@joshua said: @caroline22 Haha, I actually think "give a fishing rod, not just a fish" leaves out the fact that indigenous people know how to fish way better than you do already (I know that from first hand experience digging up worms and still failing to catch anything while living deep in the Amazon). I think one of the big challenges for US-based environmental organizations is paternalism-- we're indoctrinated from birth with a superiority complex that's not easy to undo--and instead of figuring out what we can teach people, we should be figuring out how we can serve them. There are things we know, things we have access to, places where our voice matters quite a bit, so I think taking a more egalitarian approach to not only sharing what we know, but first listening and learning and thinking about how we can best fit in to local objectives is absolutely key to being on the right side of things.
Like Julietta said: land rights in the 80s was a huge win in Ecuador, and very unusual. The key here was that they were collective land rights (if it hadn't be collective, individuals would sell of the land in a heartbeat and we'd see the same displacement, inequality and in some cases extinction we see everywhere else). The legal convention for land rights in almost every country is that they are not granted subsurface land rights-- you get what's over the land but not under it. However, this is where consent plays into the picture as a key legal issue (we're talk a lot more about this later this week)
Colombia has a huge history of violence, which we'll also talk about in the final week. As for the rest of the Americas, Who's getting killed and where has a lot to do with what sorts of industry projects are going on at a given moment, and the road through the Brazilian Amazon is definitely ramping a death toll of murdered indigenous peoples.
Thanks Josh! The idea of paternalism is really interesting and such an issue. Thanks for correcting me on the quote usage. I am curious to hear more about the differentiation between teaching people and serving them? I am struggling to see why the concept of learning what we can teach is a negative thing? This could be exactly the paternalism and superiority complex your referring to, but it seems like there would be times where there are actual ideas/concepts that, in this example, the indigenous groups don't know about which could serve as incredibly beneficial to them in their battles. While I think it's wrong that oftentimes their approach to conflict and land management is valued as less than the governments, it oftentimes is. It just feels like in the current situation, grass-root work can support these indigenous groups by introducing them to new ideas and lines of knowledge.
Also, I couldn't personally come up with any and I'm really curious to know if there any critiques you have of Amazon Frontlines?
Is teaching inherently bad? I'm not sure where I fall on that (and I say that as a teacher who questions his own role).
There's definitely an inherent inequality to the way we generally approach education (for a really great book on this, and how to conduct education in a liberatory way check out Pedagogy of the Opressed by Paulo Freire-- he was exiled from Brazil for using his education techniques that focused on sharing knowledge in an empowering way instead of hierarchy).
This concept is one of (but not the only) core reason development fails over and over again. The way this plays out is you've got say a kajillion Peace Corp volunteers that go all over the world to do projects where they teach people things... things they might not want to know, things they might know better than you, things they might have chosen not to do for very good reasons. Be it building micro-enterprise or new techiniques for drying fish... if you go in with a hierarchical mindset, you are not likely to accomplish much, which is perfectly fine. Plenty of Peace Corp volunteers just chill for a couple of years content in not doing much of anything, which is much better than doing something damaging (aka some of the supremely disturbing Peace Corps health care initiatives, or USAID attempting to organize large scale timber companies in Costa Rica to be more effective in unraveling environmental regs).
Serving would be listening first, figuring out where you fit into the struggle (that the people you're talking to may very well know far more about that you do), and offering to contribute under their guidance. The difference, really, is who's in charge.
@Julieta said:
My topic about the new UPM pulp mill opening in Uruguay, is also an environmnetal justice issue. As with many of the topics before mentioned, there health consequences are going to have a different impact depending on class and race aspects that needs to be analized. These aspects work differently when talking about the international agreement itself, but also within the country. Colonization regarding this pulp mill, does not only imply from Ireland getting resources and profit out of Uruguay, but also how we are still centralizing resources in the capital, and the higher classes are still getting profited from other people's work. I want to explore more from an anthropological lense the perspective that there is between local people vs environmnetal activists regarding the debte of jobs vs. unemployment which is stated in Bullard's text. Also, the ways in which the change of government (from the left to right) has changed the discourse around this topic. So far international organization have played a passive role in this fight, which I want to analyze further, but my main point will be to go in depth on which actions have been taking by the grassroot movements and what has been the past left government response, which I find to be the most problematic part of all of this due to its ideological stance
The Coastal GasLink pipeline seems to have the same phemonenon at play. Left-wing governments seems so progressive until there is money to be made...
