You touched upon deeply nuanced issues with great insight and understanding of the sweeping injustice that devastates Indigenous peoples around the world.
It is certainly an incredibly grim scene here in Australia, where most Australian's still believe that our First Nation's people are of a lower race and that their high rates of alcoholism and incarceration are of their own doing.
During your essay I was left wondering about the tragic nature of this undoing - that this devastation is not wrought from acts of evil or calculated intention, but instead from the hearts of potentially good people trying their best to do the right thing by the environment. I almost feel that this is worse than there just being a room full of bad guys that we could more easily identify and bring down.
Instead, the movement of sustainability has massive momentum of its own, even when not co-opted by insidious corporate greed.
Thanks again for the writing, you guys need to write a book.
Hey Eamon, thank you so much for your response! I like the way you put it: "the tragic nature of this undoing." It is tragic! What's more tragic is our inability to really assess where the undoing begins, because without that, I fear we'll misstep into a very bleak future. It's hard to know if there is a room of "bad guys" puppeteering all of the good-hearted, well-intentioned people, or if it's just that we're all operating from an ambient, unquestioned, and universally accepted story about the world and our role in it. All atrocities are justifiable to somebody based on the stories they tell themselves. And yes, the sustainability movement has an incredible momentum of it's own, and whether it has been co-opted or not (I don't think it has entirely, but it has in many contexts) it seems to be taken for granted as the way forward right now. This is why I feel like it's so important to question the assumptions, epistemologies, and narratives that undergird actions. Because perhaps, if we have a questioning public, we can engage with the complexity of all of these interconnected issues and see where things aren't making sense, or where things are following the same line of thinking that created the problem in the first place.
It's extremely complex, but I appreciate your taking the time to read and engage with my piece :) I am planning on writing a book to accompany the film series: there's just too much information to put in a few hours of video. I really want people to have access to the resources that I've had the ability to obtain!
To finish, I just want to say that I have had so many experiences in my life that lead me to just have compassion for everyone, and I've been a tourist in so many places where I've seen how that industry consumes and commodifies cultures and peoples. I've also seen people forced into destroying their own ancestral lands because they've been forced into an economic system and enclosed out of their way of life. We're all wrapped up in this Earth-eating, anti-human system, and if we can just start really facing it and all of it's complexity, we might be able to actually do something about it. I hope this piece reflects the compassion and understanding I feel for the choices people (are often forced to) make.
Absolutely beautiful writing Jake and Maren! I've sent it to everyone I know in the conservation and permaculture fields in my little part of the world. I appreciate all of the sources that you provide, so I can go down a research rabbit hole!
I think in the end, the indigenous people who have been caretakers of the land for millennia ought to be valued and trusted with the continued care of that land, including decision making in future land use. Why would we pretend all that knowledge doesn't exist?
A really interesting piece. Thanks. While I agree with the spirit and much of the content, I can't help feeling your righteous indignation blinds you to some fundamental issues. Unless I missed it, for example, you never really confront the growth of Masai population and its effect on the land. I read this:
-- Yet, the governing bodies of Ngorongoro, the government, and conservation NGOs (who offer safaris and trophy hunting) point to the Maasai as the main driver of ecological imbalance, pointing to their population growth as the largest problem. In Truth, Falsity, and Mismanagement, a report written and compiled by Maasai people, they disagree with this assessment, stating:
-- “To the Maasai, the mentioned issues are just a manifestation of multifaceted problems known to exist as a result of ecosystem unconscious tourism investment.”¹¹
Huh? That mumbo-jumbo doesn't address the fundamental issue at all, does it?
According to most estimates, Masai population has tripled or quadrupled since 1990. How, exactly, is this due to "ecosystem unconscious tourism investment?" This can't be dismissed with an unintelligible quote from a report written by the Masai. Exponential population growth (ESPECIALLY with pastoral people) and no new land to spread into is the very definition of "unsustainable," is it not?
I know it's tempting to romanticize people like the Sami and the Masai (I've done it!), but when a group's population is growing exponentially, and their land isn't (and can't), there will be problems that are not caused by tourism investment. We can decry tourism, but when a cruise ship hits a rock, that's a physical reality that needs to be acknowledged for what it is.
Having just driven through the land where the exploding population of Masai live, I can testify that it is totally desertified. Topsoil is long gone. It's barren. Cross over into the park, and it's a vastly different ecosystem. To say that the ecosystem has "suffered from the exclusion of the Masai" is the opposite of true, whatever we believe about their rights and mistreatment.
Speaking of investment, it's not true that "tourism [rarely] serves the local economies." You cite a study that found that "of 548 employees of NCA, only 8 were residents of Ngorongoro." How many were residents of surrounding areas? I can tell you that the city of Arusha thrives because of tourism. Do they not count? Are the villages a few miles down the road from the crater not "local economies?" Who's guiding the tours, fixing the Land Cruisers, setting up the tents, building and working in the hotels, airports, and so on? Not imported Chinese workers. Local African people.
"In fact, most people come to this area because of the Maasai presence, yet the Maasai receive little, if any, benefit."
