017) and the impact of Brexit on UK’s equality law (Wintemute 2016). These and other journal articles demonstrate a developing academic interest in the gender and queer perspectives on Brexit, but are far from exhaustive of this theme.
Several longer pieces, namely monographs and edited collections, have also explored Brexit. Some have adopted encompassing approaches, attempting to consider a broad range of angles (Fabbrini 2017; Alexander et al. 2018), others have concentrated on the causes, negotiation process and future avenues (Armour and Eidenmüller 2017; Armstrong 2017; Clarke et al. 2017), and yet others have focused on particular issues in the post-Brexit era, such as the relationship with the Commonwealth (Clegg 2017), the fnancial services sector (Alexander et al. 2018), and the international economic position of the UK (Morgan and Patomaki 2017). These books show a growing interest in the academic debate about Brexit, but none of these deals explicitly with the gender and queer dimensions of Brexit.
The dearth of academic and policy analysis of the gender and queer angles on Brexit needs to be addressed, and this edited collection will go a long way in flling this worrying gap in scholarly and policy debate.
3 setting the context, assessing the iMPact, listening to devolved voices and looking beyond our borders
To answer the questions posed above and thoroughly assess the Brexit debate from gender and queer perspectives, in this collection we present a broad range of contributions that help to understand the context for this debate, assess the possible impact of Brexit on the UK, its component nations and the EU, and also what repercussions there may be for relationships between the UK and the rest of the world. The contributions collected here have been authored by academics and activists from the UK, other European countries and beyond, including both internationally established and promising scholars and lobbyists. In this way, the collection refects a variety of opinion, new thinking and unpublished research on this subject matter, both from academia and NGOs.
The collection is divided into four parts. Part I lays out the foundations for gender and queer analyses of specifc policy areas and transversal themes that are provided in the rest of this collection. Part II then gathers several contributions that concentrate on how Brexit will have an impact in the UK on particular areas of legal and policy activity. Part III moves on to focus on the views of devolved jurisdictions in the UK. Finally, Part IV complements all the previous contributions by considering how Brexit may have an impact beyond the UK and EU spaces.
Thus, following on from this frst introductory chapter briefy exploring why Brexit matters for women and queer individuals and why it is important to adopt gender and queer lenses to analyse Brexit, Part I of the collection continues in Chapter 2, with Achilleos-Sarll and Martill’s contribution which argues that the campaign for Britain to leave the EU and the subsequent Brexit process have been dominated by discourses of toxic masculinity. These discourses, it is argued, have manifested themselves in two distinct ways: frstly, through the deployment of language that was associated with deal-making, and, secondly, through the deployment of language associated with militarism. This has been compounded by a campaign that has been dominated by a coterie of elite, white males—whose values have come to defne the discourses surrounding the negotiations, which produced and (re-)produced power relations, prejudices and myths during the Brexit campaign, and now with regards to the content of a Brexit ‘deal’. Drawing on a combination of critical feminist theory, documentary analysis and elite, semi-structured interviews with individuals close to the process, Achilleos-Sarll and Martill discuss the
extent to which Brexit has been dominated by discourses of militarism, which overinfated Britain’s assumed global role in the world emphasising strength, security, global power and deal-making. These discourses have tended to equate the negotiations to a business transaction, positioning Anglo-European discussions in confictual terms. Achilleos-Sarll and Martill conclude with four potential (gendered) consequences of these discourses: setting the UK on the path towards a ‘harder’ Brexit; the consolidation of free-market norms and retrenchment of social policies; the diversion of attention from domestic to international distributional consequences; and the persistent under-representation of women and minority groups in politics. In Chapter 3, Gill and Ahmed further help to understand the relevant context for this collection, by examining Brexit’s specifc impact on the lives of black and minority ethnic (BME) women. In the immediate aftermath of the referendum result, BME women became the focus of an outpouring of racist and Islamophobic attacks and assaults, and Gill and Ahmed examine this impact through two prose–poetic creative pieces written by themselves as British Asian authors. Through these personal pieces, Gill and Ahmed trace the embodied effects of the referendum result upon the everyday lives of BME women. By using creative methods, Gill and Ahmed are able to represent and refect upon Brexit in all its contradictory multiplicities. Such methods also enable Gill and Ahmed to view Brexit’s consequences using an intersectional feminist lens, and thus consider the effect Brexit is having, and will continue to have, on gender, race, religion and class relations.
Part II is opened by Caracciolo di Torella, who, in Chapter 4, explores the potential implications of Brexit on work-life balance. Caracciolo di Torella mantains that, although in this area the EU has not been above criticisms, it has been instrumental in shaping an agenda and creating a policy and normative framework that has enhanced the position of carers and counterbalanced the UK’s neoliberal approach. This chapter identifes three possible scenarios that may materialise in terms of how the UK Government will address future legislation: a status quo, a progressive and a regressive scenario. Caracciolo di Torella not only argues that the regressive scenario is the most likely one and that leaving the EU is likely to jeopardise any achievements in this area, but also asserts that the consequences of Brexit will be felt correspondingly by the EU, thus there being no ‘winners’. In Chapter 5, Dyi Huijg explores the impact of the UK’s departure from the EU on the UK’s National Health Service (NHS), specifcally on health, healthcare and social care
available to people with disabilities and illnesses. Dyi Huijg adopts an intersectional, disability-oriented critical analysis of Brexit to assess health management, care, and social and medical barriers for EU migrants in the UK. This, in turn, highlights another side of the gendered character of Brexit and situates Brexit in a context of hostility against both disabled people and migrants, specifcally, and points to the role that health management plays in migration control and the gender dimension of the roles of migrant carer and patients. Walker’s contribution in Chapter 6 considers the opportunities and losses arising from Brexit in the context of cross-border family law. Walker concentrates on the main legal provisions that will be affected by Brexit in this context, namely Brussels IIa, the Maintenance Regulation and the Civil Protection Order Regulation. Walker considers from a gender perspective the effect that Brexit will have on the relevant procedural rules, affecting areas such as child abduction, divorce, maintenance, domestic violence and parental responsibility. In family law, the role of caring has gender-based consequences, such as loss of earnings from employment; therefore, the ongoing enforcement of orders in this context is imperative post-Brexit. There are several mechanisms for ensuring this ongoing enforcement, but in some areas there will be gaps in the law. Walker highlights where these gaps might be and explains why there is currently no solution in these areas. In Chapter 7, Solanke argues that an intersectional analysis of Brexit suggests that Black British children are the forgotten victims of the decision to leave the EU. Owing to the nationality of their primary carer—most commonly women—their rights as British and EU citizens have been pushed aside in the Brexit negotiations by both the European Commission and the UK Government. Solanke focuses attention on the ‘Zambrano children’ born to third country national parents and incorporates their interests in the process of leaving the EU. Solanke concludes that if these children are to continue to enjoy their full rights as British and Union citizens after Brexit, their parents must enjoy the full rights enjoyed by migrant EU citizens in the Withdrawal Agreement.
