The reading for
this weekend talked about the influence of the United States’ system of
national and state parks on other countries.
Although it is wonderful that the United States has inspired other
countries to protect their wild spaces, it has not been without harm, and this
is what stood out to me. The specific
case of a game preserve in Botswana was mentioned, and the conflict that ensued
was eerily reminiscent of the encounters between the Native Americans and the
settlers. The government could not decide
if the native tribes should be considered people or wildlife. For me this question is representative of a
much larger issue. If all people are not
wildlife, then how can some people be considered wildlife? This implies that they are animalistic and
uncivilized, but this all depends on one’s definition of “civilized”. Ultimately it was decided that these
indigenous were in fact people who were simply lacking civilization, or their
preconceived, singular definition of civilization. These people were moved off of their land
against their will and force-fed a custom that was not theirs. People who had lived on the land for generations
were brutally evicted so that the land could be preserved. This pattern of removing indigenous people so
that parks can be established is inhumane.
By doing this, governments are forcing people to abandon their
traditions and way of life that is vital to their identities. With every tribe that is removed in this way,
the world becomes more homogeneous and flat.
So how does this relate to the Adirondacks? Although the majority of the park system in
the United States does not include people, the Adirondack Park does. Can these new parks look to the Adirondacks
as a model to include these indigenous tribes, while still considering them
people and respecting their cultures and traditions? I hope they can. Although it leads to conflict and paradox,
the inhabitance of the Adirondacks has ultimately been successful and should
serve as a beacon of hope for tolerance and diversity in a world that is
becoming increasingly uniform. Not only
is it important to preserve the land, but also its inhabitants, tradition, and
culture.
Upon further
research I found more updated information on this issue. According to
Survival International in 2006 the Bushman of Botswana’s Central Kalahari Game
Reserve won “a landmark case against the government, giving them the right to
return to their ancestral land after they were forcibly evicted”, but since
then "the government has done everything it
can to make their return impossible". According to a BBC
article from 2014, “The government says the
restriction of people on the land is intended to preserve the wildlife and the
ecosystems of the vast reserve, which is slightly bigger than Denmark”
(Fihlani). But there is much suspicion that the land will be use to mine
diamonds, and the impact of the Bushmen on the environment is minimal.
Fihlani notes, “the Bushmen argue that their years of living in harmony with
the environment prove that their ways are ecologically sustainable”. The
Bushmen are now being exposed to drugs and alcohol, AIDS, teen pregnancies, and
a whole host of other issues that come with "modern" society. Roy Sesana says, “we are now dependent on government handouts:
we are being made stupid and lazy”. Thankfully, progress has been made,
but there are still battles to be won. In our ever-expanding society, it
is vital that we protect the wild lands that are still intact, but we must always
keep in mind the costs of these measures and be willing to make compromises, as
I believe the Adirondacks have done so well.
There is so much more to this issue that I did not include - here are two really good sources:
http://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes/bushmen
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-24821867
