9. Water

edited April 2020 in Environment

Today on Zoom we're going to be hearing from Barbara Rose Johnston http://www.centerforpoliticalecology.org/researchers/bjohnston.html/ Barbara’s work on nuclear and hydroelectric power is… powerful. She’s most famous for her 1994 book Who Pays the Price but for today I’ll have you read about her amazing work on the Chixoy Dam in Guatemala:

Johnston, Barbara Rose. 2017. “Action-Research and Environmental Justice: Lessons from Guatemala’s Chixoy Dam” in Routledge Companion to the Environmental Humanities by Ursula Heise and Jon Christensen (eds.). New York: Routledge.

This class was originally meant to be much longer. In addition to the chapter above, choose two more things to read. You can choose to read more about water (I put that first) or move on to what ever other topics you really wish we had been able to get to in this class. You only need to make 2 posts today, please make one of them about the topic you chose to read about, and at least one in response to each other. As well, if you want to continue the discussion from the zoom class, please do! You can certainly do more than 2 posts if you like for extra credit.

Choose any 2 articles/chapters:

Water

Johnston, Barbara Rose. 2018. “Large-Scale Dam Development and Counter Movements: Water Justice Struggles Among Guatemala’s Chixoy Dam” pp 169-186 in Water Justice by Tutgerd Boelens, Tom Perreault and Jeoren Vos (eds.). Cambridge University Press.

Piper, Karen. “2. How a Coup Opened Chile’s Water Markets” The Price of Thirst.

Armoudian, Maria. “The Quiet Dismantling of Clean Water Regulations”

World Commission on Dams Dams and Development. (this is a 356 page report, but I wanted to include it for reference as it is the definitive document on the impacts of hydroelectric power. Feel free to read as little or much of it as you want, and count it for 1-3 articles depending on how much you read)

Soy

“4. Bolivia: emerging and traditional elites and the governance of the soy sector” in Environmental Politics in Latin America by Benedicted Bull and Mariel Aguilar-Stoen (eds).

“5. Argentina: government-agribusiness elite dynamics and its consequences for environmental governance” in Environmental Politics in Latin America by Benedicted Bull and Mariel Aguilar-Stoen (eds).

“6. Ecuador: changing biosafety frames and new political forces in Correa’s government.” in Environmental Politics in Latin America by Benedicted Bull and Mariel Aguilar-Stoen (eds).

Fumigation and the War on Drugs

Lyons, Kristina. “Decomposition as Life Politics” Cultural Anthropology.

Deforestation
Bates, Diane. “Deforestation in Ecuador” The Ecuador Reader.

“11. State governments and forest policy: a new elite in the Brazilian Amazon?” in Environmental Politics in Latin America by Benedicted Bull and Mariel Aguilar-Stoen (eds).

Chiapas

Howard, Philip. “The History of Ecological Marginalization in Chiapas” Environmental History.

Collier, George. Basta! (multiple chapters)

Barry, Tom. Zapata’s Revenge. (multiple chapters)

Climate Change

Goldenberg, Suzanne (2013) “America’s First Climate Refugees” The Guardian <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2013/may/13/newtok-alaska-climate-change-refugees > these are short, you need to follow the links to all the parts in order for it to count as a single article.

Comments

  • Besides Barbara Rose Johnston's article, I chose to read Kristina Lyons' "Decomposition as Life Politics" and Philip Howard's "The History of Ecological Marginalization in Chiapas."

    I found Lyon's article to be intriguing for its poetic wording and unexpected content. When I chose her piece, I was expecting the emphasis of it to be on the coca drug trade, as the title suggests. She does go into detail about the U.S.-Colombian War on Drugs and the 2000 initiative by Plan Colombia to fund aerial fumigation of coca plots. Still, the focus of the article diverges from there onto Andean-Amazonian farming practices. While very interesting to learn about 'selva' agriculture that recognizes the toxic state of the soil because of national fumigation with glyphosate and how to counteract that with 'fodder' crop, I wanted to know more about the coca industry. Lyons briefly mentions how 'cocaleros' (coca growers) are criminalized for their practice and seen as ineligible for humanitarian efforts because their farming is illegal. However, their turning to coca crops to make money is partly because the state did not provide the market-oriented substitute crops they promised. These farmers are victims in various ways. They are subject to systematic violence from the government and guerilla groups like FARC, poverty, and health crises from fumigation. I just wished that she expanded upon this view of the coca growers as neither accepted by the government but also alienated from EJ and social justice work. I had never considered that point before and am personally interested in reading the grittier ethnographic/anthropologic research that exposes the lifestyles of marginalized groups like drug dealers and prostitutes.