I don't think so. Most people go to the Serengeti and Ngoro to see animals, not Maasai.
Lastly, a nuanced look at the situation would have to include acknowledgement of some of the less savory aspects of Maasai culture, like cutting off girls clitorises at 11 or 12 years old and forcing them into marriages with men in their 40s or older. Are we in favor of this? Is it any of our business? I don't know, but I think it's worth including in the discussion.
I chose not to fixate on the question of population because I'm trying to instead focus more on the conditions that create that issue, which is being enclosed into a global industrial food/culture system. Population growth isn't a cause of disharmony: it's a symptom of it. It's a symptom of a once-sustainable pastoralist culture and their subsistence way of life being uprooted and forced into the same phantom carrying capacity that we are all operating under, which is the industrial food system. My whole point is that their lands have been enclosed upon, so of course they are overusing the lands they have. The balance has been disrupted. I'm arguing that the disequilibrium began with their expulsion from the lands, because people have always coevolved with lands. This also isn't a new idea, I included a quote above which talks about how protected areas have a tendency to cause this problem of unsustainable human impacts on the borders of national parks and reserves.
I'm also sitting in a concrete city right now, whose population has also increased by 3x in the same time period, which requires an endless stream of resources imported from all over the world, so I don't think I have any right to critique the population density of the Maasai. The lands surrounding me are desertified and completely destroyed, too. That's what happens when an entire civilization lives on a phantom carrying capacity, as you well know. The Maasai are no different.
As far as the FGM, I'm not attempting to make a case about whether or not the Maasai deserve to be evicted, dispossessed, or assimilated based on their cultural practices. I'm making a case that enclosure is wrong and violates human rights. Anyway, their own people are standing up against FGM and demanding change, way back in 2004 (https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/fgm-maasai-women-speak-out) and here's a piece of last year (https://plan-international.org/kenya/case-studies/the-maasai-elder-advocating-to-end-female-genital-mutilation/). My point is that these sorts of arguments are used, along with artificial poverty, to justify their evictions, and I'm not interested in entertaining characterizations that are meant to be weaponized against them because there are plenty of other people already doing that. Given that my piece is not an anthology on the Maasai and rather it's a synthesis of ideas from two authors (you included), my experiences in Norway/Sweden, and research and interviews about Tanzania, trying to make a global case about how much humans have suffered in the face of enclosure, it didn't seem relevant for me to criticize their cultural practices. Their rights as humans are valid regardless.
Again, from where I sit in the US, where abortion is set to be criminalized in some states and a mass shooting happens every few days, I don't feel like I have many moral legs to stand on.
As I said, the rot that needs to be excised lives here. I don't think I'm a romantic for wanting to uplift voices who are saying they are being oppressed by the dominant culture and their rights are being infringed upon. There are coalitions of people all over the world (Survival International, Cultural Survival, & A Growing Culture are some of the most well known in the West, and they work with thousands of local coalitions) all asking for one thing: to be free to practice their way of life, whether it's pastoralism, hunting and gathering, or subsistence farming. I don't think I'm a romantic for pointing out that the culture that needs to change is the one who is destroying everything. Human rights will be the first victim of climate change, and what we see is that human rights violations also underpin a peoples ability to adapt to climate change, mainly due to land dispossession.
I made the subtitle "Making the Sustainable Unsustainable" for a reason – I'm well aware that it's unsustainable for overgrazing to continue, as I am aware it's ultimately unsustainable for reindeer to subsist off of soy pellets. Again, my entire point is that this lack of sustainability is a symptom of the greater phenomenon of enclosure. Sámi and Maasai are similarly marginalized for practicing their culture (I didn't mention this in the piece, but there are local conflicts with reindeer grazing as well), and the sustainability of their way of life is being constantly scrutinized whereas we can pretend that we aren't destroying lands and being held up by a global mechanism of ghost slaves without any critique whatsoever. I'm saying that there is a disconnect, an imbalance, and a disproportionate emphasis placed on the Maasai and the Sámi needing to adapt to shittier and shittier conditions until they ultimately join our way of life. That's why I mentioned your work at the end, because if we didn't choose the human zoo, how can we stand by when millions of people around the world are trying to fight against the zookeepers?
So yeah, to me focusing in on their population is not the most productive way to look at this. Overpopulation is only a symptom of phantom carrying capacity, which is a symptom of fertilizer, which is a symptom of a man called Fritz Haber tinkering with the natural world and believing implicitly that nature can and should be controlled by man, which will be the subject of my next piece. We've all been swept up in the Haber-Bosch process whether we're aware of it or not. My only point, which I stated ad nauseum, is that the people who are left should just be given respect, given access to self-determination and self-subsistence, and be left the fuck alone.
Not to "pile on"... but experiencing this stuff first hand really threw me for a loop that I didn't expect. It seems to me that the Maasai, unlike the Hadzabe for example, are not as far from "civilization" and "modernity" as I originally assumed. If there are two indigenous tribes living in the same area, both with exposure to tourism and the pressures of Western values, but one population increases and becomes far more enmeshed (Maasai) and the other decreases and resists enmeshment (Hadzabe)... I have to ask myself why.