Exactly! I think that is why I would probably end up analyzing more the political aspect and grassroot movements than the roles of organizations in it. I feel like when issues are this small international NGOs are pretty passive and usually show support but do not do much. Not sure if it has been the same for your case since it is in Canada and International organizations usually care more about it? haha
@joshua said: @caroline22 Haha, I actually think "give a fishing rod, not just a fish" leaves out the fact that indigenous people know how to fish way better than you do already (I know that from first hand experience digging up worms and still failing to catch anything while living deep in the Amazon). I think one of the big challenges for US-based environmental organizations is paternalism-- we're indoctrinated from birth with a superiority complex that's not easy to undo--and instead of figuring out what we can teach people, we should be figuring out how we can serve them. There are things we know, things we have access to, places where our voice matters quite a bit, so I think taking a more egalitarian approach to not only sharing what we know, but first listening and learning and thinking about how we can best fit in to local objectives is absolutely key to being on the right side of things.
Like Julietta said: land rights in the 80s was a huge win in Ecuador, and very unusual. The key here was that they were collective land rights (if it hadn't be collective, individuals would sell of the land in a heartbeat and we'd see the same displacement, inequality and in some cases extinction we see everywhere else). The legal convention for land rights in almost every country is that they are not granted subsurface land rights-- you get what's over the land but not under it. However, this is where consent plays into the picture as a key legal issue (we're talk a lot more about this later this week)
Colombia has a huge history of violence, which we'll also talk about in the final week. As for the rest of the Americas, Who's getting killed and where has a lot to do with what sorts of industry projects are going on at a given moment, and the road through the Brazilian Amazon is definitely ramping a death toll of murdered indigenous peoples.
Thanks Josh! The idea of paternalism is really interesting and such an issue. Thanks for correcting me on the quote usage. I am curious to hear more about the differentiation between teaching people and serving them? I am struggling to see why the concept of learning what we can teach is a negative thing? This could be exactly the paternalism and superiority complex your referring to, but it seems like there would be times where there are actual ideas/concepts that, in this example, the indigenous groups don't know about which could serve as incredibly beneficial to them in their battles. While I think it's wrong that oftentimes their approach to conflict and land management is valued as less than the governments, it oftentimes is. It just feels like in the current situation, grass-root work can support these indigenous groups by introducing them to new ideas and lines of knowledge.
Also, I couldn't personally come up with any and I'm really curious to know if there any critiques you have of Amazon Frontlines?
Is teaching inherently bad? I'm not sure where I fall on that (and I say that as a teacher who questions his own role).
There's definitely an inherent inequality to the way we generally approach education (for a really great book on this, and how to conduct education in a liberatory way check out Pedagogy of the Opressed by Paulo Freire-- he was exiled from Brazil for using his education techniques that focused on sharing knowledge in an empowering way instead of hierarchy).
This concept is one of (but not the only) core reason development fails over and over again. The way this plays out is you've got say a kajillion Peace Corp volunteers that go all over the world to do projects where they teach people things... things they might not want to know, things they might know better than you, things they might have chosen not to do for very good reasons. Be it building micro-enterprise or new techiniques for drying fish... if you go in with a hierarchical mindset, you are not likely to accomplish much, which is perfectly fine. Plenty of Peace Corp volunteers just chill for a couple of years content in not doing much of anything, which is much better than doing something damaging (aka some of the supremely disturbing Peace Corps health care initiatives, or USAID attempting to organize large scale timber companies in Costa Rica to be more effective in unraveling environmental regs).
Serving would be listening first, figuring out where you fit into the struggle (that the people you're talking to may very well know far more about that you do), and offering to contribute under their guidance. The difference, really, is who's in charge.
This thread reminded me of the article on Human Rights Watch Report on Flint, regarding water rights and human rights. I believe is great to have some set ideas of how to better help communities in the frontline, and mostly regarding the "legal world". I have seen it here in Uruguay with grassroot movements, that sometimes they fail to talk in terms of human rights or of what is legal or not, and lose a big chance of win through it. Governments also take huge benefit of this, and either act "within the law" reading between the lines or without even reading it at all, and when that does not work they take indegenous communities to court expecting them to do not be able to pay it. To help financially and with knowledge in international and national law is key, but it also does not go in this one hierarchical manner of international NGOs doing this for them. Many members of this nations are lawyers, anthropologists, etc. In Ecuador, the Waorani had a Wao lawyer, and Nemonte (a Waorani leader) was studying to be an anthropologists.