  • For one of my readings, I read about deforestation in Ecuador. Bates dispels a couple myths about deforestation in Ecuador, one of which I found particularly interesting. Bates discusses that the people there (deforesting) do know what they are doing. She explains that they are well aware of the ecological impacts, and chose to do it anyway. She explains that unless there are viable economic alternatives, the people of the region see no need to stop. This was just very interesting to me, because while I had thought about the economic pressure on many people to continue completing ecological harms, I had never really considered that they had a full picture of the ecological harms done.

  • edited April 2020

    @caroline22 said:
    For one of my readings, I read about deforestation in Ecuador. Bates dispels a couple myths about deforestation in Ecuador, one of which I found particularly interesting. Bates discusses that the people there (deforesting) do know what they are doing. She explains that they are well aware of the ecological impacts, and chose to do it anyway. She explains that unless there are viable economic alternatives, the people of the region see no need to stop. This was just very interesting to me, because while I had thought about the economic pressure on many people to continue completing ecological harms, I had never really considered that they had a full picture of the ecological harms done.

    Unfortunately, this is a common misconception in the Anthropological field, particular when someone's interpretation is from an "etic" perspective rather than an "emic" one. By "etic" I mean when the observer is not apart of the social group under consideration but rather is an outsider looking in. "Emic" on the other hand would be from perspective of the subject themselves. To me it seems that all too often, outsiders automatically perceive communities to which they don't belong as not understanding the scope of the effects of their own positions or actions, espcially when referring to communities outside of the Industrialized West. However, vulnerable communities who experience ecological devastation most seriously, or communities who participate in the aforementioned environmental destruction, are neither necessarily passive nor ignorant. As Bates explains, the people engaging in deforestation, for example, are aware of the consequences of their actions. Vulnerable communities both experience ecological devastation and participate in ecological devastation differently. But more importantly, where a commonality can be drawn is in the economic and political structures which compel such behavior. A community or person's own understanding of their ecological impact is not always enough to instigate change. It is the national and international hegemonic players who are responsible for these ecological impacts.

  • I read about environmental destruction in Ecuador and the impacts of oil. One thing that was really interesting about it was a discussion surrounding deforestation on the Ecuadorian amazon. Bates discusses how it's not agriculture or traditional deforestation thats causes a loss of ecosystems, it's oil. The trees in the Amazon are extremely diverse, there can be many different species in one plot of land which is not desirable to large scale logging. Oil on the other hand leads to construction of roads and access to the rainforest which which over time brings in more people and causes deforestation and destruction of the ecosystem. Another really interesting thing Bates discusses is the impact of Texaco on the region. It turns out they were drilling for oil without correctly disposing of toxic waste which was polluting the ecosystem and causes health issues. Bates discussed how this was causing cancers especially in children. What Texaco was doing was illegal and against their own standards for drilling.

  • @Madison said:
    I read about environmental destruction in Ecuador and the impacts of oil. One thing that was really interesting about it was a discussion surrounding deforestation on the Ecuadorian amazon. Bates discusses how it's not agriculture or traditional deforestation thats causes a loss of ecosystems, it's oil. The trees in the Amazon are extremely diverse, there can be many different species in one plot of land which is not desirable to large scale logging. Oil on the other hand leads to construction of roads and access to the rainforest which which over time brings in more people and causes deforestation and destruction of the ecosystem. Another really interesting thing Bates discusses is the impact of Texaco on the region. It turns out they were drilling for oil without correctly disposing of toxic waste which was polluting the ecosystem and causes health issues. Bates discussed how this was causing cancers especially in children. What Texaco was doing was illegal and against their own standards for drilling.