In Chapter 8, contributed by Iusmen, the focus shifts to the protection of unaccompanied minors (UAMs). Iusmen discusses the implications of Brexit on UAMs from a gender perspective, by arguing that male UAMs, in particular, will be most affected by it. Without the EU regime (legal and policy) of rights protection, male UAMs in the UK will face reduced children’s rights protection, lack of specifc safeguards for UAMs, such as guardianship, and, therefore, will be exposed to the
risks of child traffcking and exploitation. Remaining within the policy feld of asylum, Chapter 9, by Querton, examines the likely impact of Brexit on refugee recognition in the UK from a gender perspective. Querton applies a gender lens to a historical analysis of the impact of the Qualifcation Directive 2004, part of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), on asylum practice in the UK. Querton suggests that, considering historic practice and existing international and regional refugee and human rights obligations, leaving the EU is unlikely to immediately and signifcantly have an impact on decision-making in gender-related asylum claims. Nonetheless, Querton also highlights the risks associated with the loss of an (EU) legal framework underpinned by fundamental rights and effective remedies. Querton concludes that leaving the EU may contribute to a hostile environment, with consequences for asylum law, which in turn will have an impact on the recognition of refugees from a gender perspective.
Complementing the gender analysis of Brexit with a queer perspective, Danisi, Dustin and Ferreira, in Chapter 10, assess the potential impact of Brexit in relation to the situation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, intersex and other (LGBTQI+) individuals. Danisi, Dustin and Ferreira argue that, despite the very limited consideration of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) issues in analyses of Brexit, there is no doubt that Brexit will affect SOGI minorities on a range of levels, including likely serious effects in terms of human rights and equality policy, ‘soft law’ instruments, socio-cultural environment, economic resources, regional variations within the UK and civil society vibrancy. This conclusion emerges from the authors’ examination of UK achievements in this feld when compared to the developments occurred at EU level to advance, directly and indirectly, the full enjoyment of LGBTQI+ people’s rights, both through hard and soft law tools and the case law of the Court of Justice of the EU. Danisi, Dustin and Ferreira thus conclude that it is necessary to remain alert to legal and policy developments that may detrimentally affect SOGI minorities both in the UK, when the EU will stop working as an external ‘standards-setting’ actor, and in the EU, when the UK will stop supporting the advancement of the EU’s equality agenda. Offering another queer analysis of Brexit, Dunne, in Chapter 11, critically evaluates the likely consequences of Brexit for SOGI rights. He identifes the key EU contributions to LGBTQI + protections in the UK and considers the status of those guarantees beyond Union membership. While Dunne acknowledges how the
EU—both symbolically and practically—has helped to re-shape queer intersections with law in this jurisdiction, he nonetheless argues that, for many reasons (political and legal), Brexit is unlikely to fundamentally alter existing rights and entitlements.
Part III of the collection concentrates on specifc views and concerns from devolved jurisdictions within the UK. In Chapter 12, WeldonJohns examines the Scottish Government’s desire to maintain ties with EU law post-Brexit in the context of employment and equality law, particularly in relation to those laws that have an impact on work-family confict. Weldon-Johns critically examines whether there is, or could be, a distinctly Scottish perspective in the context of work-family rights post-Brexit, particularly from a gender perspective. Weldon-Johns argues that the rights of working fathers will be most vulnerable post-Brexit, with related consequences for working mothers. Weldon-Johns also argues that although Scotland adopts a potentially distinct approach in the felds of employment and equality law, the current legal frameworks do not enable Scotland to retain continuity with EU law. Weldon-Johns concludes that if Scotland were to gain law-making powers in these felds, there is the potential for a distinctly Scottish approach towards work-family confict post-Brexit. Ritch contributes with Chapter 13, again focussing on Scotland. Ritch explores the levels of engagement of women and women’s organisations in the two referenda over the past fve years, frst on Scotland’s place in the UK and then in the EU. Ritch argues that the level of engagement with these two referenda has differed considerably, with the independence referendum having seen the establishment of new women’s organisations and networks to counteract a seeming marginalisation of women’s concerns in the offcial campaigns, whilst the European referendum saw limited national public engagement by women’s and other civil society organisations, and lacked a particular gender focus even in feminist spaces. Ritch also discusses how Scottish feminist policy organisations are contemplating further devolution and how they can continue to engage post-Brexit with pan-European feminist structures like the European Women’s Lobby, and its joint campaigning for (still) relevant instruments such as the Istanbul Convention.
Chapter 14, by Galligan, offers us a Northern Irish perspective on the Brexit vote, and the possible consequences of Brexit for Northern Ireland, from a gender point of view. Galligan outlines the constitutional and policy challenges of Brexit for Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and the UK-Ireland relationship. Galligan also considers gender
differences in the Brexit vote, before addressing in a substantive manner the perceptions of women as to the likely obstacles and opportunities that Brexit can bring. Galligan concludes that Brexit necessarily destabilises the hard-won gains of the peace process and will have negative consequences for political and diplomatic relationships across and between the two jurisdictions. Signifcantly, for women on the island of Ireland, and particularly in Northern Ireland, Brexit heralded the prospect of unwanted change in the materiality of their lives.
