Inuit Antarctica?

I still don't get why the British would go to the effort of "recruiting" Inuit peoples to resettle in Antarctica, if the principal purpose of the exercise is to stake a claim. As other have agreed with me, there is no basic reason to presume that Inuit peoples could really adapt to the Antarctic any better than properly equipped Europeans. In fact, they might do worse because they would have to unlearn basic cultural presumptions based on thousands of years' adaptation to the specific environments in the circumpolar area.

No, if you want to stake a claim to Antarctica, just send several well-supplied naval/military expeditions to establish permanent bases along the least forbidding coastal areas and recruit/train down and out Britons and Canadians to settle there with big cash bonuses. Accept that the colonies will not be self-sufficient

Or establish penal colonies. At least then you are not uprooting tribal peoples from their native homelands or luring poor people to live even more impoverished lives hunting penguins in the frozen wastes.
 
I still don't get why the British would go to the effort of "recruiting" Inuit peoples to resettle in Antarctica, if the principal purpose of the exercise is to stake a claim. As other have agreed with me, there is no basic reason to presume that Inuit peoples could really adapt to the Antarctic any better than properly equipped Europeans. In fact, they might do worse because they would have to unlearn basic cultural presumptions based on thousands of years' adaptation to the specific environments in the circumpolar area.

I wouldn't go that far. There would be considerable overlap between the Inuit survival package and the new environment, even if it wasn't a perfect match. How to fish through pack ice, how to build an insulating igloo out of snow, how to build a kayak from sealskin and bones, how to hunt seals from them, how to eat every bit of the catch to avoid scurvy, etc.

Perhaps no enough for the new environment, but a very, very long leg up on the Europeans of the time. We tend to hear about the European polar expeditions that actually succeeded (and Scott) but read a bit about it, there were more spectacular failiures due to gross unfamiliarity with the environment.

My thought was for the Norwegians/Danes or whomever to simply employ Inuit because their skills and familiartiy is a better match for the environment than Europeans. They're not going to be as depressed by the cold and dark, and might simply be more productive with a lower fatailty rate of trained personel.

From the Inuit side, its a paid job, much like it was to the Europeans who ended up doing it OTL. But in an environemnt that is a few degrees closer to home than it was for the Europeans. In the end, some would settle down at the subantarctic islands, in places like Grytviken etc. and bring family over.

Hunting and sealing trips to the Antarctic mainland might simply be a cheaper alternative to imports, if you got a population base that has sealing as a hobby anyway.

That, however, presupposes there being economically profitable activity there, which didn't really start up untill the whaling took off.
 
Nice picture of a reindeer with some penguins, so what? Presumably this is from the reindeer herd on South Georgia island introduced by Norwegian whalers last century? If you need to introduce reindeer to Antarctica to help the Inuit survive you are just admitting that their survival prospects are not good.

I still agree with zoomar. If the idea is to stake a claim through maintaining a permanent settlement then you don't need native Inuit to do it. The Inuit will need to learn the patterns of behaviour of new animals to hunt them effectively, that takes time and during that time they would need to be supported. In which case, why not just station a couple of more reliable troops/sailors etc in a purpose built settlement who answer directly to your government and just make sure they have good accommodation and plenty of food and supplies. Much simpler and more reliable as you are going to have clearer lines of authority.

There's still no reason why any Inuit would want to leave their lands, homes, family etc to traipse to the other side of the world. You'd basically have to force them and that is not only wrong (and I trust that goes without saying), but very unlikely to lead to a successful settlement. As mentioned above by someone else, forcibly transplanting Inuit to a different part of the Arctic led to many deaths and problems, what do you think the outcome will be if they are moved to the other side of the world and an alien ecosystem?

It's a bad, bad idea straight out of the 19th century Whitehall rulebook for drawing straight lines across maps of Africa. That didn't work well in the long run and neither would this.
 
No, if you want to stake a claim to Antarctica, just send several well-supplied naval/military expeditions to establish permanent bases along the least forbidding coastal areas and recruit/train down and out Britons and Canadians to settle there with big cash bonuses. Accept that the colonies will not be self-sufficient
Have been done already
 
There's still no reason why any Inuit would want to leave their lands, homes, family etc to traipse to the other side of the world. You'd basically have to force them and that is not only wrong (and I trust that goes without saying), but very unlikely to lead to a successful settlement. As mentioned above by someone else, forcibly transplanting Inuit to a different part of the Arctic led to many deaths and problems, what do you think the outcome will be if they are moved to the other side of the world and an alien ecosystem?

Just to reiterate "We'll give you a job" is just as good a reason for the Inuit as it was for the Europeans who went down there.

Of course, I am talking of settlements on the subantarctic islands with a good economic reason for being there, and occasionally sailing down to the actual continent to exploit Antarctic resources.
Not dropping people off on the actual Antarctic continent. You couldn't introduce reindeer there either, they got no chance to survive. No food.
 
I don't think "we'll give you a job" is sufficient reason for the Inuit to want to move to the Antarctic. They aren't itinerant Irish labourers or some other transitory workers and you can't naively assume they will have the same motivations as a young English or Russian male with a different perspective on life. And the OP was talking about a settlement so that's families, not a couple of young males keen to see the world. From what little I've heard of Inuit culture and society it is far more focused on their connections with their family, traditions and land than you find in a 'modern urban' society. The idea that families of Inuit, a native culture with strong spiritual and emotional links to their homelands, will happily move to an alien environment on the promise of some work for the white man is simply naive. It makes as much sense as expecting Australian Aborigines would happily move to the middle of the Sahara just because that's another desert, or that Dakota or Sioux would be keen to set up home on the Russian steppes because it looks a bit like the Great Plains. People do not think that way.

I certainly am not proposing that reindeer are a solution, my point is that Sharkani's photo of a reindeer on South Georgia is irrelevant.
 
dropbearabroad,

such notion excludes all the migration done by the mankind.

Yes, moving family groups into empty, virgin land which CAN be of use for them. Thus the whaling, fishing... coastline towns would have solid back of locals and thus internal trade etc. Whaling was the 5th biggest industry in USA until the Civil war. Pretty serious economical incentive on its own.
 
Top