    I think that this observation ties in nicely with the discussion we had with Barbara Rose Johnston today when talking about how infrastructure projects can inevitably lead to natural resource extraction. What starts as a possible amenity to the community; better roads can be quickly utilized by companies to further economic agendas. Roads can help farmers with crop transportation to market, connect communities and relatives, and provide a safer route to get to medical help. However, as you mention with Texaco's oil operations, it also streamlines to the 'development' process, which in turn affects rural communities. I had not considered the diversity of the plants in the Amazon in the logging industry, which sounds stupid when put down on paper. It makes sense that because of the time it takes for hardwoods to grow and the variety of other species within a land plot in the jungle that it would be more of a 'gamble' as to how much money you can make off of one plot.

  • I liked how hydrodevelopment was contextualized in “Action-Research and Environmental Justice: Lessons from Guatemala’s Chixoy Dam.” The article first framed hydrodevelopment has being a solution to the seasonality and unpredictability of water as it occurs naturally in the environment. Additionally, it has provided electricity and power to cities and helped people access power/resources independent of the the landscapes they occupy. However, using hydrodevelopment to unbound humans from the environments which they occupy has serious consequences and ultimately upholds the reliance and reinforces the continuation of hydrodeveopment. Such a cycle deteriorates local ecologies in which hydrodevelopments exist while inflating economic concentration to a select few who have no direct connection to the ecologies their exploitation takes place in. The pervading narrative around hydrodevelopment or renewable energy in general has been as a positive alternative to fracking and like-practices. However, as stated in this article, hydrodevelopment also has profound deleterious effects.

  • @cara said:
    I liked how hydrodevelopment was contextualized in “Action-Research and Environmental Justice: Lessons from Guatemala’s Chixoy Dam.” The article first framed hydrodevelopment has being a solution to the seasonality and unpredictability of water as it occurs naturally in the environment. Additionally, it has provided electricity and power to cities and helped people access power/resources independent of the the landscapes they occupy. However, using hydrodevelopment to unbound humans from the environments which they occupy has serious consequences and ultimately upholds the reliance and reinforces the continuation of hydrodeveopment. Such a cycle deteriorates local ecologies in which hydrodevelopments exist while inflating economic concentration to a select few who have no direct connection to the ecologies their exploitation takes place in. The pervading narrative around hydrodevelopment or renewable energy in general has been as a positive alternative to fracking and like-practices. However, as stated in this article, hydrodevelopment also has profound deleterious effects.

    I also ready this article, and had very similar reactions. Something I thought about was what you said about the inflation of economic concentration to the select few. One of the biggest challenges with environmental justice to me, is combating the economic support things like hydrodevelopment can bring to the indigenous/local residents of an area. Its this frustrating catch 22 where even the economic support given to the local people, keeping them unable to not support the projects, doesn't even compare to the wealth received by the "select few."

  • @cara said:

    @caroline22 said:
    For one of my readings, I read about deforestation in Ecuador. Bates dispels a couple myths about deforestation in Ecuador, one of which I found particularly interesting. Bates discusses that the people there (deforesting) do know what they are doing. She explains that they are well aware of the ecological impacts, and chose to do it anyway. She explains that unless there are viable economic alternatives, the people of the region see no need to stop. This was just very interesting to me, because while I had thought about the economic pressure on many people to continue completing ecological harms, I had never really considered that they had a full picture of the ecological harms done.

    Unfortunately, this is a common misconception in the Anthropological field, particular when someone's interpretation is from an "etic" perspective rather than an "emic" one. By "etic" I mean when the observer is not apart of the social group under consideration but rather is an outsider looking in. "Emic" on the other hand would be from perspective of the subject themselves. To me it seems that all too often, outsiders automatically perceive communities to which they don't belong as not understanding the scope of the effects of their own positions or actions, espcially when referring to communities outside of the Industrialized West. However, vulnerable communities who experience ecological devastation most seriously, or communities who participate in the aforementioned environmental destruction, are neither necessarily passive nor ignorant. As Bates explains, the people engaging in deforestation, for example, are aware of the consequences of their actions. Vulnerable communities both experience ecological devastation and participate in ecological devastation differently. But more importantly, where a commonality can be drawn is in the economic and political structures which compel such behavior. A community or person's own understanding of their ecological impact is not always enough to instigate change. It is the national and international hegemonic players who are responsible for these ecological impacts.