I also feel like it is so bad that this education is a colonizing tool too, they need to do it in order to feel like they can better support their community. They traditional ways of living with their land and the value it has for them is not enough or valuable enough infront of international corportions and governments officials. We have this huge international consensus on Humanr Rights but we are unable to see them unless they name it by it?
@a_hipp said:
The environmental issue I selected, which involves the illegal killing of sharks in Costa Rica for the international fin trade, can be framed in terms of environmental justice. While I am looking at the policies such as CITES that protect shark species and the prevalence with which they are finned, the fisheries involved are also of great importance. I am trying to find a contact within the multi-generational fishing communities in Costa Rica to question their view of shark finning affecting their lifestyle. I am interested in how people who rely on fishing are penalized for shark by-catch with conservation policies and therefore react negatively to mainstream environmental shark conservation initiatives. The shark fin trade also affects their livelihoods in providing a market demand for sharks, which can lead to specific targeting of sharks by the fishermen who know their habitats the best. I think with an environmentalist approach, I am going to advocate for more inclusivity of non-mainstream organization representation by Costa Rican fisherman to increase when policies about shark conservation are discussed. If fishermen are included in the decision-making process, which will directly impact their economic situation and the make-up of their local reefs, then I believe locals with be more likely to adhere to shark conservation policies.
I like you're emphasis on inclusivity of non-mainstream organizations to bear on the shark fun subject. The effected groups of fisherman perhaps don't have as much political weight on the subject. I wonder how much of policy surround shark finning is a collaborative effort. The insidious effect of ecotourism is commonplace in Costa Rica but more blatant environmental abuses are less known about.
The issue I chose, the plans to conduct sulfide-ore copper nickel mining in the Minnesota Boundary Waters, can definitely be framed as an environmental justice issue. Although often discussed as a conservation issue, there are many towns along the border of the Boundary Waters which will disproportionately experience the costs of these actions. Ely, a small town dependent on the tourists who pass through on their way to the Wilderness will experience serious economic turmoil if the watershed is polluted. In addition, the potential contamination is extremely toxic and could lead to lifelong mental disabilities beginning while still in utero. While mining is being pitched as a net positive, due to the added employment for the labor force, the negatives are not being properly investigated. The pollution will continue leaking for hundreds of year, providing no window for remediation and resulting in the permanent disruption to the region.
@joshua said: @caroline22 Haha, I actually think "give a fishing rod, not just a fish" leaves out the fact that indigenous people know how to fish way better than you do already (I know that from first hand experience digging up worms and still failing to catch anything while living deep in the Amazon). I think one of the big challenges for US-based environmental organizations is paternalism-- we're indoctrinated from birth with a superiority complex that's not easy to undo--and instead of figuring out what we can teach people, we should be figuring out how we can serve them. There are things we know, things we have access to, places where our voice matters quite a bit, so I think taking a more egalitarian approach to not only sharing what we know, but first listening and learning and thinking about how we can best fit in to local objectives is absolutely key to being on the right side of things.
Like Julietta said: land rights in the 80s was a huge win in Ecuador, and very unusual. The key here was that they were collective land rights (if it hadn't be collective, individuals would sell of the land in a heartbeat and we'd see the same displacement, inequality and in some cases extinction we see everywhere else). The legal convention for land rights in almost every country is that they are not granted subsurface land rights-- you get what's over the land but not under it. However, this is where consent plays into the picture as a key legal issue (we're talk a lot more about this later this week)
Colombia has a huge history of violence, which we'll also talk about in the final week. As for the rest of the Americas, Who's getting killed and where has a lot to do with what sorts of industry projects are going on at a given moment, and the road through the Brazilian Amazon is definitely ramping a death toll of murdered indigenous peoples.
Thanks Josh! The idea of paternalism is really interesting and such an issue. Thanks for correcting me on the quote usage. I am curious to hear more about the differentiation between teaching people and serving them? I am struggling to see why the concept of learning what we can teach is a negative thing? This could be exactly the paternalism and superiority complex your referring to, but it seems like there would be times where there are actual ideas/concepts that, in this example, the indigenous groups don't know about which could serve as incredibly beneficial to them in their battles. While I think it's wrong that oftentimes their approach to conflict and land management is valued as less than the governments, it oftentimes is. It just feels like in the current situation, grass-root work can support these indigenous groups by introducing them to new ideas and lines of knowledge.