The Maasai believe that God entrusted all of the world's cattle to them for safe-keeping. This is a belief that pre-dated any influence by Western culture. Maasai values, like ours, rest in accumulated resources. The more cattle, the better. The more wives, and the more children, the better. Yes, we could easily associate the influence of the West with their growth in population, but that doesn't quite add up. The growth of population in general is nowhere near the growth in population for the Maasai. It seems to me that their beliefs have always aligned with growth and accumulation, whether civilization interfered or not.
Having said that, one undeniable influence of civilization on population growth is the availability of Western medicine, hospitals, etc. Infant mortality rates have decreased, so in combination with the above (growth and accumulation as a symbol of status), the population has risen, which seems confusing AF to work through intellectually and existentially - am I supposed to be mad about the availability of modern healthcare in this scenario?
What I don't quite buy, or maybe it's just that I don't understand, is this idea that more food + more resources precedes population growth. (The carrying capacity you spoke about via The Story of B). It seems to me, from my experience, and even from your piece ("starvation and malnutrition are creating a 'multidimensional poverty'"), that there aren't remotely enough resources to support the growing Maasai population, even with their move toward agriculture. If it were really an excess of resources that were provoking the population growth, would we really be seeing this degree of poverty? Perhaps the problem here is twofold - the influence of Western value systems coupled with a population that was already primed for its influence and absorption. I get that we could claim this is all populations (at risk of being absorbed and/or forced into civilization), but that just doesn't seem to be true. Many indigenous populations whose values resist accumulation as a symbol of status (hunter gatherers) have not survived, or have populations that are decreasing rapidly.
Another multilayered issue is the fact that traditionally, Maasai boys were expected to kill large game (male lions, buffalo, etc.) in order to become men. This worked just fine for a while. The population of the Maasai was smaller, and the population of large game was larger, and the balance stayed relatively stable, until it didn't. Cue poaching (by non-natives), cue massive increases in Maasai population, cue tourism and conservation efforts, and all of the sudden there is a crisis. Many Maasai still engage in this practice (the killing of large game in order to prove their manhood), but many are also turning to other means of proving status - namely, accumulating more cows. (Also, as far as I can tell, cattle raiding is also not a result of Western influence. Stealing cows from neighboring tribes has always been a practice of the Maasai, again, citing the belief that the cattle were entrusted to them and them alone.)
Then, throw in massive environmental changes due to non-local influences. There is less water in general. Less grazeable land in general. Many more people + more cows + more varying interests + less land + ecosystem imbalances + conservation efforts (which can be both good and bad) + Western influences (which can be both good and bad) = a really, really complex crisis with no clear perpetrators or heroes.
So what now? With a population of over 1.2 million, what's the solution? Just give them all the land back? Tell them they can have all the cows they want and take them from anyone? Allow without consequence the killing of large game with a population of their size? Are we supposed to turn a blind eye to the beneficial influences of modernity (more rights for women, for one) while simultaneously rallying against the negative influences? Is it fair to cherry pick? And is refusing to cherry pick morally sound?
I guess my major outstanding question here is about what the future of the Maasai would have looked like without any Western influence. Of course this is an impossible question to answer, but I can't help but wonder. What makes "us" different from "them"? Is it possible that we are actually the same as them, just on a slightly different timeline? If so, what is it that we're even fighting for? Our own salvation, or theirs?
I feel like if we are really going to fight for something here, we have to get really clear on what it is we’re fighting, and make sure we aren't blindly romanticizing something simply because it looks like it's from "the past" and still holds a lot of what we (the West) left behind a long time ago. I think there are good and bad versions of everything - in this case, farming, resource accumulation and pastoralism. These practices can regenerate the land, or destroy it, and I think learning how to use these tools in beneficial ways requires learning from our mistakes. And by “our” I mean humans at varying places on the civilization merry-go round.
I can't help but feel that you and Chris are adding arguments onto Maren's essay without directly reckoning with what she has written herself (this may be because I have heard/read both of your arguments made individually in your own spaces).
I think that you are making claims about the Maasai that you can't reasonably be able to make. You are reducing what may be deeply complicated elements of cultural ecology (acquisition of cattle, game hunting etc.) to mere physical acts, and adding a presumed empirical value. Maren already used the example of the reindeer for the Sami, that by enclosing upon them and feeding them soy pellets they were directly breeching an agreement made between the two species. Such environmentally reciprocal acts, such as in Australia where specific clan members will not eat their totemic animal (repeated micro-provincially so as to achieve real effect in native animal populations, are reduced by yourself and Chris as being "romanticisation" of Indigenous peoples, when in reality it is the very disruption of these practises that has led to the loss of relative equilibrium in these areas.
Granted, we don't want to romanticise these people nor reduce them to simplified products of our own projections, but neither should we overlook practises and relationships between human and environment forged over a period of time long enough to become part of the ecosystem itself.
