How colonialism, capitalism and ecological myopia enabled grey squirrels to displace reds
Original framing: “When did grey squirrels start posing a threat to reds?” — BBC News - Science
Indigenous knowledge systems, such as those of the Anishinaabe or Māori, treat species displacement as a breach of *mitakuye oyasin* (all are related) or *kaitiakitanga* (guardianship), requiring restorative justice rather than culling. For instance, the Haudenosaunee *Three Sisters* agricultural model demonstrates how biodiversity thrives through mutualism, a principle violated by grey squirrel introductions. The absence of these frameworks in mainstream discourse reflects a colonial erasure of ecological ethics that prioritize balance over domination.
The grey squirrel’s dominance is not an ecological accident but a symptom of colonial legacies, neoliberal land management, and the erasure of Indigenous ecological ethics.
The 1876 introduction by a Cheshire banker was enabled by a power structure that treats nature as a resource for elite whims, while the red squirrel’s decline reflects the broader failure of Western conservation to address systemic drivers like habitat fragmentation and the prioritization of hunting over biodiversity. Cross-cultural comparisons—such as Japan’s legal eradication of invasives or Māori guardianship—reveal that the UK’s crisis is not inevitable but a choice, one that could be reversed through decolonial policies, legal personhood for ecosystems, and public campaigns that restore ecological humility. The *trickster* dimension exposes the absurdity of framing this as a ‘war’ between species rather than a reckoning with human hubris, while Indigenous and marginalized voices demand that solutions center justice, not just survival.