Also, I couldn't personally come up with any and I'm really curious to know if there any critiques you have of Amazon Frontlines?
Is teaching inherently bad? I'm not sure where I fall on that (and I say that as a teacher who questions his own role).
There's definitely an inherent inequality to the way we generally approach education (for a really great book on this, and how to conduct education in a liberatory way check out Pedagogy of the Opressed by Paulo Freire-- he was exiled from Brazil for using his education techniques that focused on sharing knowledge in an empowering way instead of hierarchy).
This concept is one of (but not the only) core reason development fails over and over again. The way this plays out is you've got say a kajillion Peace Corp volunteers that go all over the world to do projects where they teach people things... things they might not want to know, things they might know better than you, things they might have chosen not to do for very good reasons. Be it building micro-enterprise or new techiniques for drying fish... if you go in with a hierarchical mindset, you are not likely to accomplish much, which is perfectly fine. Plenty of Peace Corp volunteers just chill for a couple of years content in not doing much of anything, which is much better than doing something damaging (aka some of the supremely disturbing Peace Corps health care initiatives, or USAID attempting to organize large scale timber companies in Costa Rica to be more effective in unraveling environmental regs).
Serving would be listening first, figuring out where you fit into the struggle (that the people you're talking to may very well know far more about that you do), and offering to contribute under their guidance. The difference, really, is who's in charge.
I think that this whole thread is really interesting and does a great job of summarizing a really pressing issue in the Western side of activism. Another place where I see these types of issues is the huge trend of service projects for high school students. At least at my high school there were many students who signed up for programs which brought them to parts of Latin America to build schools and teach english. But an issue began to arise with all of these white high school students constructing buildings and then leaving, producing no infrastructure for these communities to continue benefitting from the space or really exchanging any knowledge. I was wondering what your take on these programs was Josh? If you see any benefit in them, or a way for these programs to evolve to actually serve a greater positive purpose?
@joshua said: @caroline22 Haha, I actually think "give a fishing rod, not just a fish" leaves out the fact that indigenous people know how to fish way better than you do already (I know that from first hand experience digging up worms and still failing to catch anything while living deep in the Amazon). I think one of the big challenges for US-based environmental organizations is paternalism-- we're indoctrinated from birth with a superiority complex that's not easy to undo--and instead of figuring out what we can teach people, we should be figuring out how we can serve them. There are things we know, things we have access to, places where our voice matters quite a bit, so I think taking a more egalitarian approach to not only sharing what we know, but first listening and learning and thinking about how we can best fit in to local objectives is absolutely key to being on the right side of things.
Like Julietta said: land rights in the 80s was a huge win in Ecuador, and very unusual. The key here was that they were collective land rights (if it hadn't be collective, individuals would sell of the land in a heartbeat and we'd see the same displacement, inequality and in some cases extinction we see everywhere else). The legal convention for land rights in almost every country is that they are not granted subsurface land rights-- you get what's over the land but not under it. However, this is where consent plays into the picture as a key legal issue (we're talk a lot more about this later this week)
Colombia has a huge history of violence, which we'll also talk about in the final week. As for the rest of the Americas, Who's getting killed and where has a lot to do with what sorts of industry projects are going on at a given moment, and the road through the Brazilian Amazon is definitely ramping a death toll of murdered indigenous peoples.
Thanks Josh! The idea of paternalism is really interesting and such an issue. Thanks for correcting me on the quote usage. I am curious to hear more about the differentiation between teaching people and serving them? I am struggling to see why the concept of learning what we can teach is a negative thing? This could be exactly the paternalism and superiority complex your referring to, but it seems like there would be times where there are actual ideas/concepts that, in this example, the indigenous groups don't know about which could serve as incredibly beneficial to them in their battles. While I think it's wrong that oftentimes their approach to conflict and land management is valued as less than the governments, it oftentimes is. It just feels like in the current situation, grass-root work can support these indigenous groups by introducing them to new ideas and lines of knowledge.
Also, I couldn't personally come up with any and I'm really curious to know if there any critiques you have of Amazon Frontlines?
Is teaching inherently bad? I'm not sure where I fall on that (and I say that as a teacher who questions his own role).