I can't help but feel that many of the points yourself and Chris are making in refutation where in fact self evident and already countered in the original piece.
Hey Eamon, I appreciate your perspective. I'm not sure what claims you think can't be reasonably made. All of the "claims" I made were either from speaking to people who are Maasai, live alongside the Maasai, or from the time I spent in Africa, and from research I did after being in Africa. I don't feel that what I said was "claiming" anything. I am not passing judgements, I was just presenting additional facts. And more than presenting facts, the aim of my comment was to ask questions.
Chris nor I disagree with Maren. In Chris' case, he wrote an entire book dedicated to the claim you're accusing us of refuting - that the reciprocal relationships between humans and the environment have been destroyed as a result of civilization. That's a very general, broad claim, but I believe it's true on a macro level. We all agree.
I think the difference between where I was approaching this from, vs. Maren, was simply a matter of perspective. I think Maren's piece is about how we got to where we are, and my comment or reflection was to say okay, I agree, but what now? Can we accurately say that there is an easy solution to these problems and that we know what it is? How can we possibly feel that we know what to do to solve these multifaceted issues, especially at this stage of their evolution? Is it possible that the train has swerved so far off the track that there is simply no way to put it back on? Is it possible to rewind time? Or is it more realistic to move forward, honoring our lack of control, and accept the grief of where we've ended up?
Of course there's been a disruption of their practices, and of course this has led to a lot of ecological devastation. That part is relatively straight forward. However, I don't think the solution is straight forward at all. And that's all I was trying to impart. Personally, knowing what caused a problem doesn't give us the wisdom to know what to do next. It's helpful, maybe even imperative to learn about the past, but it's not a ticket to buy our way out of grief, loss of control, and the vulnerability and humility of not knowing. The new story has to be built on top of the old story. We can't tear out a bunch of pages and start over.
So, anyway, that was my comment in a nutshell. "What is the new story, and how can we be sure to take into account the complexity of the narrative thus far?"
Eamon, thank you for your comment. I really feel like you got what I was trying to say here, so thank you!
Anya, I think we just see this so differently (and that’s okay!). I don’t see returning land rights to the Maasai as "tearing pages out” at all— it’s not possible to go back. I see it as a collaborative, creative way forward, just as the Maasai/Savory institute partnership is helping wildlife, ecosystem function, and appreciation of cultural diversity. I see it as an opportunity for reconciliation and learning from the people who are at risk of being discarded. I view it as precisely what you’re saying, the new story being built on top of the old one.
I included dozens of voices who all agree that the Maasai benefit the landscape when able to practice their land management practices. Obviously, their land management practices would need to be updated and adjusted to accommodate changes that have taken place over the past decades, but it’s clearly not impossible. Part of the point of Holistic Planned Grazing is the ability to accommodate more animals on smaller tracts of land. The Masai Mara ecosystem accommodates over a million wildebeest among so many other hundreds of thousands of animals— surely it can accommodate intelligently planned grazing of only several hundred thousand livestock. Every ecosystem and the people within it will find a solution that works best for their holistic experience in the world— my point is that external forces are taking that choice away from people, and that’s the problem. What has to happen first, which is really the only prescription I gave, is that the enclosure needs to stop, and people in the west need to acknowledge that it's happening for our "benefit", essentially.
To answer your question, “how can we possibly feel that we know what to do to solve these multifaceted issues, especially at this stage of their evolution?” Exactly— which is why I shared so many people’s perspectives who *do* know what to do, and I stated how westerners simply do not have an equal stake in this landscape. I don’t know if you looked at the document I provided in the piece, but you would see the recommendations based on local’s perspectives, their awareness of the landscape, and what they see as degradation in their landscape and what to do about it. Their recommendations are extremely complex, collaborative, and specific to their landscape. Even still, just generally, if there currently is overgrazing in one area, and undergrazing in others, the solution is in fact relatively simple.
It’s not necessarily that tourism needs to be abolished or people shouldn’t be allowed to go on safari— it’s about balance. If the management of the landscape is disproportionately accommodating tourism over local people, clearly that’s an issue, no? That’s a mistake that can be learned from, as you said in your original comment, because it is clearly causing human rights issues, land use issues, and ecosystem degradation according to the people who are best able to assess the land and who have the most stake in the health of the land.
But I do have to echo Eamon— I didn’t get the sense you guys agreed with me at all! Must just be the medium of the internet. It seemed more like you were trying to convince me that I’m wrong about wanting to advocate for the Maasai, rather than engaging with the broader ideas and context I presented this matter in. It felt more like the questions were being presented in a black and white, either/or way which to me, didn’t acknowledge the potentiality for solutions at all, and also misrepresented certain key facts (such as the population of Maasai— there are only ~93,000 Maasai in Ngorongoro, not 1.2 million, which is their total population spanning over 2 countries). For example, it’s not either we “let” the Maasai kill wildlife unfettered or we evict them and keep them ensnared in poverty, or we “give” the Maasai education and healthcare or they get no benefits of modernity at all. There’s more choices than that.