Part IV considers the impact of Brexit beyond the UK and EU spaces. In Chapter 15, Barrow explores the implications of Brexit on the EU’s defence and security policy through the lens of gender. Barrow considers in particular the UN women, peace and security agenda, supported by the EU, namely through the mainstreaming of gender in the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP). Barrow asserts that these important policy developments are at risk and concludes that, whether the UK and the EU negotiate a ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ Brexit, the integration of a gender perspective in defence and security policymaking may be undermined and have detrimental consequences. Stephenson and Fontana, in Chapter 16, shift the focus to the potential economic and trade impact of Brexit from a gender perspective. Stephenson and Fontana build on the well-established knowledge that trade agreements can have signifcantly varying impacts on different groups of women and men, as a result of differences in economic position, caring responsibilities and political power. Stephenson and Fontana assess the gendered impacts of the possible trade agreements that the UK will enter into post-Brexit, by focussing on the implications of trade agreements for employment, for consumption and for the provision of public services. By identifying the key gender issues to consider, Stephenson and Fontana offer advice on the best trade agreement avenues to follow. In Chapter 17, Holst, Skjeie and Teigen bring to the fore the Norwegian perspective, often hailed as a possible model the UK might follow. Norway has, since 1994, been a Member State of the European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement. This Agreement made Norway a full participant in the EU’s internal market, including in the area of gender equality policy. Holst, Skjeie and Teigen take issue with a 2012 comprehensive public inquiry report on the consequences of Norway’s affliation status that concluded that EEA commitments and other EU agreements had limited impact on the scope and content of actual policy-making in the gender area. Holst, Skjeie and Teigen thus critically examine this claim through a discussion of EU infuences on
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
patron Cortés was at stake. In awe of the friars, and in terror of the conquerors whose encomienda slaves they were, the Indians hardly dared to say aught to implicate the latter This is doubtless the view Las Casas would have taken Intent on pleading the cause of his dusky protégés, he cared not to sift statements that might create sympathy for them Yet, had he foreseen how widely his accusations would be used to sully Spanish fame, he might have been more circumspect ‘E’ vero, che fu troppo rigorosa la vendetta, ed orribile la strage,’ says Clavigero; yet he severely condemns Las Casas for his distorted account Storia Mess , iii 63-4 According to Sahagun’s native record, the Tlascaltecs persuaded Cortés to avenge them on the Cholultecs, and as the latter received him coldly, he began to believe the accusations of his allies. Assembling the chiefs and soldiers, together with citizens, in the temple court, he slaughtered them, defenceless as they were. Hist. Conq., 18. Bustamante comments on this version, and denounces the conquerors as atrociously cruel. Id. (ed. 1840), 56-63. Duran’s version is a little milder. His main object being to give the life of Montezuma, he has passed by many events connected with the Spaniards, and has suppressed many accounts of their cruelties. He accordingly refers but briefly to the Cholula massacre, saying that ‘the Indians, in their eagerness to serve the Spaniards, came in such large numbers to their quarters with provisions, grass, etc., that Cortés suspected treasonable designs, and put them to the sword ’ Hist Ind , MS , ii 438-9 Ixtlilxochitl evidently struggles between his fear of the Spanish rulers and the desire to tell what he regards as the truth He intimates that the only ground for suspicion against the Cholultecs was the effort to dissuade Cortés from going to Mexico The chiefs and the citizens were assembled on the pretence of selecting carriers, and over 5000 fell beneath the sword Hist Chich , 294 An antagonistic view of the affair is offered by Juan Cano, of Narvaez’ expedition, who gave Oviedo the hearsay statement that Cortés had asked for 3000 carriers, and wantonly killed them. iii. 552. Carbajal Espinosa, a Mexican historian, like Bustamante, regards the victims as innocent and the deed as barbarous. Hist. Mex., ii. 182. Robertson considers that Cortés had good reasons for it, yet ‘the punishment was certainly excessive and atrocious.’ Hist. Am., ii. 452. Solis condemns those who seek to accuse the Spaniards of cruelty and to pity the Indians ‘maligna compasion, hija del odio y de la envidia.’ The conquerors gave religion to them, and that he regards as sufficient compensation. Hist. Mex., i. 345. ‘Cortez felt but doubtful of their fidelity, and feared to leave his rear to a people who might ruin his enterprise,’ says Wilson, Conq. Mex., 383, in explanation of the motive; but he forgets that a few hostages, as taken from other peoples on the route, would have secured Cortés far more than the murder of a small percentage of this population Prescott compares the deed with European cruelties, and, considering the danger threatening the Spaniards, he excuses it He prefaces his comments by a consideration of the right of conquest Mex , ii 29-39 Alas for honesty, humanity, decency, when talented American authors talk of the right of one people to rob and murder another people! See also Veytia, Hist Ant Méj , iii
381-2; Pizarro y Orellana, Varones Ilvstres, 86-9; Peralta, Not. Hist., 112-13, 31314; Pimentel, Mem. Sit., 90-2. Although some of the early Dutch writers eagerly copy and even exaggerate Las Casas’ version, the contemporary German writers are quite moderate Cortés’ version is given in the Weltbuch Spiegel und bildtnis des gantzen Erdtbodens von Sebastiano Franco Wördensi, Tübingen, 1534, ccxxxvii leaves, beside preface and register This book was much sought after in its day, and received several editions, in German and Dutch, as late as the seventeenth century The earliest mentioned by Harrisse is dated 1533 The new continent was gradually receiving a larger space in the cosmographies at this period, and Franck actually assigns it a whole section, as one of the four parts of the world. The historic and geographic description of Africa occupies the first and smallest section; Europe follows and absorbs about half the pages, while Asia receives 100 folios, and America the remainder, beginning at folio 210. The heading reads: Von America dem vierdten teyl der welt, Anno M.CCCC.XCVII. erfunden; but after this chapter follow several pages on Portuguese discoveries in Africa and eastward, till folio 220, when begins the voyage of Columbus, ‘sunst Dauber genant,’ the German translation of the admiral’s name. After several chapters on the physical features, natural resources, and inhabitants of the new discoveries, comes one relating how Americus Vespucius found the fourth part of the world This is followed by three pages of matter on Asia, as if the author, fearful of forgetting it, there and then gave his story Several interpolations occur, but the chief portion of the remaining folios relates to Cortés’ conquest of Mexico The carelessly compiled and badly arranged material of the volume claims to be based on over sixty authorities, among which figure Apianus, Munster, Vespucci, Columbus, and Cortés The affix Wördensi indicates that Franck was a Hollander, although he is often referred to as a German, probably because his life was passed chiefly in Germany. Here he issued, among other works, a not very orthodox chronicle, which was excommunicated at Strasburg. Franck was chased from more than one place, but enjoys the honor of standing in the first class among authors condemned by the Roman Church, and of having been deemed worthy of special refutation by Luther and Melancthon. Even the liberal-minded Bayle, after applying the term Anabaptist, refers to him as ‘un vrai fanatique.’ Dict. Hist., ii. 1216.
CHAPTER XV.