    I've never heard of the "etic" vs "emic" perspectives, thanks for introducing this. These are all great points. My comment in and of itself proves these concepts... in the past I think I have found peace in disregarding the intelligence of people who support such disastrous and destructive projects. It could almost be perceived as some sort of coping mechanism. What I hadn't considered is that in doing this, I also have applied this thought process to the local people, which for whatever reason, feels much more unethical.

  • The chapter "Argentina: government-agribusiness elite dynamics and its consequences for environmental governance by Benedicted Bull and Mariel Aguilar-Stoen was a really deep insight on GM soy in Argentina and the historical and political background with it. I found it quite intresting that for the writer the general population of Argentina agreed or was not even aware of GM soy since I was very much aware of many social and environmnetal movements against it and mostly regarding Monsanto in Argentina. Nevertheless, I do realize that this might have change during the last years of Kitchner government and the following Macri's government which was not analyzed in the text. During these years realtionships between the agro-elite and the government started to be better due to the economic needs of the moment and afterwards due to the more neliberal policies of Macri, which created a stronger social response against agro business.

    Another point of relevance in the analysis of soy in Argentina was the division between 3 main elites: the “agro industrial elite,” the “rural elite” and the “agro-enterprise elite” whose power are formed by different factors that depend in history, the government, and economics. Also, ech of these elite see environmental issues and its relevance differently. For example the "rural elite" are the owners of the land, and eventhough they made need others' investments to be able to grow soy in their land, they care about environmental issues because they want their land to be productive in the long run. Nevertheless, the "agro-enterprise elite" is completely dependent on large-scale monocropping of GM soy, which is the main source of their current power, and therefore do not care about environmental issues. I sometimes see the "elite" as its own enemy, when in fact there are big contradictions even within itself which can be really benefitial for social and environmental movements to analyze more in-depth for its benefit. And I believe that a very similar analysis can be made of other environmnetal issues.

    Also there is a similr imperilist issue within GM soy which is the dependence on internaitonal corporations for economic growth. The production of GM soy generates approximately one tenth of the GDP and one fourth of the nation’s export value, and this gives a lot of power to the people involved in its production which limits how environmental responses can be made. Monoculture and GM in general have a number of different impacts, but the political and economic agenda always seems more powerfull.

  • I read Piper's article about the "water market" in Chile. Essentially during the Pinochet regime, all water rights became privatized, allowing for water to essentially be treated like property. The Italian company bought a huge amount of the rights to water use in Chile, and proceeded to displace numerous indigenous communities in favor of dams and other hydrodevelopment projects. Control of the land was in the hands of a foreign corporation. It was interesting to read this article after reading the piece on consultation. There seemed to be little to no consultation in these instances and resistance to corporations attempts at displacing people were met with incredibly harsh measures by the State.
    I also learned about the ways framing in media within the U.S. can effect people's understanding of science-based policy, in this case water issues. The authors asserted that framing emphasizes the political battle and drama of policy, rather than focusing on the actual content. That definitely feels true to me, I think something that can happen a lot is a sort of focus on the partisan battle and less emphasis on how policy can make or break people's livelihoods. This can make people less inclined to demand policy that would actually work for them, either because it doesn't fall along party lines or because the content of the policy doesn't seem important anymore, rather who can "win" the battle.

  • @cara said:
    I liked how hydrodevelopment was contextualized in “Action-Research and Environmental Justice: Lessons from Guatemala’s Chixoy Dam.” The article first framed hydrodevelopment has being a solution to the seasonality and unpredictability of water as it occurs naturally in the environment. Additionally, it has provided electricity and power to cities and helped people access power/resources independent of the the landscapes they occupy. However, using hydrodevelopment to unbound humans from the environments which they occupy has serious consequences and ultimately upholds the reliance and reinforces the continuation of hydrodeveopment. Such a cycle deteriorates local ecologies in which hydrodevelopments exist while inflating economic concentration to a select few who have no direct connection to the ecologies their exploitation takes place in. The pervading narrative around hydrodevelopment or renewable energy in general has been as a positive alternative to fracking and like-practices. However, as stated in this article, hydrodevelopment also has profound deleterious effects.