Which is why I didn’t respond previously… I just felt like these questions had so many assumptions underlying them that I just don’t agree with, which makes it hard to reply without feeling like I have to break down my entire worldview (which is impossible in this format lol)— for instance, I don’t know why the assumption is that I don’t agree that women should have more rights and access to education, when I said nothing of the sort. My whole point is about self-determination, which can include pastoralism and modern medicine/education at the same time. So-called “modern” people are choosing to become pastoralists all the time— I know them. In this sense, the “timeline” (which is a concept that I just don’t really agree with: I don’t see a timeline where we are in one part and the Maasai are on another, I just see diversity) isn’t as linear as you seem to be presenting, if it exists at all. I never assumed that they were distant from modernity— I did a zoom call with a Maasai human rights lawyer haha. Again, I just see diversity and want to advocate for the rights to cultural difference and self-determination.
I also don’t think we can impose our worldview so cleanly onto the Maasai or any other group. Accumulating cattle and children is not the same as accumulating yachts or mansions. Similarly, as far as being mad about healthcare and how that might have contributed to population increase, I don’t think you should be mad about population growth of the Maasai at all, so the question just doesn’t really land for me. The environmental degradation of the Maasai is not even remotely problematic when you consider the way the western world lives. It’s like going to a reservation – the most marginal lands that people were literally forced to live on, witnessing poverty, psychological problems and health problems – from a completely industrialized city and saying the people on the reservation are the problem, and that their condition is their own doing. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
On hunting— Elia said to you guys that the Maasai don’t hunt, and that zebras and other animals love to be around the Maasai because they are protected. I thought he painted a pretty clear picture of that dynamic. And as Eamon said, I presented within my essay the changes being implemented in lion hunting— changes that the people themselves chose because they understood it was unsustainable to kill too many.
To be honest, I felt that a lot of your statements about the Maasai were totalizing and present them as static, bad, and incapable of changing with the times, which did upset me. It felt dehumanizing. I can acknowledge perhaps that wasn’t your intention though. Both yours and Chris’ comments seemed to me like an advocation for the status quo, justifying the past and present conditions they are facing, which surprised me a lot, but I can also acknowledge that I might have been reading your comments through my own defensive filters. Because it did seem like you guys were criticizing me for being a “romantic” when you guys talk in similar terms all the time lol. It didn’t feel like I was being met on equal footing, but instead I needed to field projections. I can accept that that wasn’t ultimately y’all’s intention.
I appreciate your clarification, however! It’s giving me more understanding and also encouraging me to refute some of the things I had wanted to respond to in your original comment. I can see how I might have read your comments as justifications rather than just questions, but still… I think we have a lot of disagreements about this topic! I just don’t accept that the “train has swerved” too far off track in this case— not in the case of thousands of people demanding something as basic as human rights. I believe in human and ecosystem resiliency— everything has the ability to bounce back, heal, and be healthy again.
I’m sure you would agree with this— that grief isn’t a place that we stay in continuously forever— it propels us forward, and sometimes pulls us back in. It is so, so important, as you’ve said here. Jake and I have experienced so much grief doing this project, but through it, we’ve also seen the light: the potential of what is possible. The grief comes and it goes, but it’s only part of the story.
It’s not my job to figure out the fate of the Maasai, but it is my job to witness, listen, and share their story, struggles, and triumphs. It’s my job to share their humanity. I didn’t offer any definitive prescriptions— I only shared their own. That’s all I tried to do here. :)
I hear you though— I’ve heard your take on your podcast, and I hear you here. I just think we have come to different conclusions about this based on our own experience of the world— each is valid, and I tried to include your perspective in my piece as well. It was meaningful to hear your lived experience of seeing the degradation in the villages. I just view it as an example of a broader pattern, and as an opportunity for positive change if it can be understood as part of a broader pattern. We don’t have to agree! I have experiences that you don’t, and you have experiences that I don’t. :)
What kind of world/life/system we are trying to create? How does it look like? What "we all" are allowed and not to do/be in that world?
I believe in starting with these questions, much before identity-based arguments.
This was quite informative reporting Jack&Maren, thanks! And i felt the lack of what these "indigenous" people want/promise to rest of the world (more than "we live with nature" slogans), beside keeping things (land mostly) that they had/have for themselves. As it is (even though maybe it isn't), it looks like people (asymetrically) fighting about who should have things, and whose faults is what. History repeating.
I dont necessarily believe a person/people being additionally and unconditionally special and/or to be "biased" for being from this or that culture. It is about what they think and even more, what they do. A white male young hetero regenerative herder-to-be without land or a climate-change dismissive And soy feeding (which may not be as naive and victimhood as portrayed) Sami who already graze quite some land? (I'm sure these people you spoke are great, just to make my point...) I may emphatize more with the first one even if it doesnt sound as of a cool "identity" (which is funny also on how we categorize people)
Enclosure (preventing someone to be and act somewhere) is bad by default, you argue and i tend to agree. And in these 2 examples, this is also what has been happening before. You simply cant graze in sami land (or have reindeer), if you are not that "blood". So, it was and is "enclosed" by them to others as well...