FROM CHOLULA TO IZTAPALAPAN.
O -N , 1519.
M C G H B S
C H P I N V R
D E R C A A M R H F V M V E M R Q T
C M —M P —T E A A A M S T Q , A , T A B P H C C , K T A C M I T H I .
Elated by his success, Cortés again spoke to the Aztec embassadors, telling them in an aggrieved tone that proofs existed connecting Mexican troops with the recent plot, and that it would be only just for him to enter and desolate the country for such perfidy. The envoys protested their ignorance of any such complicity, and offered to send one of their number to Mexico to ascertain what ground there was for the charge. This Cortés agreed to, expressing at the same time the opinion that Montezuma, after all his friendly demeanor, could hardly have favored the treachery. He regarded him as a friend, both for the sake of his king and for himself, and it was out of deference to him that he had spared the Cholultecs from total extermination.[400]
When the envoy reached Mexico he found that his master had retired to grieve over the fate of the holy city, or more probably over the defeat of his plans, and to appeal to the incensed gods by prayers and fastings, while the priests supported the invocations with reeking human hearts.[401] But the holocaust was in vain, for a miraculous incident frightened the idols into silence. Among the victims, says a sacred chronicle, was a Tlascaltec, who, while stretched on the sacrificial stone, called loudly on the God of the advancing Spaniards to deliver him. The words were yet on his lips when a dazzling light enveloped the place, revealing a bright-clad being with diadem and large wings. The priests fell awe-stricken to the ground, while the angel advanced to cheer their victim with hopeful words of a happy future. He was told to announce to the priests that soon the shedding of human blood would cease, for those destined to rule the land were at hand. This the victim did, when the sacrifices were resumed, and with the name of God the last upon his lips his spirit rose to a brighter world.[402]
The downfall of Cholula resounded throughout the land, and the Spaniards were now almost universally confirmed as divine beings, from whom nothing could be kept secret, and whose anger was fierce and devastating. One effect was the arrival of envoys from quite a number of surrounding chieftains, bearing presents, partly with a view of gaining the good-will of the dreaded strangers, partly to offer congratulations.[403] As for Montezuma, his awe deepened into terror as the reports came in and the half threatening message of the invader was delivered him. It would be dangerous indeed to admit these beings; but how prevent it? Thus revolving the matter, Montezuma had recourse once more to timid entreaties. His envoy returned to Cholula within a week, accompanied by the former chief of the commission, and brought ten plates of gold,[404] fifteen hundred robes, and a quantity of fowl and delicacies, together with the assurance that he not only had had no share in the plot, but
desired to see the Cholultecs further chastised for their treachery. The Mexican troops near Cholula belonged to the garrisons of Acatzingo and Itzucan provinces, and had marched to the aid of that city without his knowledge, prompted wholly by neighborly friendship. He begged the Spanish leader not to proceed to Mexico, where want would stare him in the face, but to present his demands by messengers, so that they might be complied with. Cortés replied that he must obey the orders of his king, which were to deliver to the emperor in person[405] the friendly communications with which he had been intrusted. With this object he had crossed vast oceans and fought his way through hosts of enemies. The privations and dangers depicted could not deter him, for naught availed against his forces, in field or in town, by day or by night.
Finding objections futile, Montezuma again consulted the idols. Their ruffled spirit had evidently been soothed by this time, for now came the oracle to invite the strangers to Mexico. Once there, it was added, retreat should be cut off, and their lives offered on the altar [406] This utterance was favored by the counsellors on the ground that if the Spaniards were opposed they and their allies might ravage the country. The emperor accordingly sent an invitation, promising that, although the situation of the capital made it difficult to provide food, he would do his best to entertain them and give proofs of his friendship. The towns en route had orders to supply all their wants. [407]
The story is not without a parallel in classic literature. As Montezuma awaited the approach of Cortés, so old King Latinus awaited the arrival of Æneas and his Trojan warriors; refusing to give battle, or to fight the destinies, and curbing his impetuous people by quoting the oracle.
Along the western horizon of Cholula, at a distance of eight leagues, runs the mountain range which separates the plain of
Huitzilapan from the valley of Mexico. And like sentinels upon it stand, in close proximity, the two volcanic peaks of Popocatepetl and Iztaccihuatl, terms signifying respectively ‘the smoking mountain’ and ‘the white woman,’ and indeed most apt, the former being suggested by the frequent eruptions, the latter by the snowy covering which falls like a tilmatli mantle from a woman’s shoulders. Tradition has it that Iztaccihuatl was the wife of her neighbor, whose noise and fumes were caused by the agonies of tyrants who there underwent purification ere they could enter final rest.[408] While the Spaniards were at Cholula, Popocatepetl was in eruption, an evil omen with the Indians, foreshadowing the disturbances soon to overwhelm the country. Interested by a sight so curious and novel, and desirous of ascertaining for himself and the king the “secret of this smoke,” Cortés consented to let Ordaz ascend the volcano. The Indians sought to dissuade him from an undertaking which had never been attempted, and which would in their opinion surely involve the life of him who ventured on it. This made Ordaz only more eager to exhibit his daring, and joined by nine men he set out under the guidance of some citizens and carriers who had been persuaded to go part of the way. They had not climbed far into the cooler region before the quaking ground and ash-rain caused the party to halt. Ordaz and two of his men continued, however, beyond the limits of vegetation, and over the stones and bowlders which covered the sandy expanse fringing the region of perpetual snow. At one time the outburst of ashes and heated stones obliged them to seek shelter for an hour, after which they sturdily climbed onward, turning from their path for a while by the projecting rock now known as Pico del Fraile, and almost losing themselves in the ash-covered snow. One more effort they made, despite the difficulties encountered in the rarefied atmosphere of this altitude, and finally they reached the summit, more than seventeen thousand seven hundred feet above the level of the sea. A short distance to the north rose the consort peak, three thousand feet less in height, and at their feet extended the field of
their future campaign, in the valley to the east. The crater was nearly half a league in width, though not deep, and presented the appearance of a caldron of boiling glass, as says Gomara. The situation was too oppressive to permit of further observations, and after securing some snow and icicles as trophies, the men hastened to retrace their steps by the already trodden path. On their return they were received with great demonstration, the natives in particular extolling their deed as something superhuman.[409]