    I think the issues regarding dams as a sustainable energy are interesting to discuss because we've grown up regarding dams as a "clean" source of energy. Before this class I knew about the ecological consequences of dams but I didn't know how harmful they were to indigenous communities. It seems like many of our energy sources end up putting vulnerable communities at risk for those who are wealthier. I wonder what the solution will be to this? No one wants environmental destruction in their neighborhood, I think we need a major shift in where we our energy from but I am fearful we will damage the ecology surrounding of every resource before we get to that point.

  • edited April 2020

    @Madison said:
    I think the issues regarding dams as a sustainable energy are interesting to discuss because we've grown up regarding dams as a "clean" source of energy. Before this class I knew about the ecological consequences of dams but I didn't know how harmful they were to indigenous communities. It seems like many of our energy sources end up putting vulnerable communities at risk for those who are wealthier. I wonder what the solution will be to this? No one wants environmental destruction in their neighborhood, I think we need a major shift in where we our energy from but I am fearful we will damage the ecology surrounding of every resource before we get to that point.

    Albert Acosta, and Ecuadorean environmentalist and economist, has addressed your question a bit. We met with him during our Indigenous Environmental Activism in the Ecuadorian Amazon class over the summer which was also taught by Josh. Acosta is a proponent of Buen Vivir (we learned about this earlier in the block) and from what I remember, proposed a "degrowth" model. Instead of turning to "renewable" or "sustainable" energy sources to meet rising demands, Acosta proposed extractive players should minimize their necessity to extract, thus releasing extraction sites and their corresponding communities/ecologies from the damages it causes. Simply put, reducing growth or halting it all together would be a good starting point in remedying what has been imposed on the ecologies and indigenous peoples in extracted areas.

    Josh I hope I didn't bastardize that, I'm going off of memory.

  • @charlotte said:
    I read Piper's article about the "water market" in Chile. Essentially during the Pinochet regime, all water rights became privatized, allowing for water to essentially be treated like property. The Italian company bought a huge amount of the rights to water use in Chile, and proceeded to displace numerous indigenous communities in favor of dams and other hydrodevelopment projects. Control of the land was in the hands of a foreign corporation. It was interesting to read this article after reading the piece on consultation. There seemed to be little to no consultation in these instances and resistance to corporations attempts at displacing people were met with incredibly harsh measures by the State.
    I also learned about the ways framing in media within the U.S. can effect people's understanding of science-based policy, in this case water issues. The authors asserted that framing emphasizes the political battle and drama of policy, rather than focusing on the actual content. That definitely feels true to me, I think something that can happen a lot is a sort of focus on the partisan battle and less emphasis on how policy can make or break people's livelihoods. This can make people less inclined to demand policy that would actually work for them, either because it doesn't fall along party lines or because the content of the policy doesn't seem important anymore, rather who can "win" the battle.

    I was really tempted to read that text too, I can honly imagine that if indegenous communities in Chile are still treated horribly in a modern democracies they went through horrible things during dictatorship. In Uruguay, indiegenous communities are non existent, but the descendents of Charruas formed their own organizations and joined communist and socialist movements that led to their persecution during the dictatorship. In Argentina many of indegenous people dissapeared during the dictatorship after many year fighting for their rights. In a context of a complete suspension of human rights, I see why indegenous people fighitn against international coorporations can be the first threat to the government. Many environmnetal activists were tortured and killed by the government, and yea consultation was really non existent. I believe that just makes it more relevant for it to exist nowadays since it is at least a small step into the right direction.