There's definitely an inherent inequality to the way we generally approach education (for a really great book on this, and how to conduct education in a liberatory way check out Pedagogy of the Opressed by Paulo Freire-- he was exiled from Brazil for using his education techniques that focused on sharing knowledge in an empowering way instead of hierarchy).
This concept is one of (but not the only) core reason development fails over and over again. The way this plays out is you've got say a kajillion Peace Corp volunteers that go all over the world to do projects where they teach people things... things they might not want to know, things they might know better than you, things they might have chosen not to do for very good reasons. Be it building micro-enterprise or new techiniques for drying fish... if you go in with a hierarchical mindset, you are not likely to accomplish much, which is perfectly fine. Plenty of Peace Corp volunteers just chill for a couple of years content in not doing much of anything, which is much better than doing something damaging (aka some of the supremely disturbing Peace Corps health care initiatives, or USAID attempting to organize large scale timber companies in Costa Rica to be more effective in unraveling environmental regs).
Serving would be listening first, figuring out where you fit into the struggle (that the people you're talking to may very well know far more about that you do), and offering to contribute under their guidance. The difference, really, is who's in charge.
I think that this whole thread is really interesting and does a great job of summarizing a really pressing issue in the Western side of activism. Another place where I see these types of issues is the huge trend of service projects for high school students. At least at my high school there were many students who signed up for programs which brought them to parts of Latin America to build schools and teach english. But an issue began to arise with all of these white high school students constructing buildings and then leaving, producing no infrastructure for these communities to continue benefitting from the space or really exchanging any knowledge. I was wondering what your take on these programs was Josh? If you see any benefit in them, or a way for these programs to evolve to actually serve a greater positive purpose?
I think what @joshua is saying about hierarchy and who is in charge is really key. Even with good intentions, people fail to acknowledge the ways some of their notions about hierarchy influence the way they enter a space and how they believe it's effective to organize. This goes beyond teaching but in solidarity work as well, some of the hierarchical structures many of us grew up with have themselves been systems which indigenous people were forced to assimilate into. Entering a space looking for a familiar means of ranking can do more harm than good.
@a_hipp said:
The environmental issue I selected, which involves the illegal killing of sharks in Costa Rica for the international fin trade, can be framed in terms of environmental justice. While I am looking at the policies such as CITES that protect shark species and the prevalence with which they are finned, the fisheries involved are also of great importance. I am trying to find a contact within the multi-generational fishing communities in Costa Rica to question their view of shark finning affecting their lifestyle. I am interested in how people who rely on fishing are penalized for shark by-catch with conservation policies and therefore react negatively to mainstream environmental shark conservation initiatives. The shark fin trade also affects their livelihoods in providing a market demand for sharks, which can lead to specific targeting of sharks by the fishermen who know their habitats the best. I think with an environmentalist approach, I am going to advocate for more inclusivity of non-mainstream organization representation by Costa Rican fisherman to increase when policies about shark conservation are discussed. If fishermen are included in the decision-making process, which will directly impact their economic situation and the make-up of their local reefs, then I believe locals with be more likely to adhere to shark conservation policies.
This seems like a really interesting issue and I don't much about it. Is the issue that local fisheries are being punished for shark by-catch and therefore aren't a fan of the conservation initiatives? I really like your idea of including more local voice in the decision making process regarding policy. I think that could help the fishing groups advocate for themselves. Are there different methods that could be used by the fisheries to reduce by-catch?
In some ways, the fisher community (mostly local pelagic fishermen, not larger-scale fisheries or international fisheries) feel cheated out of a way to earn money to support themselves with the 2012 Costa Rican total ban on shark fishing and finning. A lot of sharks are caught as bycatch, so it is in some ways unavoidable for some fishermen, and they then feel burdened with what to do with the sharks, especially if they can get money for it locally by selling the meat. I am looking at a survey done with three fisher communities in Costa Rica who feel disgruntled in this way, and the majority of fishers answered that they want to conserve the sharks but do not have the means to purchase fishing equipment that is less conducive to bycatch than their long-lines. They also reacted negatively in the study if asked if they would change their fishing technique or where they fished.
@a_hipp this is a really interesting dilemma, and I feel like one that comes up often with conservation efforts. While the effort to protect sharks is noble and critical, it seems as though there should be more efforts to provide affordable gear to these fishers, otherwise they are continuing to get penalized even though they want to comply. While different circumstances, this reminds me of the Columbian governments efforts during the war on drugs. In an attempt to remove all coca plants from the region they started fumigating with herbicides. While the efforts were meant to help halt violence in the region, it ended up really harming small scale farmers, by destroying their non coca plants. They were no longer able to make a living despite trying to oblige by the new regulations.