While preparing to leave Cholula, Cortés was startled by news from Villa Rica of a conflict with Mexicans, resulting in the death of Escalante and several soldiers. On the northern border of the Totonac territory, bathed by the Gulf of Mexico, lay the town and district of Nautla, which together with its river had received from Grijalva the name of Almería.[410] This was occupied by an Aztec garrison under Quauhpopoca,[411] whose Aztec pride and loyalty to Montezuma could ill brook the independence achieved by the Totonacs, and who probably grieved over the loss of slaves and other contributions which once swelled his income. No sooner had Cortés disappeared beyond the plateau border than my lord grew audacious, encouraged no doubt by the express or tacit consent of his sovereign, and demanded from the neighboring Totonacs the customary tribute, under penalty of having their lands ravaged. They refused, pointing out that they were now the subjects of the great white king. Escalante being appealed to for protection, sent a message explaining that the independence of the people had de facto been recognized by Montezuma, with whom he was on friendly terms. He would allow no interference with them. Quauhpopoca replied that his answer would be given on the battle-field. Escalante, nothing loath, set out at once with fifty men, two horses, and two cannon, attended by several thousand Totonacs,[412] and reached the vicinity of Nautla, where Quauhpopoca was already committing depredations. The armies met, and a fierce battle ensued. Awed by
the remembrance of former defeats at the hands of the Aztecs, the Totonacs comported themselves so poorly[413] that the brunt of the fight had to be borne by the Spaniards, of whom several were killed and wounded, while one was captured, and a horse destroyed. The enemy was put to flight, but it has been said as an excuse for their defeat the Mexican officers declared to Montezuma that the virgin bearing an infant led the Spaniards in their attack which spread terror and fearful slaughter in their ranks.[414] Escalante laid waste the district, and captured Nautla town, which was sacked and burned. This lesson finished, he hastened back to Villa Rica, and there within three days succumbed to his wounds together with several soldiers, so that the campaign cost the lives of seven or nine men.[415] From prisoners it was understood that Quauhpopoca had acted wholly under orders from Montezuma. The captured soldier was Argüello, of Leon, a young man of powerful frame, with a large head and a curly black beard. He appears to have died from his wounds on the way to Mexico, and the head was presented to the emperor. Its wild appearance, however, increased by the black, curly beard, made so bad an impression upon him that he refused to offer it to his idols, ordering it to be sent to some other town.[416]
Fearing that these tidings might dishearten the men, Cortés said nothing about the affair;[417] but it had nevertheless a bad effect, for the Cempoalan allies, who had learned a few particulars from the messengers, requested at the last moment to be dismissed to their homes, pleading not only the long absence from their families, but the fear of being treated at Mexico as rebels. Cortés sought to reassure them, declaring that no harm could reach any one under his protection. Furthermore he would enrich them. But the larger portion still insisted, and since they had served him well, he did not wish to compel them. Several packs of the rich robes obtained from Mexico were accordingly divided among the leaders, two packages
being destined for Chicomacatl and his nephew Cuexco, and with this parting gift all but a small body returned to Cempoala.[418]
After a stay at Cholula of nearly three weeks[419] the Spaniards set out for Mexico, attended by about six thousand natives, chiefly Tlascaltecs, with a sprinkling of Cempoalans, Cholultecs, and Huexotzincas.[420] They passed through Huexotzinco by a route already followed by Ordaz, and recommended as the best and safest. The first camp was made at the Huexotzinca village of Izcalpan, over four leagues from Cholula, where they met with a most friendly reception, and received abundant provisions, together with some female slaves and a little gold. Leaving behind them the smiling plain of Huitzilapan, where they had overcome so many dangers and obtained so many proofs of good-will, on the following day they approached the mountains and came upon the regular highway which leads across the range to the valley of Mexico. The junction of the roads was at the south-west border of Huexotzinco, where the Mexicans had left a proof of their hostility toward this republic, allied to Tlascala, by blocking up the way with trees and other material.[421] These were removed, and the army began the steep ascent of the pass, pressing onward against the chilling winds which swept down from its frozen heights, and before long they were tramping through the snow which covered the summit.
Here they were cheered by a sight which made them, for the moment at least, forget their hardships. A turn in the road disclosed the valley of Mexico—the object of their toil and suffering—stretching from the slope of the forest-clad ranges at their feet as far as the eye could reach, and presenting one picturesque intermingling of green prairies, golden fields, and blooming gardens, clustering round a series of lakes. Towns lay thickly sprinkled, revealed by towering edifices and gleaming walls, and conspicuous above all, the queen city herself, placidly reposing upon the mirrored surface of the larger
water. Above her rose the cypress-crowned hill of Chapultepec, with its stately palace consecrated to the glories of Aztec domination.[422]
The first transport over, there came a revulsion of feeling. The evidently dense population of the valley and the many fortified towns confirmed the mysterious warnings of the allies against a powerful and warlike people, and again the longing for the snug and secure plantations of Cuba found expression among the faint-hearted, as they shivered in the icy blast and wrapped themselves the closer in the absence of food and shelter. In this frame of mind the glistening farm-houses seemed only so many troops of savage warriors, lurking amidst the copses and arbors for victims to grace the stone of sacrifice and the festive board; and the stately towns appeared impregnable fortresses, which promised only to become their prisons and graves. So loud grew the murmur as to indicate mutiny; but Cortés, with his usual firm words, quieted the soldiers, supported as he was by the spirited majority.[423]
After descending for a short distance they came to the travellers’ station of Quauhtechcatl,[424] whose commodious edifices afforded room for the whole army. The Mexicans had prepared for the arrival by furnishing an abundance of provisions, with fires in all the rooms, and the tired soldiers eagerly gave themselves up to repose.[425] No less exhausted than they, Cortés nevertheless could not think of rest till he had seen to the security of the camp. His prudence on this occasion came near costing him dearly, for in the darkness a sentinel taking him for a spy drew his cross-bow. Fortunately he heard the click and announced himself.[426] This promptness on the part of the guard was by no means unnecessary; during the night a dozen or more prowling natives met the fate which the general so narrowly escaped. They were supposed to have been the spies of an army hidden in the forest, which, on observing the watchfulness of the Spaniards, abandoned the premeditated attack.[427]
Montezuma’s fears appeared to grow with the approach of Cortés, and so did his anxiety about the import of the message which must be delivered to him alone. Could there be a design upon his person? This must be ascertained before the invaders came too near. Among his courtiers was a noble named Tzihuacpopoca, who greatly resembled him in person and voice. Him he commanded to proceed to the Spanish camp, attended by a large retinue, and by representing himself as the emperor to ascertain from the white chief what his intentions were, and to induce him with liberal offers to turn back. The idea was based on an incident which had occurred not many years before, wherein one of the tripartite monarchs saved his life by appearing in proxy at a treacherous court. Montezuma hoped to derive from a similar trick more than one advantage.