  • @cara said:

    @caroline22 said:
    For one of my readings, I read about deforestation in Ecuador. Bates dispels a couple myths about deforestation in Ecuador, one of which I found particularly interesting. Bates discusses that the people there (deforesting) do know what they are doing. She explains that they are well aware of the ecological impacts, and chose to do it anyway. She explains that unless there are viable economic alternatives, the people of the region see no need to stop. This was just very interesting to me, because while I had thought about the economic pressure on many people to continue completing ecological harms, I had never really considered that they had a full picture of the ecological harms done.

    Unfortunately, this is a common misconception in the Anthropological field, particular when someone's interpretation is from an "etic" perspective rather than an "emic" one. By "etic" I mean when the observer is not apart of the social group under consideration but rather is an outsider looking in. "Emic" on the other hand would be from perspective of the subject themselves. To me it seems that all too often, outsiders automatically perceive communities to which they don't belong as not understanding the scope of the effects of their own positions or actions, espcially when referring to communities outside of the Industrialized West. However, vulnerable communities who experience ecological devastation most seriously, or communities who participate in the aforementioned environmental destruction, are neither necessarily passive nor ignorant. As Bates explains, the people engaging in deforestation, for example, are aware of the consequences of their actions. Vulnerable communities both experience ecological devastation and participate in ecological devastation differently. But more importantly, where a commonality can be drawn is in the economic and political structures which compel such behavior. A community or person's own understanding of their ecological impact is not always enough to instigate change. It is the national and international hegemonic players who are responsible for these ecological impacts.

    I think this issue really happens when looking at indegenous communities that do choose for extraction. I think it is important to do not assume everyone wants the same, but to also look fot those natinal and international hegemonic player that are the main responsibles. Many of these communities have been exposed to the world market without their will for hundreds of year through slavery, taxtion, wage work, industralization, etc. and that is a huge impact that today created a completely different relations from this communities to the market, and therefore to extractive actions.

  • I also read Piper's article and on privatization of water in Chile. I chose this article because I've studied privatized water in Kibera, a slum of Nairobi, vastly. This was a very similar case to that in Kibera and I was disappointed. I think privatizing is one of the absolute worst things you can do for the impoverished in a country as it creates problems long past the return of water rights. In Kibera, water is sold for 10 times the price that it is to wealthy people and causes a lot of death and destruction in the area.

  • @cara said:
    Unfortunately, this is a common misconception in the Anthropological field, particular when someone's interpretation is from an "etic" perspective rather than an "emic" one. By "etic" I mean when the observer is not apart of the social group under consideration but rather is an outsider looking in. "Emic" on the other hand would be from perspective of the subject themselves. To me it seems that all too often, outsiders automatically perceive communities to which they don't belong as not understanding the scope of the effects of their own positions or actions, espcially when referring to communities outside of the Industrialized West. However, vulnerable communities who experience ecological devastation most seriously, or communities who participate in the aforementioned environmental destruction, are neither necessarily passive nor ignorant. As Bates explains, the people engaging in deforestation, for example, are aware of the consequences of their actions. Vulnerable communities both experience ecological devastation and participate in ecological devastation differently. But more importantly, where a commonality can be drawn is in the economic and political structures which compel such behavior. A community or person's own understanding of their ecological impact is not always enough to instigate change. It is the national and international hegemonic players who are responsible for these ecological impacts.

    I think this is a really important point that a lot of people don't realize. A lot of the time these people working deforesting, mining, etc. jobs don't have a choice. They have to work to support their family even while these jobs are often dangerous. Also, communities are often very vulnerable after their land is taken away so taking land is basically giving these corporations employees.

  • @Julieta said:

    @cara said:

    @caroline22 said:
    For one of my readings, I read about deforestation in Ecuador. Bates dispels a couple myths about deforestation in Ecuador, one of which I found particularly interesting. Bates discusses that the people there (deforesting) do know what they are doing. She explains that they are well aware of the ecological impacts, and chose to do it anyway. She explains that unless there are viable economic alternatives, the people of the region see no need to stop. This was just very interesting to me, because while I had thought about the economic pressure on many people to continue completing ecological harms, I had never really considered that they had a full picture of the ecological harms done.

