![]() |
Photo credit: Martin Sensmeier |
Awareness of environmental issues
has continued to rise over the past several decades, as well as awareness of
the human impact on the current state of the Earth and our environment.
Naturally, with this heightened awareness, comes a more vested interest in
protecting and conserving resources due to their endangered state,
accessibility for future generations, or because of inhumane practices of
capturing these resources. Though efforts at conservation and preservation can
be rooted in honest intentions, complications arise when there are disconnects
between the West and its goals of conservation, and native populations and their
cultural practices.
This disconnect is especially
evident with the rise of movements and efforts to end the hunting of a specific
animal. This post will focus briefly on Western efforts to end Canadian Inuit
seal hunting, in order to show that this disconnect, fueled by ignorance and a
lack of understanding, must be addressed if conservation and preservation
efforts hope to evolve and become less intrusive in the future. In order to
help bridge this disconnect between conservationists and indigenous peoples,
conservationists must seek to educate themselves about the cultural and
lifestyle practices of these populations before seeking to impose bans and
restrictions have the potential completely disrupt their way of life.
The above image is from the Instagram
site of model, actor, and Native activist Martin Sensmeier in response to
anti-seal hunting efforts led by famous talk-show-host Ellen DeGeneres and the
Human Society of the United States in the spring of 2014. During this time,
DeGeneres vocalized her opinion that “seal hunting is one of the most
atrocious and inhumane acts against animals allowed by any government”,
immediately outraging members of the Inuit community. This
initiated the posting of hundreds of online protest pictures with the hashtag
“SEALfie”, like the one pictured above, by Inuit people and supporters
expressing their disgust with DeGeneres’ ignorance about seal hunting and a
lack of understanding of the importance of seals to their entire way of life.
These vivid and passionate postings help to convey the often strong
disconnect between individuals in the West and native and indigenous
peoples across the globe in regards to cultural practices and conservation
efforts.
Though it is not explicitly
stated that the attempted banning of seal hunting was intended specifically for
preservation or conservation efforts, the intended banning of resource hunting
by the West against natives in other countries clearly parallels some of the
actions and responses of the Maasai people of Kenya during the onslaught of
external pressures from Western conservationist groups and big game hunters
during the 1960’s. In “Coercing Conservation”, Nancy Peluso details the clashes
between the local resource users, the Maasai, and the government, over the
conservation of animals commonly hunted in the area. In this case, the
“colonial government” gave into external pressures from big game hunters and
Western conservation groups to set aside land specifically for wild game (GPB,
p. 329). As Peluso goes onto describe, in doing this, the government also
wanted to settle the Maasai people into fixed locations, which effectively
would have brought an end to their traditional methods of migratory cattle
raising (GPB, p. 329).
The forced conservation efforts
upon local environments that Peluso describes occurred around the 1950s, but it
is clear that this pattern has continued over fifty years later, as
demonstrated by the attempted banning of seal hunting. In both instances, the
seemingly beneficial efforts at conserving and limiting the hunting of
particular animals would have required the local populations to drastically
alter their practices, and ultimately, their way of life. As Martin Sensmeier
pointed out in the case of the Inuit people, seal meat has been used for
thousands of years and is a traditional staple to the Inuit because of their
ability to use it for food, clothing, shelter, and even transportation. When
local people feel the pressure of external forces who do not understand, or seek
to understand their way of life, they can choose to respond to these pressures
in ways that they believe will send a strong message. In the case of the
Maasai, they chose to physically lash out at the reserve authorities by killing
the rhino’s and elephant’s that the conservationists sought to protect.
Conversely, the Inuit people and their supporters chose to take advantage of
current technology and the power of the social media to vocalize their
grievances and opinions to a worldwide audience.
Arguably, whether there is
physical resistance or verbal resistance sparked by social media, individuals want their voices to be heard, and their
opinions and livelihoods to be taken into account when the government or outside
conservation groups seek to enforce conservation measures on their native land.
Because it doesn't appear as though true efforts have been made
to understand the cultures and lifestyle practices of native people before
seeking to implement conservation action, conservation efforts have taken a
slightly negative turn. If conservation efforts hope to improve in the future,
those seeking to conserve must actively choose to integrate indigenous and
native peoples into the conversation, rather than seeking outright bans on
resources critical to their survival.