Tzihuacpopoca arrived at the mountain camp the morning after the Spaniards had entered it, and created no little excitement by the announcement that the emperor was present in person. Preparations were made to give him a brilliant reception. Unfortunately for the envoy, his secret had too many keepers in the large suite attending him; there were also many among the allies who had been at Montezuma’s court, and who looked on this sudden arrival as suspicious. They made inquiries and soon ascertained the truth. Cortés received the great man with courtesy, heralded as he was with a present of three thousand pesos de oro, but he resolved to take advantage of the discovery to impress him with his penetration. After a few moments’ conversation he told the noble with a severe tone that he was not the monarch he represented himself to be.[428] He also referred to the attempts made during the night to surprise the camp, as indicated by the dead spies, and assured him that his men were always prepared against plots and deception, and any attempts against them would lead only to the discomfiture and grief of the enemy. Awed by the superior intelligence and power of the general, the envoy thought no longer of anything else than to keep
such a man from entering Mexico. He presented among other reasons that the city could be reached only in canoes, and that provisions were difficult to obtain there. He repeated the offer already made of an annual tribute payable in treasures on the coast, and promised as a bribe for Cortés himself four loads of gold, and for each of his officers and men one load.[429] Dazzling as the offer was, Cortés regarded it as but a faint reflection of still richer treasures, the attainment of which must procure for him greater glory than he had as yet dreamed of. In his reply he accordingly pointed out how strange it must appear to turn back now that he was within view of the goal. Such conduct would disgrace any envoy. No! he dared not disobey the orders of his king, who had sent him upon a mission of great benefit to Montezuma. He would leave as soon as this was accomplished, if desired.[430]
Nothing abashed by this rebuff, Montezuma again had recourse to the black art, and sent a number of sorcerers, the native records say, to cast spells on the Spaniards. They soon returned with the report that on nearing Tlalmanalco, Tezcatlipoca had appeared to them in the guise of a drunken peasant, frightening them greatly, and saying: “Fools, return! Your mission is in vain! Montezuma will lose his empire in punishment for tyranny, and I, I leave Mexico to her fate and cast you off!” The sorcerers recognized the god, and prostrated themselves to adore him, but he spurned their devotion, rebuking them, and finally pointed to Mexico, saying: “Behold her doom!” Looking round they saw her enveloped in flames, and the inhabitants in conflict with white men. On turning again to beseech the god he was gone.[431]
Montezuma was in consultation with his advisers when this report was brought. As if pierced by death’s dart, the monarch bowed low his head and moaned: “We are lost! We are lost!”[432] Less impressed with superstitious fear by an incident which he
regarded as concocted by the sorcerers, Cuitlahuatzin vividly presented the danger of admitting such determined and powerful intruders within the city, and he boldly urged that they be forbidden to enter, by force of arms if need be. Cacama remonstrated that after inviting them such a course would savor of fear. The emperor owed it to his exalted station and power to receive envoys. If they proved objectionable, the city should become their tomb. Surely his nobles and his armies were able to overcome so small a number, assisted by the strategic advantages of the place in its approaches and resources. To the affrighted monarch anything was acceptable that would stay prompt action, and consequently defer the ruin which he feared. He at once inclined to Cacama’s advice, stipulating, however, that he, king as he was, should condescend to meet the Spaniards and sound their intentions. “May the gods not place within your house, my lord, one who shall cast you forth and usurp the empire,” was the solemn warning of Cuitlahuatzin, as he heard this resolution. [433]
The Spaniards had meanwhile descended the wooded slope from Quauhtechcatl to the cultivated district round Amaquemecan, a city which, together with its suburban villages for two leagues around, numbered over twenty thousand families.[434] The lord, Cacamatzin Teotlateuchtli, received them in his own palace, and entertained them most liberally during their two days’ stay, presenting them gifts of forty female slaves and three thousand castellanos in gold. The chiefs of Tlalmanalco and other neighboring towns came to tender their respects, and encouraged by the reports of Spanish prowess they hesitated not to lay bare their grievances against the Aztecs, who oppressed them with heavy taxes, robbed them of wives and daughters, and carried the men into slavery. Cortés encouraged the chiefs with fair promises, and was not a little delighted at finding disaffection in the very heart of the empire, whose power had been so much extolled.[435]
Passing by way of Tlalmanalco through a succession of flourishing maize and maguey fields, the Spaniards reached Ayotzinco, a town at the south end of Chalco lake.[436] Here was seen the first specimen of the peculiar aquatic cities of the lake region. Half of the town stood on piles, and was intersected by canals, wherein the traffic, with canoes, was far livelier than in the streets. The other half lay at the foot of steep hills, upon one of which the Spaniards were encamped. Prompted either by curiosity or by evil purposes, a number of Indians attempted during the night to enter the Spanish quarter, only to pay with their lives for the indiscretion.[437]
In the morning messengers arrived requesting the Spaniards to await the coming of Cacama. Shortly after appeared a procession more brilliant than any yet seen. In a litter profusely ornamented with gold, silver, and feather ornaments, and even inlaid with precious stones, sat the king of Tezcuco, a young man of about twenty-five, carried by eight powerful caciques. As he stepped out, attendants proceeded to sweep the road, removing even the straws, while nobles held over his head a canopy of green feathers, studded with gems, to shield him from the sun. With stately steps the monarch advanced toward Cortés, saluting him in the customary manner [438] He had come, he said, with these nobles, in the name of Montezuma, their master, to serve him, and to provide all that was needed. He thereupon presented a rich gift, to which Cortés responded with three fine marcasite stones[439] for himself, and with blue glass diamonds for the nobles. In order to sound him, Cacama represented that there existed almost insurmountable obstacles to his entry into Mexico, among them the fears of the populace, which had been aroused by terrible accounts of the cruelty of his followers. [440] Cortés sought to reassure him, and declared that no obstacles were insurmountable to his men, whereupon Cacama hastened to