I'm not saying that is bad. I'm saying it may not be an obvious David vs Goliath story, even though that would make things so easy:)
So, back to beginning: can we go beyond the identity fights and talk as fellow and equally respected homo sapiens about the world we want and each of ours'responsibities/tasks?
That was an absolutely incredible read.
I don't even know where to start.
You touched upon deeply nuanced issues with great insight and understanding of the sweeping injustice that devastates Indigenous peoples around the world.
It is certainly an incredibly grim scene here in Australia, where most Australian's still believe that our First Nation's people are of a lower race and that their high rates of alcoholism and incarceration are of their own doing.
During your essay I was left wondering about the tragic nature of this undoing - that this devastation is not wrought from acts of evil or calculated intention, but instead from the hearts of potentially good people trying their best to do the right thing by the environment. I almost feel that this is worse than there just being a room full of bad guys that we could more easily identify and bring down.
Instead, the movement of sustainability has massive momentum of its own, even when not co-opted by insidious corporate greed.
Thanks again for the writing, you guys need to write a book.
Eamon
Hey Eamon, thank you so much for your response! I like the way you put it: "the tragic nature of this undoing." It is tragic! What's more tragic is our inability to really assess where the undoing begins, because without that, I fear we'll misstep into a very bleak future. It's hard to know if there is a room of "bad guys" puppeteering all of the good-hearted, well-intentioned people, or if it's just that we're all operating from an ambient, unquestioned, and universally accepted story about the world and our role in it. All atrocities are justifiable to somebody based on the stories they tell themselves. And yes, the sustainability movement has an incredible momentum of it's own, and whether it has been co-opted or not (I don't think it has entirely, but it has in many contexts) it seems to be taken for granted as the way forward right now. This is why I feel like it's so important to question the assumptions, epistemologies, and narratives that undergird actions. Because perhaps, if we have a questioning public, we can engage with the complexity of all of these interconnected issues and see where things aren't making sense, or where things are following the same line of thinking that created the problem in the first place.
It's extremely complex, but I appreciate your taking the time to read and engage with my piece :) I am planning on writing a book to accompany the film series: there's just too much information to put in a few hours of video. I really want people to have access to the resources that I've had the ability to obtain!
To finish, I just want to say that I have had so many experiences in my life that lead me to just have compassion for everyone, and I've been a tourist in so many places where I've seen how that industry consumes and commodifies cultures and peoples. I've also seen people forced into destroying their own ancestral lands because they've been forced into an economic system and enclosed out of their way of life. We're all wrapped up in this Earth-eating, anti-human system, and if we can just start really facing it and all of it's complexity, we might be able to actually do something about it. I hope this piece reflects the compassion and understanding I feel for the choices people (are often forced to) make.
Thank you for reading,
Maren
Absolutely beautiful writing Jake and Maren! I've sent it to everyone I know in the conservation and permaculture fields in my little part of the world. I appreciate all of the sources that you provide, so I can go down a research rabbit hole!
I think in the end, the indigenous people who have been caretakers of the land for millennia ought to be valued and trusted with the continued care of that land, including decision making in future land use. Why would we pretend all that knowledge doesn't exist?
Thank you so much for reading, as always!
A really interesting piece. Thanks. While I agree with the spirit and much of the content, I can't help feeling your righteous indignation blinds you to some fundamental issues. Unless I missed it, for example, you never really confront the growth of Masai population and its effect on the land. I read this:
-- Yet, the governing bodies of Ngorongoro, the government, and conservation NGOs (who offer safaris and trophy hunting) point to the Maasai as the main driver of ecological imbalance, pointing to their population growth as the largest problem. In Truth, Falsity, and Mismanagement, a report written and compiled by Maasai people, they disagree with this assessment, stating:
-- “To the Maasai, the mentioned issues are just a manifestation of multifaceted problems known to exist as a result of ecosystem unconscious tourism investment.”¹¹
Huh? That mumbo-jumbo doesn't address the fundamental issue at all, does it?
According to most estimates, Masai population has tripled or quadrupled since 1990. How, exactly, is this due to "ecosystem unconscious tourism investment?" This can't be dismissed with an unintelligible quote from a report written by the Masai. Exponential population growth (ESPECIALLY with pastoral people) and no new land to spread into is the very definition of "unsustainable," is it not?
I know it's tempting to romanticize people like the Sami and the Masai (I've done it!), but when a group's population is growing exponentially, and their land isn't (and can't), there will be problems that are not caused by tourism investment. We can decry tourism, but when a cruise ship hits a rock, that's a physical reality that needs to be acknowledged for what it is.
Having just driven through the land where the exploding population of Masai live, I can testify that it is totally desertified. Topsoil is long gone. It's barren. Cross over into the park, and it's a vastly different ecosystem. To say that the ecosystem has "suffered from the exclusion of the Masai" is the opposite of true, whatever we believe about their rights and mistreatment.