In order to help remedy this
disconnect in culture and lifestyle, I believe that conservation efforts must
seek to talk less and listen more. Now, it would seem as though efforts mainly focus on informing indigenous people of the lack of humanity in their practices
and the detrimental effects of these actions on the environment. An equal
amount of effort must be placed into creating a dialog with populations in or near
the areas of conservation, in order to help conservationists better understand
the actions and world view of these groups. This can help provide them with a
better understanding of why they hunt and act the way that they do, and
arguably, this can help them create more appropriate and practical conservation
efforts that do not totally infringe upon the ancient cultural practices and
survival techniques of these societies.
Sources:
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/11/inuit-sealfie-campaign.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/03/28/sealfies-ellen-degeneres-seal-hunt_n_5046394.html
http://www.ellentv.com/2011/04/06/stop-seal-hunting-in-canada-now/
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/mar/28/inuit-seal-sealfies-selfie-degeneres-oscars
Your post ties nicely with some of the information that Sarah mentioned in hers. There are clear cultural factors that play a role in perceptions of protectionist and conservationist efforts. While seal hunting sounds very inhumane to us, it is a part of the Inuit culture the same way in which our ancestors hunted other animals to survive. I fully agree with your idea that there needs to be more listening and less talking when it comes to these issues.
ReplyDeleteMonique, I agree that an unfortunate side-effect of protecting biodiversity is its limitation on the cultural practices of the local people. I also agree with you that the western world can make more informed decisions regarding environmental regulation by educating themselves on local culture; however, even with this education, what if compromise is not possible? What if both the native citizens and the environmental activists were unable to sacrifice their ideals?
ReplyDeleteMandi,
DeleteYou pose a very important, difficult question. Although cooperation and compromise would be ideal when attempting to bridge the cultural divide between the West and local populations, it is very possible that neither side would be willing to compromise enough in their ways. In this situation, I would have to argue that the West has no right to force or coerce local peoples to adhere to their standards of conservation or preservation. These individuals have been living and practicing their culture for hundreds and thousands of years, and I do not believe that it is fair to ask them to completely change their way of life when they have done nothing wrong. Also, I feel as though there is no honest or fair way to get an entire population of native people to voluntarily change/ give up everything they know and have accepted as their way of life for the opinions of the West, especially with the impact of colonialism still prevalent in many countries. Peluso also mentioned that conservationists sometimes forget that these local people have been peacefully coexisting with animals for hundreds of years with minimal issues, so it is not the local people that always have negative effects on the population/ state of wildlife in a given area. Ultimately, I would say that these people should be left alone to continue their hunting and practices as they have been for hundreds of years.
Building on Mandi's question, there is something we have not necessarily explored as much as maybe we could have in this course. Are all cultures worth saving? Are all cultural practices?
ReplyDeleteFor an extreme example, female genital mutilation is a common practice among some communities in Africa and the Middle East. We in the west deplore this practice while community leaders (many of whom are men...) say that it is a part of their culture. Should we disrupt their culture in order to stop FGM? If we should, why and how is this different from the case that you put forward in regards to seal hunting? Is it a question of scale? Of one being humans and the other animals?
In response to your question, I think it is necessary to explore the concept of the sovereignty of an individual culture. While it may not be our place to judge which cultures are worth saving (or not saving for that matter), I think that approaching each individual culture with a mindfulness and respect towards their historical practice is necessary. As discussed by Monique, I do not believe that just because the Western order seems modern in our cultural practices, we have the right to declare how each culture needs to be modified for the betterment of mankind. While we can seek to support the rights of individuals, and optimistically reach a compromise with these cultures in regards to environmental practices, the modern cultures of our state do not take precedent over others.
DeleteProfessor Shirk,
ReplyDeleteYou also bring up a very good, but extremely difficult question to answer. Firstly, I do believe that all cultures are worth saving, in the sense that they help to add diversity to our world, and allow those of us who want to know more about the world we live in, the opportunity to research and learn more. That being said, I don't know that I believe that all cultural practices are worth saving. The discussion on FGM is not new to me as this topic arose in my political ethics class, and even then, this was still extremely difficult to answer. I do not believe that we, as in the U.S. or the West, should seek to outright stop their culture, whether it involves animals or humans, because it is not our place to do so. Instead, I believe that the U.S. and the West should continue to provide support to those within the countries who seek to bring about an end to these harmful and violent practices. There should be more focus on seeking to help individuals actually in these countries spread awareness to locals as well as the government, and ultimately society at large, with the hopes that over time, some of these practices will either dissipate themselves or evolve naturally to incorporate new (more modern?) perspectives. Essentially, I believe that the U.S. should maintain a support role, and not a directive role.