state that Montezuma himself would willingly receive them, and did tender an invitation. He now returned to Mexico to prepare for the inevitable visit, leaving among the Spaniards the impression that if he, the inferior king, exhibited such grandeur, that of the emperor must indeed be imperial.[441]
Proceeding along the lake they entered upon a causeway in width a spear’s length, leading through the waters for over a half league to “the prettiest little town which we had yet seen, both with regard to its well built houses and towers, and to its situation,” as Cortés remarks. The admiring soldiers called it Venezuela, or little Venice, the native name being Cuitlahuac. It was situated on an islet, connected also with the northern shore by an extension of the causeway, and contained a population of about two thousand families, supported chiefly by floriculture, which was carried on to a great extent by means of chinampas, or floating gardens.[442] The chiefs came forth, headed by Atlpopocatzin,[443] and showed themselves most attentive. Here again complaints were uttered about Aztec oppression, with the warning that the Spaniards would meet with no true friendship at Mexico.[444]
The Mexican envoys suspected the disaffection of Cuitlahuac, and prevailed on the Spaniards to pass onward to Iztapalapan, where preparations had been made to receive them. As they neared the densely populated lake district, the crowds became larger and more curious, wondering at the fair hue and bushy beards of the strangers, and admiring the comely horses, and the glittering arms and helmets. “Surely they must be divine beings,” some said, “coming as they do from where the sun rises.” “Or demons,” hinted others. But the old men, wise in the records of their race, sighed as they remembered the prophecies, and muttered that these must be the predicted ones who were to rule the land and be their masters. [445] To prevent the natives from mingling with his men, and creating
not only disorder but diminishing the awe with which they were regarded, the horsemen in the van received orders to keep the Indians at a respectful distance. Iztapalapan was already in sight when a large force of armed warriors was seen advancing, so large that it seemed as if the armies of Mexico had come to overwhelm them. They were reassured, however, by the announcement that it was Ixtlilxochitl with his escort, intent on having an interview with his proposed ally. The prince had urged upon Cortés to take a more northern route and join him at Calpulalpan, but finding that the general preferred the Amaquemecan road, he had hastened to meet the Spaniards on the lake. The approach of this personage had made the court of Tezcuco more pliable to one whose designs were well understood. When Ixtlilxochitl therefore came near the city, the elder brother, Cohuanacotzin, made efforts for a closer conciliation with himself and Cacama.[446] The opportunity was favorable, for the indisposition of Cortés to enter actively into the plans of the former, and his advance on Mexico, with proclaimed friendship for Montezuma, made Ixtlilxochitl not averse to the advances of his brothers, particularly since he intended this in no wise to interfere with his schemes. The result of the negotiation was that he found himself admitted with great pomp into his paternal city, wherein he hoped some day to displace Cacama. Imbued more than ever with his ambition, he hastened to intercept the Spanish captain, in order personally to promote his views and induce him to come northward to Tezcuco and to his own capital. Cortés was full of promises, but it did not just then suit him to disarrange the plan he had formed, and so Ixtlilxochitl had to wait.
It is this meeting no doubt which has been wrongly extended by several authorities into a visit to Tezcuco.[447]
As the Spaniards approached Iztapalapan,[448] Cuitlahuatzin, the brother of Montezuma and lord of the city, came forth in company
with Tezozomoc, lord of the adjoining Culhuacan, and a number of other caciques and nobles,[449] to escort his guests to their quarters in his palace. The city with its ten thousand to twelve thousand houses was constructed partly on piles, and crossed by canals, on either side of which rose substantial buildings, chiefly of stone, a large proportion being, according to the conqueror, “as fine as the best in Spain, both in extent and construction.” The Spaniards were awed by the beauty of the place. The palace was particularly fine and spacious, with courts shaded by awnings of brilliant colors and bordered by commodious apartments. Adjoining it, and overlooked by a large pavilion, was a vast garden, divided into four squares by hedges of plaited reeds, which were entirely overgrown with roses and other flowers. Shaded walks led out in all directions, now by beds of rare plants collected from remote parts, now into orchards temptingly laden, and again past groups of artistically arranged flowers. In ponds fed by navigable canals sported innumerable water-fowl, consorting with fishes of different species. In the centre of the garden was an immense reservoir of hewn stone, four hundred paces square, surrounded by a tiled pavement from which steps led at intervals to the water.[450]
Cortés was not only hospitably entertained, but received a present of female slaves, packs of cloth, and over three thousand castellanos in gold.[451]
The soldiers now prepared under more than usual excitement for the final march, which was to bring them to the longed-for goal. The reputed magnificence of the capital made most of the Spaniards eager to enter; but there were others who recalled the rumors of its strength, and of the terrible plots which their timid allies declared were to encompass them. “Being men and fearing death, we could not avoid thinking of this,” says Bernal Diaz, frankly, “and commending ourselves to God.” And as he remembers how
warnings failed to deter them, the old soldier bursts forth in selfadmiration, “What men have existed in the world so daring?”[452]
[401] ‘Sacrificassen çinco mill personas para festejar é aplacar sus dioses ’ Oviedo, iii. 499. ‘Estuuo encerrado en sus deuociones, y sacrificios dos dias juntamente con diez Papas.’ Bernal Diaz, Hist. Verdad., 61. ‘Estuuo en oracion, y ayuno ocho dias.’ Gomara, Hist. Mex., 97. ‘Si ritirò al palazzo tlillancalmecatl, destinato pel tempo di duolo.’ Clavigero, Storia Mess., iii. 69.
[402] Mendieta, Hist. Ecles., 182; Remesal, Hist. Chyapa, 304. According to Arias de Villalobos, the idol was already stricken mute by the shadow of the approaching cross; the angel released the captive, one of 500 destined for slaughter, and he set forth to join the Spaniards. Vetancvrt, Teatro Mex., pt. iii. 126.
[403] From the lord of Tepeaca came 30 female slaves and some gold, and from Huexotzinco a wooden box, bordered with gold and silver, containing jewels worth 400 pesos de oro. Herrera, dec. ii. lib. vii. cap. iii.
[404] ‘Ten thousand pesos de oro,’ says Torquemada, i. 442.
[405] Cortés, Cartas, 75-6; Torquemada, i. 442. Gomara is confused about these messages between Cholula and Mexico, while Bernal Diaz ignores this attempt to keep back the Spaniards.
