“Primitives” and Protected Areas: International Conservation and the “Naturalization” of Indigenous People, ca. 1910–1975

Abstract

This article explores a long-standing discursive tradition within international nature conservation. In this tradition the argument is made that “primitive” people should be allowed to live in the areas the conservationists deem as “pristine” or “natural.” The article explores the (changing) relative importance of this tradition in the conservation discourse as a whole, and analyzes the shifting composition of its argumentative arsenal from the 1910s to the 1970s. Particular attention goes to the uneasy combination of two types of argument: one in which indigenous people are presented as part of nature, another in which their customary rights are stressed.

Human food use increases plant geographical ranges in the Sonoran Desert

“…There is a long history of governmental agencies and non‐governmental organizations placing greater conservation value on landscapes thought to be untouched by humans (Denevan, 1992). This has resulted in negative social consequences via the exclusion of Indigenous peoples from protected areas and national parks (Agrawal & Redford, 2009; Anaya & Espírito‐Santo, 2018; Brockington & Igoe, 2006; De Bont, 2015). Our work adds to a growing consensus that people and nature must be considered together in the Anthropocene, and that traditional use of plants has positive effects on ecosystems broadly (Anderson, 2013; Fowler & Lepofsky, 2011; Kimmerer, 2013).…”

Utopian Conservation: Scientific Humanism, Evolution, and Island Imaginaries on the Galápagos Islands

“…However, as with Harrsch, UNESCO’s interventions in the Galápagos resulted less in promoting universal ideas (“Nature,” “Man”) than in contesting the category of the human. Lacking an indigenous population, the Galápagos did not justify the type of conservation Huxley praised in the Belgian Congo and promoted elsewhere, in which local [indigenous] population were treated “as fauna rather than as tribes” (Bont 2015, 225). As I show next, utopian dreams of conservation, once UNESCO and IUCN acted on them on the islands, burst along the fault lines of race, class, and nationality.…”

Hunter–gatherer genomics: evolutionary insights and ethical considerations

“…Many hunter-gatherers live in environments increasingly encroached upon by extractive industries and conservation zones managed by remote governments that may be indifferent to their plights [52,53]. Studies that identify an evolutionary ecology association between hunter-gatherers and a particular geographic region or landscape could increase tensions between these communities and governments and corporations seeking to impose conservation and development strategies that would partition the landscape [54].…”