@joshua said: @caroline22 Haha, I actually think "give a fishing rod, not just a fish" leaves out the fact that indigenous people know how to fish way better than you do already (I know that from first hand experience digging up worms and still failing to catch anything while living deep in the Amazon). I think one of the big challenges for US-based environmental organizations is paternalism-- we're indoctrinated from birth with a superiority complex that's not easy to undo--and instead of figuring out what we can teach people, we should be figuring out how we can serve them. There are things we know, things we have access to, places where our voice matters quite a bit, so I think taking a more egalitarian approach to not only sharing what we know, but first listening and learning and thinking about how we can best fit in to local objectives is absolutely key to being on the right side of things.
Like Julietta said: land rights in the 80s was a huge win in Ecuador, and very unusual. The key here was that they were collective land rights (if it hadn't be collective, individuals would sell of the land in a heartbeat and we'd see the same displacement, inequality and in some cases extinction we see everywhere else). The legal convention for land rights in almost every country is that they are not granted subsurface land rights-- you get what's over the land but not under it. However, this is where consent plays into the picture as a key legal issue (we're talk a lot more about this later this week)
Colombia has a huge history of violence, which we'll also talk about in the final week. As for the rest of the Americas, Who's getting killed and where has a lot to do with what sorts of industry projects are going on at a given moment, and the road through the Brazilian Amazon is definitely ramping a death toll of murdered indigenous peoples.
Thanks Josh! The idea of paternalism is really interesting and such an issue. Thanks for correcting me on the quote usage. I am curious to hear more about the differentiation between teaching people and serving them? I am struggling to see why the concept of learning what we can teach is a negative thing? This could be exactly the paternalism and superiority complex your referring to, but it seems like there would be times where there are actual ideas/concepts that, in this example, the indigenous groups don't know about which could serve as incredibly beneficial to them in their battles. While I think it's wrong that oftentimes their approach to conflict and land management is valued as less than the governments, it oftentimes is. It just feels like in the current situation, grass-root work can support these indigenous groups by introducing them to new ideas and lines of knowledge.
Also, I couldn't personally come up with any and I'm really curious to know if there any critiques you have of Amazon Frontlines?
Is teaching inherently bad? I'm not sure where I fall on that (and I say that as a teacher who questions his own role).
There's definitely an inherent inequality to the way we generally approach education (for a really great book on this, and how to conduct education in a liberatory way check out Pedagogy of the Opressed by Paulo Freire-- he was exiled from Brazil for using his education techniques that focused on sharing knowledge in an empowering way instead of hierarchy).
This concept is one of (but not the only) core reason development fails over and over again. The way this plays out is you've got say a kajillion Peace Corp volunteers that go all over the world to do projects where they teach people things... things they might not want to know, things they might know better than you, things they might have chosen not to do for very good reasons. Be it building micro-enterprise or new techiniques for drying fish... if you go in with a hierarchical mindset, you are not likely to accomplish much, which is perfectly fine. Plenty of Peace Corp volunteers just chill for a couple of years content in not doing much of anything, which is much better than doing something damaging (aka some of the supremely disturbing Peace Corps health care initiatives, or USAID attempting to organize large scale timber companies in Costa Rica to be more effective in unraveling environmental regs).
Serving would be listening first, figuring out where you fit into the struggle (that the people you're talking to may very well know far more about that you do), and offering to contribute under their guidance. The difference, really, is who's in charge.
I think that this whole thread is really interesting and does a great job of summarizing a really pressing issue in the Western side of activism. Another place where I see these types of issues is the huge trend of service projects for high school students. At least at my high school there were many students who signed up for programs which brought them to parts of Latin America to build schools and teach english. But an issue began to arise with all of these white high school students constructing buildings and then leaving, producing no infrastructure for these communities to continue benefitting from the space or really exchanging any knowledge. I was wondering what your take on these programs was Josh? If you see any benefit in them, or a way for these programs to evolve to actually serve a greater positive purpose?
Sorry, I've been in transit and occupied the last few days.
I teach an Applied Anthropology class (very much a development anthropology class) that gets pretty deep into this very issue (assuming they have me back and ask me to teach the class).