    Unfortunately, this is a common misconception in the Anthropological field, particular when someone's interpretation is from an "etic" perspective rather than an "emic" one. By "etic" I mean when the observer is not apart of the social group under consideration but rather is an outsider looking in. "Emic" on the other hand would be from perspective of the subject themselves. To me it seems that all too often, outsiders automatically perceive communities to which they don't belong as not understanding the scope of the effects of their own positions or actions, espcially when referring to communities outside of the Industrialized West. However, vulnerable communities who experience ecological devastation most seriously, or communities who participate in the aforementioned environmental destruction, are neither necessarily passive nor ignorant. As Bates explains, the people engaging in deforestation, for example, are aware of the consequences of their actions. Vulnerable communities both experience ecological devastation and participate in ecological devastation differently. But more importantly, where a commonality can be drawn is in the economic and political structures which compel such behavior. A community or person's own understanding of their ecological impact is not always enough to instigate change. It is the national and international hegemonic players who are responsible for these ecological impacts.

    I think this issue really happens when looking at indegenous communities that do choose for extraction. I think it is important to do not assume everyone wants the same, but to also look fot those natinal and international hegemonic player that are the main responsibles. Many of these communities have been exposed to the world market without their will for hundreds of year through slavery, taxtion, wage work, industralization, etc. and that is a huge impact that today created a completely different relations from this communities to the market, and therefore to extractive actions.

    What both of you are saying is really key. There's a lot of conversations around just transitions right now, which feels particularly relevant. It's fundamental to understand the factors at stake for community members and not presume that ecological degradation is of top priority. Just transitions speak to ensuring jobs and livelihood when moving away from projects of extraction or to different energy sources. I think that conversation sort of misses the mark though by assuming that going through the transition itself is always a justifiable act so long as those things are guaranteed in the end.

  • I read Lyons's article chronicling the Columbian governments actions in pursuit of the War on Drugs. The antidrug policy enforced by the government quickly turned repressive, as small farming communities were ignored, and forced to alter their entire way of life. In order ensure the end to coca production the Columbian government began spraying large areas with herbicides, but these chemicals also led to the destruction of any other form of agriculture. As farmers tried to transition to different crops, their yields continued to be destroyed by these herbicides, creating food shortage and encroaching on communities' ability to sell their products locally. These fumigations created a great wave of uncertainty, never knowing when the next spray may hit, and destroy the well earned fruits of their labor. Lyons also explores the fascinating point of the larger cycle of life in the forest, and the importance of death and decomposition. By destroying and removing these plants they are not permitted to further contribute to the forest in their death. It was a really interesting piece, I would highly recommend! I really had no idea of the way the War on Drugs impacted smaller communities in Columbia, having only heard about conflict with cartels. This article really widened my perspective on a very complex issue.

  • @cara said:

    @caroline22 said:
    For one of my readings, I read about deforestation in Ecuador. Bates dispels a couple myths about deforestation in Ecuador, one of which I found particularly interesting. Bates discusses that the people there (deforesting) do know what they are doing. She explains that they are well aware of the ecological impacts, and chose to do it anyway. She explains that unless there are viable economic alternatives, the people of the region see no need to stop. This was just very interesting to me, because while I had thought about the economic pressure on many people to continue completing ecological harms, I had never really considered that they had a full picture of the ecological harms done.

    Unfortunately, this is a common misconception in the Anthropological field, particular when someone's interpretation is from an "etic" perspective rather than an "emic" one. By "etic" I mean when the observer is not apart of the social group under consideration but rather is an outsider looking in. "Emic" on the other hand would be from perspective of the subject themselves. To me it seems that all too often, outsiders automatically perceive communities to which they don't belong as not understanding the scope of the effects of their own positions or actions, espcially when referring to communities outside of the Industrialized West. However, vulnerable communities who experience ecological devastation most seriously, or communities who participate in the aforementioned environmental destruction, are neither necessarily passive nor ignorant. As Bates explains, the people engaging in deforestation, for example, are aware of the consequences of their actions. Vulnerable communities both experience ecological devastation and participate in ecological devastation differently. But more importantly, where a commonality can be drawn is in the economic and political structures which compel such behavior. A community or person's own understanding of their ecological impact is not always enough to instigate change. It is the national and international hegemonic players who are responsible for these ecological impacts.