[406] ‘Quitarnos la comida, é agua, ò alçar qualquiera de las puentes, nos mataria, y que en vn dia, si nos daua guerra, no quedaria ninguno de nosotros á vida.’ This oracle came from Huitzilopochtli. The bodies should be eaten. Bernal Diaz, Hist Verdad , 61; Oviedo, iii 499; Gomara, Hist Mex , 97
[407] Cortés, Cartas, 77. Bernal Diaz relates that six chiefs brought this message, together with a number of gold jewels, worth upward of 2000 pesos, and some loads of robes Hist Verdad , 62 Most authors are, like Gomara, somewhat confused about these messages
[408] Gomara, Hist. Mex., 96. ‘Algunos querian decir que era boca del infierno.’ Motolinia, Hist. Ind., 180; Torquemada, i. 436-7.
[409] ‘Vinieron muchos Indios a besarles la ropa, y a verlos, como por milagro, ó como a dioses.’ Gomara, Hist. Mex., 96. According to Cortés they failed to reach the summit, although coming very near to it But this statement is open to doubt, for Cortés is not liberal in according credit to others where it might tend to call attention from himself, particularly to a man like Ordaz, who had, until quite lately, been his most bitter opponent Gomara had evidently good authority for his statement, since he in this case failed to follow his patron’s version; and Bernal Diaz, who is always ready to contradict him, and who was no friend of Ordaz, does also admit that he reached the summit He gives him only two companions, however, and starts them from Tlascala Hist Verdad , 55 Leading modern authors are inclined to doubt their success. Prescott, Brasseur de Bourbourg, and others, from a misinterpretation of Cortés’ text, allow the ascent to be made while the army was camped on the summit of the range, en route for Mexico.
Ordaz no doubt claimed to have reached the summit, since the emperor granted him a coat of arms, wherein the achievement is commemorated by a blazing mountain Had he not merited it, his many jealous companions would surely have raised a clamor He became also a knight of Santiago, in acknowledgment of his services during the conquest Having beside acquired great wealth, he might have rested on his laurels; but eager to emulate his late chief, he in 1530 petitioned for and obtained the governorship of the tract between Rio Marañon and Cabo de la Vela, in South America, with a right to extend the conquest. After suffering great hardship there he set out for Spain, two years later, to recruit his health and seek redress against rival conquerors. He died on the way. Oviedo, ii. 211-24; Herrera, dec. iv. lib. x. cap. ix.; dec. v. lib. i. cap. xi. Simon has him arraigned at Española for cruelty to his men, etc. Ordaz insists on going to Spain for justice, and fearing the result, since he stood in high favor there, his enemies poisoned him during the voyage. Conq. Tierra Firme, 104-35. His portrait is given in Carbajal Espinosa, Hist. Mex., ii. 192, and Prescott’s Mex. (Gondra ed. of Mex ), iii 221 ‘Su familia establecida en Puebla, en donde creo que todavía quedan descendientes suyos ’ Alaman, Disert , i 101 Montaño, among other conquerors, made the ascent of the volcano not long after this, and he is even said to have descended into the crater Padre Sahagun also reached the summit Hist Gen , iii 317; Herrera, dec ii lib vi cap xviii ; Torquemada, i 436-7; Peter Martyr, dec v cap ii The next successful ascent was not made till 1827, by Messrs Glennie Sonneschmidt had explored Popocatepetl partially only in 1772, but had reached the summit of the consort peak Berkbeck explored in the same year as the Glennies. Gérolt and Gros attempted the ascent in 1833 and 1834, and succeeded in reaching the summit on the second occasion. The record is given in Revista Mex., i. 461-82. In 1857 the Mexican government sent up a
successful exploring expedition under Sonntag and Laverrière, whose report, with drawings, is given in Soc. Mex. Geog., Boletin, vi. 218-45. Meanwhile the observations of Gérolt and Gros had led to the examination of the crater for sulphur, an industry carried on pretty regularly since 1836 The volcano was in frequent eruption about the conquest period, as if in sympathy with the political turmoils around it One of the heaviest discharges recorded took place in 1539-40, which covered the neighboring towns, as far as Tlascala, with ashes Since then it has been comparatively silent, the last two outbreaks being in 1663-4 and 1697 ubi sup , 204-5; Bernal Diaz, Hist Verdad , 55; Herrera, dec ii lib vi cap xviii The eruption of 1663-4 created great terror in Puebla, as Vetancurt relates. Teatro Mex., pt. i. 26. Bustamante extends this activity to 1665. Sahagun, Hist. Conq. (ed. 1840), 75.
Rude cuts of the volcanic eruption of 1519 are to be seen in the old and curious cosmographies of Sebastian Munster This learned man, famous as a Hebrew scholar, as mathematician and cartographer, was the author of some forty printed works, and would probably have issued as many more had not the plague cut him off at Basle, in 1552, at the age of 63 His editions of Ptolemy’s Geography began in 1540, and in the following year, according to Labanoff’s Catalogue, appeared the first edition of his Cosmographia Beschreibung; but this date, accepted by several bibliographers, as well as that of 1543 for a Latin edition, are evidently wrong, since Munster in his dedication of 1550, to King Gustavus I. of Sweden, remarks that ‘Inn dise dritt edition’ he had hoped to include a description of Stockholm and other towns under the king, but had not received a reply to his demands therefor. A few lines above this he writes equally to the point: ‘Als ich aber vor sechs jaren noch mit diser arbeit vmbgieng, ist zũ mir kommen E. K. M. diener, der hochgelert herr, herr Georgius Normannus, dem ich vorhin auss etlichen büchern vnder meinem namen aussgangen, bekãt wz, vnd als er besichtiget dise für genomen arbeit, schetzet er sie wol wirdig, das sie vnd dem künigliche schirm E M an tag käme ’ Nothing could more conclusively show that the work had not appeared in print before 1544 The second edition appeared in 1545 The title of the first reads: Cosmographia Beschreibũg aller Lender Durch Sebastianum Munsterum Getruckt zü Basel durch Henrichum Petri Anno MDxliiij
The Gothic text is accompanied by marginals in Italics, and illustrated with numerous small wood-cuts, some being of the character which permits their reproduction in different chapters and for different countries In the African division we find beings of the Anubis and Polyphemus type, and animal monsters of different form. In the dedication to Gustavus, Munster speaks of having spent eighteen years in collecting and arranging his material, on the plan of ‘dẽ hochgelerten man Strabõi,’which is not very flattering to that geographer, if the method before us be accepted as a specimen. He divides the volume into six books the first devoted to mathematical geography, the next three to a general rambling description of Europe, chiefly with reference to the natural resources and