I can't make a blanket statement about all these programs-- there may be a community that legitimately needs an extra set of hands for labor-- but very frequently these are rooted in a paternalistic, out-of-touch idea of what "underdeveloped" communities need. Westerners love to build schools-- in post-tsunami Indonesia, insane amounts of money went into building schools with no teachers and hospitals with no doctors, ultimately built from concrete that cut a mountain in half, operated by Chinese prison labor, and flooding the farms of people who lived nearby making their lives even harder all to dot the landscape with these empty monuments that, as you said, had no way of being maintained. This made local contractors very happy because they had jobs for a few months but only a tiny percent of the money stayed in country. It really made making the French mining company very wealthy and the bulk of the money went to the engineers of the governments providing the direction for the project.
The Sahara desert to the Amazon Rainforest are littered with the graves of development projects, some of which are like you described. There's one project to build toilets in the Amazon. There's no sewer treatment system and the pipes just go straight into the river so it's not providing a public health benefit (in fact it may be ensuring the water supply is more contaminated) and the pipes break regularly... giving the high school volunteers from Canada something to do year after year as they go to bring toilets to people who are perfectly happy to just use the forest-- mostly because there is no toilet paper and leaves are readily available outside. if you ask people they will say "yes!" they want toilets, but that's mostly because they want to get paid to host the volunteers or get paid to help build them, not because they actually want to use them.
So yes, this is a huge problem. That's not to say that you can't go somewhere and what they really need is some help building something. But you have to ask people what they need first
I reached the word limit for a post but essentially i said this:
But without some deep, collaborative planning, even ventures that are painted as "humanitarian" can be imperialistic. That's why it's also a good idea to both be flexible and have an anthropologist around to help you figure things out
Comments
Is teaching inherently bad? I'm not sure where I fall on that (and I say that as a teacher who questions his own role).
There's definitely an inherent inequality to the way we generally approach education (for a really great book on this, and how to conduct education in a liberatory way check out Pedagogy of the Opressed by Paulo Freire-- he was exiled from Brazil for using his education techniques that focused on sharing knowledge in an empowering way instead of hierarchy).
This concept is one of (but not the only) core reason development fails over and over again. The way this plays out is you've got say a kajillion Peace Corp volunteers that go all over the world to do projects where they teach people things... things they might not want to know, things they might know better than you, things they might have chosen not to do for very good reasons. Be it building micro-enterprise or new techiniques for drying fish... if you go in with a hierarchical mindset, you are not likely to accomplish much, which is perfectly fine. Plenty of Peace Corp volunteers just chill for a couple of years content in not doing much of anything, which is much better than doing something damaging (aka some of the supremely disturbing Peace Corps health care initiatives, or USAID attempting to organize large scale timber companies in Costa Rica to be more effective in unraveling environmental regs).
Serving would be listening first, figuring out where you fit into the struggle (that the people you're talking to may very well know far more about that you do), and offering to contribute under their guidance. The difference, really, is who's in charge.
Exactly! I think that is why I would probably end up analyzing more the political aspect and grassroot movements than the roles of organizations in it. I feel like when issues are this small international NGOs are pretty passive and usually show support but do not do much. Not sure if it has been the same for your case since it is in Canada and International organizations usually care more about it? haha
This thread reminded me of the article on Human Rights Watch Report on Flint, regarding water rights and human rights. I believe is great to have some set ideas of how to better help communities in the frontline, and mostly regarding the "legal world". I have seen it here in Uruguay with grassroot movements, that sometimes they fail to talk in terms of human rights or of what is legal or not, and lose a big chance of win through it. Governments also take huge benefit of this, and either act "within the law" reading between the lines or without even reading it at all, and when that does not work they take indegenous communities to court expecting them to do not be able to pay it. To help financially and with knowledge in international and national law is key, but it also does not go in this one hierarchical manner of international NGOs doing this for them. Many members of this nations are lawyers, anthropologists, etc. In Ecuador, the Waorani had a Wao lawyer, and Nemonte (a Waorani leader) was studying to be an anthropologists.
I also feel like it is so bad that this education is a colonizing tool too, they need to do it in order to feel like they can better support their community. They traditional ways of living with their land and the value it has for them is not enough or valuable enough infront of international corportions and governments officials. We have this huge international consensus on Humanr Rights but we are unable to see them unless they name it by it?
