The common perception of Easter Island (officially a part of Chile rather than South Sea Islands) is that it was once inhabited by islanders who were stranded there, stripped the island of its resources and were starving to death when they were finally “rescued” by European colonists. It is generally believed that now these people are extinct and their island abandoned.
In reality, this story is even more far-fetched than the new-age hocus pocus that abounds about the island’s famous statues having been carved by intergalactic space travellers.
The supposed ecological destruction of Rapa Nui by its indigenous people is generally accepted as fact, supported in texts ranging from the diaries of early European explorers to the hollywood film “Rapa Nui”. Tim Lowe’s popular book “The Future Eaters” supports this colonial version of history, portraying Easter Island as a kind of microcosm for the destruction of the earth by modern industrial society.
This myth holds a cherished position in the colonial paradigm, in that it highlights the western assertion that indigenous peoples are incapable of managing land “properly”, thereby justifying colonial theft of aboriginal land.
The fact is, the Rapa Nui were doing very very well before the Europeans arrived, managing rich farming and fishing industries and even occasional travel to other island nations. They also had an advanced system of writing. They were never “stranded” as history would have us believe, and were certainly not starving. They had so much surplus produce that they were able consistently to provide early European ships with bulk fruit and vegetables for trade. (Well, that was when they weren’t destroying passing European ships in battle, as they periodically did.)
You may have noticed that I keep using past tense when I refer to the Rapa Nui. This must be my colonial education coming through, because these islanders are not extinct at all. They still inhabit their island today, as well as a number of other islands throughout Polynesia.
I know this article challenges some very fundamental issues at the heart of colonialism, in fact, the seminal narrative that justifies the entire existence of colonialism. So, I'd better break my informality rule and back up these claims with some references for a change: