The reading assignment this week is to read the photocopied packet I distributed in class, therein you will first find two anthropological essays. As I mentioned last week, if you are pressed for time, you can skip all the "comments" to the first essay in the packet, Hunn's "Huna Tlingit Traditional Environmental Knowledge, Conservation, and the Management of a 'Wilderness' Park," but be sure to read the essay itself as well as the Dombrowski essay. The third reading is a chapter from Louis Warren's 1997 book The Hunter's Game entitled "Blackfeet and Boundaries at Glacier National Park," and finally read the short selections from Jonathan Waterman's 2013 book Northern Exposures.
Wednesday's class will take a slightly different format, as we will begin with a short presentation and discussion with Chris Behnke, a UAF graduate student working on a thesis exploring management conflicts in Glacier Bay National Park. We will have a bit of time for our own discussion, and then we will conclude class with a visit from Jon Waterman, who is in town to promote the book we are reading selections from. While Behnke will make a short presentation and lead us through a discussion of the first two anthropological articles, we should be prepared to ask him questions. For Waterman's visit, we will need to ask the questions, so please think of things you may want to ask him about the readings in the packet. Waterman is also giving a public lecture Thursday evening (details are here).
See you Wednesday!
Kevin
PS I'll bring page 81 from the Waterman book to class on Wednesday... sorry for the omission!
Are wilderness areas managed or protected?
ReplyDeleteWilderness is allegedly an area that is untrammeled by man. To allow this to occur, the protection of the region is understandably necessary. However, the more light that is shed on these areas, the more extensive the management aspect appears to be. Closing an area to hunting such as that of Glacier National park and then coddling the present wildlife through tough times to allow the region to appear that it is flourishing with game has no parallel with an untrammeled landscape. In addition to mitigating human impact, predators in the park were also exterminated to increase the presence of ungulate types.
The subjectivity of the word Wilderness has allowed park representatives to stray from the wild concept they apparently adhere to and instead create a diorama of the conception of wilderness.
Do we have the right to tell other cultures what to do with their land, even if it’s “for the greater good”?
ReplyDeleteI think this is a question that has been relevant for many past generations and it continues to be relevant. Of course we have to respect other cultures and other people, and we can’t reconcile their cultures and their pain just for the sake of the things that we are projecting onto them that they may not care about. It was so devastating to read about the burnings that occurred in that central Southeast Village where the the natives were essentially attempting to burn their “sinful” culture away. The idea of being tribal or indigenous really is a social construct, just like the idea of wilderness, and we have this weird need to control them, just like we do with wilderness. I don’t know where the line is when it comes to how much regulation we should be able to impose on other people’s ways of using the land. It is a complex issue with a complex answer. Where is the line between cultural respect and modernity? The instance with the Gull eggs in Hoonah revealed that the so called “tribal” way is quite sustainable. This reminded me of the sustainability of the Balinese farmers. In both cases, people tried to impose modernity onto their ways and it didn’t work. In Bali, distributors came in and tried to make the farmers use their genetically engineered seeds and plant on their schedule, but it gave the same yields as the farmers preferred ways, and the farmers stopped using these seeds. In the issue with the Gull eggs, the Huna Tlinget developed methods that would leave the least amount of damage on an area. Are there instances where the traditional methods are inferior to the modern methods? If so, should we be allowed to change them? Cultural respect is a complex issue. For example, there are coming of age rituals done in some places that we might deem as cruel, but is it our place to make them stop? The line is certainly a hazy one.
Is there such thing as too much conservation?
ReplyDeleteAs humans we are aware more now than ever that our planet is a precious commodity. Natural resources are not as endless as we once thought they were. Now that we've become aware of our impact on wilderness we have begun the battle to protect what we have left. The idea being that we can conserve natural resources for future generations. In theory it sounds great, but is it possible to over conserve? If a moose population reaches levels too low to be of use to subsistence hunters, humans go in and kill the wolves. This upsets the other half of the population and predator control hunting ceases, and the whole issue begins again. It doesn't seem possible to protect one natural wonder without harming another. And who are we to say which wildernesses should be protected and which should be developed? The world functioned for millions of years without the help of the human race. Species went extinct because other species were dominant. It is a natural part of life. I am not suggesting that we take whatever we can and leave nothing for the future but how can we know the value of a wildness that may not even exists in a thousand years?
Do only certain people have a right to experience nature/ wilderness?
ReplyDeleteThe reading that I liked the most out of this packet was "The Kayak and the Cruise Ship." I thought it was interesting how the author's view on cruise ship travel changed. Even though traveling on a cruise ship is not as close to nature as you could possibly get for some people cruise ships, guided tours, and hotels are the only way to experience nature. Growing up my parents and I would go to Rocky Mountain National Park every weekend and hike. My love of the outdoors stared from these weekend trips. I felt a connection to nature and cared deeply about it, however my parents and I would have never been able to have this experience if it wasn't for the many tourist targeted hotels right outside of the park. My parents both threw their backs out before I was born and were unable to camp because of it. Although I believe that cruise ships and the tourist industry in general does a lot of damage to the environment I do not believe that it should be cut out completely. I think that it is important for people who are not physically able to kayak or back pack through the wilderness should still get a chance to see it. I think that people care more about beautiful places or things that they have seen first hand so it is important for the every day person to go out and have a connection and experience how amazing the wilderness is like the people on the cruise ship in glacier bay did. I think that how much tourism is allowed in places like glacier bay should be monitored and cut back but not done away with all together.
I’ve talked a bit about the idea of nature, wilderness and conservation being part of a larger system of thought, and how these things are largely rooted in the western perspective that I find summed up in the quote from the Wilderness Act as “a visitor that does not remain”. I’ve also asked the question of how the Tlingit relationship to land has shifted. This week’s reading touched on these themes as well, and my question this week would be to ask Dombroski if it is fair to characterize ANCSA as the state’s vision?
ReplyDeleteIn his discussion of the three dynamics surrounding the formation of ANCSA, Dombroski fails to recognize the native influence in the creation of ANCSA. I do think he is right in acknowledging the different native perspectives at play around ANCSA, but I don’t think he gives enough voice to the native forces that pushed for ANCSA. The government to government relations between Alaska Natives and the United States has been distinctive from the purchase in 1868, and has undergone many changes from era to era. He neglects to discuss the influence of the Alaska Native Brotherhood and the Alaska Native Sisterhood, the creation of Tlingit and Haida, the creation of Alaska Federation of Natives, and many other influential events that shaped the current situation. He does cover this a bit in his book Against Culture, which is great, but in this particular article, I felt it was weakened by this omission.
I do like the general critique of ANCSA however, as I am skeptical myself. I wonder about the long term effects of engaging in this system of thought and economy that isn’t entirely consistent with indigenous philosophies. It’s a complex question, perhaps one that isn’t possible to answer entirely in an article. Brian Hosmer, Richard White, Winona LaDuke, Donald Fixico, and many others, have written books on this very subject, but none seem to have focused specifically on SE Alaska and the recent impact. David Arnold, Stephan Haycox and Segei Kan have all touched on this as well. Hosmer covered through the 1920s, and Thorton has done a great job looking at a historical look as well, but none have covered the economic and philosophical impact well enough, in my opinion.
Ultimately (this is somewhat a response to Leah’s great question and discussion), I would say that these questions facing indigenous people are ours to answer, and I am generally hesitant about outside influence, no matter how ‘well intentioned’ it may be.
With the Federal Governemnt shutdown affecting National Parks around the United States, will this negatively affect these parks?
ReplyDeleteThis was something that was simply quite interesting for me to find out after the shutdown occurred, and I was simply curious about whether the lack of people actually made things worse for these parks or better.
The ranting and raving concerning the beauty of Glacier and many other National Wilderness Areas brought not only concern for protection of these beautiful natural resources, but also opened up these areas for traffic and tourism. in concern to the protection of these areas, do the ends justify the means?
ReplyDeleteAs stated by Jonathan Waterman in Northern Exposures,one hundred seven cruise ships visit Glacier Bay every summer, bringing a slew of tourists to appreciate the pristine views, and a large some of money to supplement the state's income. On the flip side, however, the regulations concerning these tourists are relatively lax. The cruise ships themselves unarguably pollute the environment, leaving refuse and runoff, and arguably a huge eyesore. However, what is the point of saving nature purely for it's aesthetic qualities if the average American can't access it? Do we have to debase these nature areas so affluent Americans have a chance to snap a photo, or should motor vehicle admittance be more regulated?
Phillip Moser
ReplyDeleteWilderness, as we have discussed at length, is a peculiar idea, founded largely on cultural values and dependent on a western perspective. This was readily apparent in the readings on Glacier Bay National Park and the conflict between indigenous culture and American interests. The rights of the Tlingit klans that had lived there for centuries was pushed out (in law, at least) very quickly in favor of creating a national wilderness area. And yet, despite the valid point that the people made, that this land and the hunting and foraging it provided was a critical part of their heritage, much of the paper was devoted to a question that seemed besides the point. In an intuitive sense, at least. Is it ok to appropriate indigenous knowledge of an area’s ecology and sustainable practices therein into western law and science, or should it be ignored on the basis of the two sides having incompatible concepts?
Ridiculous. The language of the article made both sides of the argument sound like patronization. Besides sidestepping the main issue of addressing the cultural and sustenance needs of the people, the writer appeared more concerned on whether there was anything worth harvesting from the culture in order to properly manage the area they “owned.” On top of that, whether these people had anything to share at all, or whether the thousands of years of habitation were worth a damn was called into question.
To me, this still seems like a question out of the middle of the 20th century. Modern writers and scientists should be examining ways to make this work. Yes, the area is a wilderness-designated environment, but there’s a whole history of appropriation and culture-destroying acts to fix, if possible.
What if John Muir never wrote his book about Glacier Bay?
ReplyDeleteTourists would probably not have followed his way that quickly after his discovery. Maybe, he would never have been seeing boats with rich tourists wanting to discover the wonder with their proper eyes. Also, Glacier Bay would probably not be a National Monument right now. Would there be less or even more cruise ships today?
Would Huna people still be harvesting gull eggs?
Would Glacier be a „real“ wilderness, left about itself and „controlled“ by its people?
Would there be plenty of kayakers and maybe even hikers camping on its shores?
Would a company offer adventure trips in Glacier Bay?
Would it be completely „robbed“ of resources had the bill to make it a National Monument not existed?
Would it be real untrammeled land today (and not disturbed by huge boats full of tourists whit no clue about its nature)?
Actually, asking this question and hypothetizing seems futile to me. But I am stroke and surprised to find this same scenario almost every week in our readings:
People who love the nature try to protect it – but all that results is that masses of tourists come to visit the place and leave their traces.
A paradox. Can we learn something from this? How should we act in consequence?
Is the Park Service right when they claim resources as "public goods" for the "American people" or are Indians just as justified to the game and other resources as their "local commons?"
ReplyDeleteThe battle for resources is a challenging issue that will become an even greater one in the near future. Who gets what and where the line is made will only lead to more quarrels. Scientists in all facets will generally agree on conservation and management practices over traditional ones that most Native Americans used to practice heavily and some still do today. An example brought about from the packet was the idea of Indians taking game animals faster than necessary. The logic behind this bias is that traditional methods of harvesting game was by massive quantities at one time. This sounds unsustainable but it wasn't until white immigration that we saw the collapse in buffalo hunting. But at the same time populations were low at that time when harvesting at high rates was ok. With the population and densities we have now it becomes very difficult to allow for both.
Sorry this was late, still having trouble posting, but figuring it out!
ReplyDeleteAre we seriously going to restrict the definition of conservation to the point where it “requires self-sacrifice; it must be altruistic” (S82, Current Anthropology Volume 44)!
Earlier in that paragraph they are discussing whether the traditional Koyukon hunting techniques qualify as conservation, concluding that it does not because “avoiding wanton destruction of unneeded prey is not the same as restraining harvest below current desires... matching harvest levels to current needs does not qualify as conservation” This is crazy! Generations of Koyukon people have watched the death of their people due to starvation, and we’re splitting hairs about whether this qualifies as conservation, or whether their traditional environmental knowledge even counts in the greater argument!
What is the point of saving nature purely for it's aesthetic qualities if we have to screw everyone in order to save it?
ReplyDeleteIt seems like the story of the Blackfeet tribe can stand in for many other native groups from all over the continent. The National Park Service as a land grab in order to seize control and resources from undesirables? Maybe I am just being radical but it is immoral. It doesn't just seem immoral but it is immoral to seize the Blackfoot lands in the way that the Government did. In the same way, it is immoral to stop the Gull Egg harvest in Glacier Bay. The idea that the government knows best and that the Park Service will hold these areas in trust is laughable. We know, or at least we should know....that the National Park Service, the Department of the Interior, and Fish and Game have made egregious errors in managing lands and wildlife. Why not let the Native groups who have controlled the resources continue to do so? It is not like they are going through a population explosion and it is not like they get 100 percent of their goods from the land anymore. Capitalism has been sprung on the natives and their is no way to detach yourself from it. With it came colonialist attitudes and we took away the lands for "our" own use. Responsible land management can be accomplished by local groups and it is effed up that in most cases they haven't been given the chance. I like how it mentions their is friction between the national park service and the Blackfeet. Well, no wonder we only broke the treaty with them using some legal jargon bullshit. Is it worth it to preserve lands we screw people out of, using some colonialist imperialist excuse because we know we do it better? No.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete