The Dark Side of Artemis II? Pearl-Clutching Right-Wing Pundits

On April 1, the Artemis II mission launched from the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida, with four astronauts on board, on a ten-day journey around the moon and back—the first crewed lunar mission in more than fifty years. That morning, we published an essay by contributing writer Michelle Cyca titled “With the Artemis II Mission, the Lunar Land Grab Begins,” in which she critiques the goal of the Artemis missions—to establish a permanent base on the moon, to mine its resources, and, she writes, to “transform the moon from a place of imagination to one of profit.” I spoke with Cyca about the response to her article, which was . . . something else.

Why did you want to write this article? Do you hate space, Michelle?

No! I love Star Trek: The Next Generation! Ask anyone.

When we published the article, the response was immediate. It clearly touched a very sensitive nerve in a particular corner of right-wing media. The National Post called the article an example of “colonial outrage industry.” The American publication The College Fix ran a response, arguing that the Artemis mission “(re)activated the critical theory and oppression studies mindset.” The Rebel talked about the article during a weekly livestream, and wrote about it too, with Sheila Gunn Reid calling it “a useless person’s view of people who are adventurous.” When we shared the article on X, it led to 1.1 million views and more than 600 comments. Why do you think people have been so triggered?

“Colonialism” itself is a trigger for a certain variety of right-wing pundit, who is constantly casting around for something to be outraged by. It’s very obvious that funnelling hostility toward any Indigenous perspective is an effective strategy for the outlets that run on outrage. I don’t feel entitled to anyone’s attention, but I do think if someone is going to publish a rebuttal to an essay I’ve written, they might want to at least refute a few points or provide some counter-arguments. But the response to this is not just predictably hostile but also strangely insubstantial; it’s just leveraging pre-existing racism for clicks.

For the record, I find a lot of this Artemis mission to be extremely moving—the video of Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen relaying the crew’s request to name a moon crater after Carroll Wiseman, the late wife of commander Reid Wiseman, was an incredible reminder that there are exceptional people at the centre of space exploration. So, I’m not trying to rain on that parade. I just think it’s worth zooming out and considering the grander plan here. Casting an eye south from Canada would make anyone wonder if rallying behind American imperialism at this specific moment in time, when there is a lunatic in the White House and an open white supremacist behind one of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s most significant partners, is an inspiring idea.

I feel like the headline phrasing of “lunar land grab” in particular set people off.

It did, though I think it’s worth remembering X is a microcosm shaped by Elon Musk; I don’t know that it or the National Post are representative of normal people’s views. But it is, in fact, a land grab. The Artemis Accords were written to explicitly permit mining resources from the moon, even though the Outer Space Treaty prohibits any individual country from owning the moon, so it’s just a race to get there and start hoovering up the regolith. In theory, space exploration is supposed to benefit all of humanity, but it’s hard to imagine how this will be accomplished by mining—an activity that has, on Earth, only ever produced unequal distributions of profits and costs.

In The Rebel’s video, Ugolini says that your article is an example of “why Canada is where it is.” What?

There is a certain line of argument that goes Canada’s failures and limitations are the fault of wokeness. If people are feeling disenfranchised—increasingly precarious in their economic status, unprotected at work, limited in their capacity to grow and thrive—it’s useful to direct their anger at minority groups rather than the corporations or billionaires responsible for a declining quality of life. This is the same reason why fossil fuel companies fund anti-trans campaigns. On the other hand, it might also just be a stupid thing to say, with no grand strategy behind it.

• Are We Going to Mess Up Outer Space Too?
• Space Is Not a Frontier
• The Endless Wonder and Beautiful Uncertainty of Interstellar Comets

These responses also basically make your point that these missions are paving the way for a new colonial race. The Rebel: “The mission advances America’s long-standing leadership in space, building on decades of public investment to secure strategic advantages against competitors like China, while opening doors for commercial innovation . . .” The National Post, sarcastically: “Obviously, [the crew will] have colonial brains and eyes, colonial thought processes and that the science was based on concepts not informed by Indigenous knowledge.”

Right—I think there’s a distinction here between the science that makes space travel possible and the incentives behind that research and innovation. Because the intention of going to space is to colonize it, in the literal sense: to establish political and economic control over a valuable territory in order to extract resources. I don’t think anyone disputes that, including the writers who have published rebuttals to my piece. There’s an unspoken contradiction here; people champion colonialism but don’t like to be implicated by it.

What struck me too, in these responses, is a profound sensitivity to any kind of criticism. In the National Post’s article, Michael Higgins writes that “Man is an imperfect creature who has sometimes been an avaricious, empire-building pirate. But he has also been greater than that, much greater.” This argument is starting to sound very familiar . . .

The National Post also said that I claimed the Artemis mission was an attack on Indigenous beliefs, which is not what I wrote. My argument is if we accept the premise that outer space belongs to every nation on earth—which is not my opinion; it’s the basis of space law!—then that includes Indigenous nations and all the other non-American nations. Who decides what the right way to use the moon is? Who decides what space is for? What processes are necessary to ensure everyone benefits, particularly when we’re talking about extracting resources for profit? These are questions that haven’t been answered, and historically, a “just trust me, bro” approach has not yielded great outcomes. I would love to believe that man has overcome his avaricious, empire-building instincts, but I don’t see much evidence for that on Earth, so I think a little skepticism is warranted.

As a current affairs magazine, we cover basically every issue—politics, defence, war, climate, etcetera. Topics that often elicit strong responses. What is it about this one, a story written by an Indigenous writer about space exploration in particular, that you think garnered such a response?

We’re in a very weird time for Indigenous issues as a country. People are feeling panicky about Indigenous rights; here in British Columbia, many people are convinced that First Nations are going to overthrow private property rights. Elsewhere, the government paying long-overdue settlements to treaty signatories is seen as some kind of woke tax. Residential school denialism is a booming industry that grifts off those desperate to believe that thousands of children did not, in fact, die at residential schools—an uncontroversial, long-established fact that is nonetheless very hard for people to accept.

It’s very easy to stoke the resentment and fear that many Canadians feel toward Indigenous people right now, and one easy trick for accomplishing that is claiming Indigenous people want you to feel bad about something cool, like space travel! If you can make someone believe Indigenous people are just here to ruin their fun, then it justifies the hostility and suspicion that you want them to feel. And, crucially, it keeps their resentment off the forces that are actually, actively making the material conditions of their lives worse each day.

Did you watch the Artemis II launch on April 1?

No, but my husband and daughter did! They watched the landing together too. I was re-watching Heated Rivalry. That’s patriotism.