I like you're emphasis on inclusivity of non-mainstream organizations to bear on the shark fun subject. The effected groups of fisherman perhaps don't have as much political weight on the subject. I wonder how much of policy surround shark finning is a collaborative effort. The insidious effect of ecotourism is commonplace in Costa Rica but more blatant environmental abuses are less known about.
The issue I chose, the plans to conduct sulfide-ore copper nickel mining in the Minnesota Boundary Waters, can definitely be framed as an environmental justice issue. Although often discussed as a conservation issue, there are many towns along the border of the Boundary Waters which will disproportionately experience the costs of these actions. Ely, a small town dependent on the tourists who pass through on their way to the Wilderness will experience serious economic turmoil if the watershed is polluted. In addition, the potential contamination is extremely toxic and could lead to lifelong mental disabilities beginning while still in utero. While mining is being pitched as a net positive, due to the added employment for the labor force, the negatives are not being properly investigated. The pollution will continue leaking for hundreds of year, providing no window for remediation and resulting in the permanent disruption to the region.
I think that this whole thread is really interesting and does a great job of summarizing a really pressing issue in the Western side of activism. Another place where I see these types of issues is the huge trend of service projects for high school students. At least at my high school there were many students who signed up for programs which brought them to parts of Latin America to build schools and teach english. But an issue began to arise with all of these white high school students constructing buildings and then leaving, producing no infrastructure for these communities to continue benefitting from the space or really exchanging any knowledge. I was wondering what your take on these programs was Josh? If you see any benefit in them, or a way for these programs to evolve to actually serve a greater positive purpose?
I think what @joshua is saying about hierarchy and who is in charge is really key. Even with good intentions, people fail to acknowledge the ways some of their notions about hierarchy influence the way they enter a space and how they believe it's effective to organize. This goes beyond teaching but in solidarity work as well, some of the hierarchical structures many of us grew up with have themselves been systems which indigenous people were forced to assimilate into. Entering a space looking for a familiar means of ranking can do more harm than good.
@a_hipp this is a really interesting dilemma, and I feel like one that comes up often with conservation efforts. While the effort to protect sharks is noble and critical, it seems as though there should be more efforts to provide affordable gear to these fishers, otherwise they are continuing to get penalized even though they want to comply. While different circumstances, this reminds me of the Columbian governments efforts during the war on drugs. In an attempt to remove all coca plants from the region they started fumigating with herbicides. While the efforts were meant to help halt violence in the region, it ended up really harming small scale farmers, by destroying their non coca plants. They were no longer able to make a living despite trying to oblige by the new regulations.
Sorry, I've been in transit and occupied the last few days.
I teach an Applied Anthropology class (very much a development anthropology class) that gets pretty deep into this very issue (assuming they have me back and ask me to teach the class).
I can't make a blanket statement about all these programs-- there may be a community that legitimately needs an extra set of hands for labor-- but very frequently these are rooted in a paternalistic, out-of-touch idea of what "underdeveloped" communities need. Westerners love to build schools-- in post-tsunami Indonesia, insane amounts of money went into building schools with no teachers and hospitals with no doctors, ultimately built from concrete that cut a mountain in half, operated by Chinese prison labor, and flooding the farms of people who lived nearby making their lives even harder all to dot the landscape with these empty monuments that, as you said, had no way of being maintained. This made local contractors very happy because they had jobs for a few months but only a tiny percent of the money stayed in country. It really made making the French mining company very wealthy and the bulk of the money went to the engineers of the governments providing the direction for the project.
The Sahara desert to the Amazon Rainforest are littered with the graves of development projects, some of which are like you described. There's one project to build toilets in the Amazon. There's no sewer treatment system and the pipes just go straight into the river so it's not providing a public health benefit (in fact it may be ensuring the water supply is more contaminated) and the pipes break regularly... giving the high school volunteers from Canada something to do year after year as they go to bring toilets to people who are perfectly happy to just use the forest-- mostly because there is no toilet paper and leaves are readily available outside. if you ask people they will say "yes!" they want toilets, but that's mostly because they want to get paid to host the volunteers or get paid to help build them, not because they actually want to use them.
So yes, this is a huge problem. That's not to say that you can't go somewhere and what they really need is some help building something. But you have to ask people what they need first
I reached the word limit for a post but essentially i said this:
But without some deep, collaborative planning, even ventures that are painted as "humanitarian" can be imperialistic. That's why it's also a good idea to both be flexible and have an anthropologist around to help you figure things out