    @cara I had also never heard of these terms, and appreciate you bringing them up! I think analyzing the perspective in which a cultural characterization is coming from is critical. While many anthropologists choose to study a region and write from their perspective, chronicling their experience and observations this continues to perpetuate a one-dimensional view of vulnerable communities. I has a similar experience to @caroline22 while reading my article on the War on Drugs. I had only ever studied the impact on the US, and assumed that networks in Columbia resembled such stories as told by popular culture, those of cartels and the violence that ensues. However, I had never considered smaller communities cultivating the coca plant for their own communities and its healing abilities, and the devastation they faced due to the War on Drugs.

  • @fionaw said:

    @cara said:
    Unfortunately, this is a common misconception in the Anthropological field, particular when someone's interpretation is from an "etic" perspective rather than an "emic" one. By "etic" I mean when the observer is not apart of the social group under consideration but rather is an outsider looking in. "Emic" on the other hand would be from perspective of the subject themselves. To me it seems that all too often, outsiders automatically perceive communities to which they don't belong as not understanding the scope of the effects of their own positions or actions, espcially when referring to communities outside of the Industrialized West. However, vulnerable communities who experience ecological devastation most seriously, or communities who participate in the aforementioned environmental destruction, are neither necessarily passive nor ignorant. As Bates explains, the people engaging in deforestation, for example, are aware of the consequences of their actions. Vulnerable communities both experience ecological devastation and participate in ecological devastation differently. But more importantly, where a commonality can be drawn is in the economic and political structures which compel such behavior. A community or person's own understanding of their ecological impact is not always enough to instigate change. It is the national and international hegemonic players who are responsible for these ecological impacts.

    I think this is a really important point that a lot of people don't realize. A lot of the time these people working deforesting, mining, etc. jobs don't have a choice. They have to work to support their family even while these jobs are often dangerous. Also, communities are often very vulnerable after their land is taken away so taking land is basically giving these corporations employees.

    I totally agree with this and think this is where the idea of sovereignty comes into play. Ultimately, it's not an outside decision on whether the industry should be allowed to profit off of a vulnerable community, it's that of the community.Some of the problematic views that Cara is highlighting can be especially frustrating to witness given the intentional ways in which governments have put vulnerable communities in the position of being asked to decide between economic benefit and ecological/human impact. With actual paid reparations at this point, and a focus on eliminating those factors which have made "vulnerable communities" vulnerable to begin with, people might have more agency to choose something that seems "environmentally friendly," not always but likely more of the time than we see now. I know that's not a small task to take on. My research paper dealt with this pretty directly so I've been thinking about this a lot.

  • @cara said:

    @Madison said:
    I think the issues regarding dams as a sustainable energy are interesting to discuss because we've grown up regarding dams as a "clean" source of energy. Before this class I knew about the ecological consequences of dams but I didn't know how harmful they were to indigenous communities. It seems like many of our energy sources end up putting vulnerable communities at risk for those who are wealthier. I wonder what the solution will be to this? No one wants environmental destruction in their neighborhood, I think we need a major shift in where we our energy from but I am fearful we will damage the ecology surrounding of every resource before we get to that point.

    Albert Acosta, and Ecuadorean environmentalist and economist, has addressed your question a bit. We met with him during our Indigenous Environmental Activism in the Ecuadorian Amazon class over the summer which was also taught by Josh. Acosta is a proponent of Buen Vivir (we learned about this earlier in the block) and from what I remember, proposed a "degrowth" model. Instead of turning to "renewable" or "sustainable" energy sources to meet rising demands, Acosta proposed extractive players should minimize their necessity to extract, thus releasing extraction sites and their corresponding communities/ecologies from the damages it causes. Simply put, reducing growth or halting it all together would be a good starting point in remedying what has been imposed on the ecologies and indigenous peoples in extracted areas.

    Josh I hope I didn't bastardize that, I'm going off of memory.

    You did a good job!

Sign In or Register to comment.