,
11 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Greens turning on WWF.
But make no mistake, greens are no friends of any peoples who aspire to more than subsistence. Greens only like indigenous peoples for their lifestyle and their concomitant inability to assert themselves politically. They can be pushed around,.
But make no mistake, greens are no friends of any peoples who aspire to more than subsistence. Greens only like indigenous peoples for their lifestyle and their concomitant inability to assert themselves politically. They can be pushed around,.
The moment indigenous people make any choice to move away from their traditional lifestyles -- or refuse to be co-opted into their campaigns against certain industries -- they are abandoned by greens.
It's as true in the Arctic as it is in Africa. Greens will claim to defend indigenous peoples' rights. But only to the extent that indigenous people agree with greens.
The problem for green NGOs is that most indigenous people living in the Arctic recognise the value of oil.
The problem for green NGOs is that most indigenous people living in the Arctic recognise the value of oil.
For e.g. spiked-online.com/2013/09/23/gre…
"Greenpeace’s instrumental use of poor people’s victim status was dismissed by the Inuit Circumpolar Council in May. ‘We collectively reject Greenpeace’s questionable use of the Indigenous voice as a front for its own campaign’"
"Greenpeace’s instrumental use of poor people’s victim status was dismissed by the Inuit Circumpolar Council in May. ‘We collectively reject Greenpeace’s questionable use of the Indigenous voice as a front for its own campaign’"
" ‘Like everyone else, we do need and want jobs, employment, income security, training, education, improved health, better housing, and other downstream benefits and opportunities for our communities and families.’"
The issue is a) how the apparent tension between development and conservation is understood; and b) *who* gets to manage that tension.
It *must* be for the people who have to suffer or potentially enjoy either policy to do BOTH.
Greens disagree, fundamentally.
It *must* be for the people who have to suffer or potentially enjoy either policy to do BOTH.
Greens disagree, fundamentally.
greens no more believe that indigenous people can make the choice for development than they believe that you and I should be party to climate (or any other environmental issue) policy making. Thus they do not believe that indigenous people should be able to choose conservation.
You have to be completely embedded, in fact, in patronising, colonial attitudes to buy into the green version of 'protecting indigenous people's rights'.
It seems that Avatar is the full extent of greens' grasp of the politics of development and democracy.
It seems that Avatar is the full extent of greens' grasp of the politics of development and democracy.
This notion of traditional lifestyle, and of climate change being the world's biggest problem spread to other NGOs. They presupposed that 'traditional' societies' lifestyles were greener, and that people who lived them would be climate champions. climate-resistance.org/2008/08/backwa…
But what if these peoples did not want to live 'sustainable' lifestyles as the green and one-time 'development' NGOs were demanding?
What if nomadic, pastoralist communities instead wanted 4x4s, like many indigenous peoples use today, from the Arctic to Mongolia.
What if nomadic, pastoralist communities instead wanted 4x4s, like many indigenous peoples use today, from the Arctic to Mongolia.
The Avatar version of green "anti" colonialism would have it that people need to be protected from such things as diesel and petrol engines and flight... no matter what those people choose for themselves.