Speaking of investment, it's not true that "tourism [rarely] serves the local economies." You cite a study that found that "of 548 employees of NCA, only 8 were residents of Ngorongoro." How many were residents of surrounding areas? I can tell you that the city of Arusha thrives because of tourism. Do they not count? Are the villages a few miles down the road from the crater not "local economies?" Who's guiding the tours, fixing the Land Cruisers, setting up the tents, building and working in the hotels, airports, and so on? Not imported Chinese workers. Local African people.
"In fact, most people come to this area because of the Maasai presence, yet the Maasai receive little, if any, benefit."
I don't think so. Most people go to the Serengeti and Ngoro to see animals, not Maasai.
Lastly, a nuanced look at the situation would have to include acknowledgement of some of the less savory aspects of Maasai culture, like cutting off girls clitorises at 11 or 12 years old and forcing them into marriages with men in their 40s or older. Are we in favor of this? Is it any of our business? I don't know, but I think it's worth including in the discussion.
I chose not to fixate on the question of population because I'm trying to instead focus more on the conditions that create that issue, which is being enclosed into a global industrial food/culture system. Population growth isn't a cause of disharmony: it's a symptom of it. It's a symptom of a once-sustainable pastoralist culture and their subsistence way of life being uprooted and forced into the same phantom carrying capacity that we are all operating under, which is the industrial food system. My whole point is that their lands have been enclosed upon, so of course they are overusing the lands they have. The balance has been disrupted. I'm arguing that the disequilibrium began with their expulsion from the lands, because people have always coevolved with lands. This also isn't a new idea, I included a quote above which talks about how protected areas have a tendency to cause this problem of unsustainable human impacts on the borders of national parks and reserves.
I'm also sitting in a concrete city right now, whose population has also increased by 3x in the same time period, which requires an endless stream of resources imported from all over the world, so I don't think I have any right to critique the population density of the Maasai. The lands surrounding me are desertified and completely destroyed, too. That's what happens when an entire civilization lives on a phantom carrying capacity, as you well know. The Maasai are no different.
As far as the FGM, I'm not attempting to make a case about whether or not the Maasai deserve to be evicted, dispossessed, or assimilated based on their cultural practices. I'm making a case that enclosure is wrong and violates human rights. Anyway, their own people are standing up against FGM and demanding change, way back in 2004 (https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/fgm-maasai-women-speak-out) and here's a piece of last year (https://plan-international.org/kenya/case-studies/the-maasai-elder-advocating-to-end-female-genital-mutilation/). My point is that these sorts of arguments are used, along with artificial poverty, to justify their evictions, and I'm not interested in entertaining characterizations that are meant to be weaponized against them because there are plenty of other people already doing that. Given that my piece is not an anthology on the Maasai and rather it's a synthesis of ideas from two authors (you included), my experiences in Norway/Sweden, and research and interviews about Tanzania, trying to make a global case about how much humans have suffered in the face of enclosure, it didn't seem relevant for me to criticize their cultural practices. Their rights as humans are valid regardless.
Again, from where I sit in the US, where abortion is set to be criminalized in some states and a mass shooting happens every few days, I don't feel like I have many moral legs to stand on.
As I said, the rot that needs to be excised lives here. I don't think I'm a romantic for wanting to uplift voices who are saying they are being oppressed by the dominant culture and their rights are being infringed upon. There are coalitions of people all over the world (Survival International, Cultural Survival, & A Growing Culture are some of the most well known in the West, and they work with thousands of local coalitions) all asking for one thing: to be free to practice their way of life, whether it's pastoralism, hunting and gathering, or subsistence farming. I don't think I'm a romantic for pointing out that the culture that needs to change is the one who is destroying everything. Human rights will be the first victim of climate change, and what we see is that human rights violations also underpin a peoples ability to adapt to climate change, mainly due to land dispossession.
I made the subtitle "Making the Sustainable Unsustainable" for a reason – I'm well aware that it's unsustainable for overgrazing to continue, as I am aware it's ultimately unsustainable for reindeer to subsist off of soy pellets. Again, my entire point is that this lack of sustainability is a symptom of the greater phenomenon of enclosure. Sámi and Maasai are similarly marginalized for practicing their culture (I didn't mention this in the piece, but there are local conflicts with reindeer grazing as well), and the sustainability of their way of life is being constantly scrutinized whereas we can pretend that we aren't destroying lands and being held up by a global mechanism of ghost slaves without any critique whatsoever. I'm saying that there is a disconnect, an imbalance, and a disproportionate emphasis placed on the Maasai and the Sámi needing to adapt to shittier and shittier conditions until they ultimately join our way of life. That's why I mentioned your work at the end, because if we didn't choose the human zoo, how can we stand by when millions of people around the world are trying to fight against the zookeepers?
So yeah, to me focusing in on their population is not the most productive way to look at this. Overpopulation is only a symptom of phantom carrying capacity, which is a symptom of fertilizer, which is a symptom of a man called Fritz Haber tinkering with the natural world and believing implicitly that nature can and should be controlled by man, which will be the subject of my next piece. We've all been swept up in the Haber-Bosch process whether we're aware of it or not. My only point, which I stated ad nauseum, is that the people who are left should just be given respect, given access to self-determination and self-subsistence, and be left the fuck alone.
Not to "pile on"... but experiencing this stuff first hand really threw me for a loop that I didn't expect. It seems to me that the Maasai, unlike the Hadzabe for example, are not as far from "civilization" and "modernity" as I originally assumed. If there are two indigenous tribes living in the same area, both with exposure to tourism and the pressures of Western values, but one population increases and becomes far more enmeshed (Maasai) and the other decreases and resists enmeshment (Hadzabe)... I have to ask myself why.
The Maasai believe that God entrusted all of the world's cattle to them for safe-keeping. This is a belief that pre-dated any influence by Western culture. Maasai values, like ours, rest in accumulated resources. The more cattle, the better. The more wives, and the more children, the better. Yes, we could easily associate the influence of the West with their growth in population, but that doesn't quite add up. The growth of population in general is nowhere near the growth in population for the Maasai. It seems to me that their beliefs have always aligned with growth and accumulation, whether civilization interfered or not.
Having said that, one undeniable influence of civilization on population growth is the availability of Western medicine, hospitals, etc. Infant mortality rates have decreased, so in combination with the above (growth and accumulation as a symbol of status), the population has risen, which seems confusing AF to work through intellectually and existentially - am I supposed to be mad about the availability of modern healthcare in this scenario?
What I don't quite buy, or maybe it's just that I don't understand, is this idea that more food + more resources precedes population growth. (The carrying capacity you spoke about via The Story of B). It seems to me, from my experience, and even from your piece ("starvation and malnutrition are creating a 'multidimensional poverty'"), that there aren't remotely enough resources to support the growing Maasai population, even with their move toward agriculture. If it were really an excess of resources that were provoking the population growth, would we really be seeing this degree of poverty? Perhaps the problem here is twofold - the influence of Western value systems coupled with a population that was already primed for its influence and absorption. I get that we could claim this is all populations (at risk of being absorbed and/or forced into civilization), but that just doesn't seem to be true. Many indigenous populations whose values resist accumulation as a symbol of status (hunter gatherers) have not survived, or have populations that are decreasing rapidly.
Another multilayered issue is the fact that traditionally, Maasai boys were expected to kill large game (male lions, buffalo, etc.) in order to become men. This worked just fine for a while. The population of the Maasai was smaller, and the population of large game was larger, and the balance stayed relatively stable, until it didn't. Cue poaching (by non-natives), cue massive increases in Maasai population, cue tourism and conservation efforts, and all of the sudden there is a crisis. Many Maasai still engage in this practice (the killing of large game in order to prove their manhood), but many are also turning to other means of proving status - namely, accumulating more cows. (Also, as far as I can tell, cattle raiding is also not a result of Western influence. Stealing cows from neighboring tribes has always been a practice of the Maasai, again, citing the belief that the cattle were entrusted to them and them alone.)
Then, throw in massive environmental changes due to non-local influences. There is less water in general. Less grazeable land in general. Many more people + more cows + more varying interests + less land + ecosystem imbalances + conservation efforts (which can be both good and bad) + Western influences (which can be both good and bad) = a really, really complex crisis with no clear perpetrators or heroes.
So what now? With a population of over 1.2 million, what's the solution? Just give them all the land back? Tell them they can have all the cows they want and take them from anyone? Allow without consequence the killing of large game with a population of their size? Are we supposed to turn a blind eye to the beneficial influences of modernity (more rights for women, for one) while simultaneously rallying against the negative influences? Is it fair to cherry pick? And is refusing to cherry pick morally sound?
I guess my major outstanding question here is about what the future of the Maasai would have looked like without any Western influence. Of course this is an impossible question to answer, but I can't help but wonder. What makes "us" different from "them"? Is it possible that we are actually the same as them, just on a slightly different timeline? If so, what is it that we're even fighting for? Our own salvation, or theirs?
I feel like if we are really going to fight for something here, we have to get really clear on what it is we’re fighting, and make sure we aren't blindly romanticizing something simply because it looks like it's from "the past" and still holds a lot of what we (the West) left behind a long time ago. I think there are good and bad versions of everything - in this case, farming, resource accumulation and pastoralism. These practices can regenerate the land, or destroy it, and I think learning how to use these tools in beneficial ways requires learning from our mistakes. And by “our” I mean humans at varying places on the civilization merry-go round.
I can't help but feel that you and Chris are adding arguments onto Maren's essay without directly reckoning with what she has written herself (this may be because I have heard/read both of your arguments made individually in your own spaces).
I think that you are making claims about the Maasai that you can't reasonably be able to make. You are reducing what may be deeply complicated elements of cultural ecology (acquisition of cattle, game hunting etc.) to mere physical acts, and adding a presumed empirical value. Maren already used the example of the reindeer for the Sami, that by enclosing upon them and feeding them soy pellets they were directly breeching an agreement made between the two species. Such environmentally reciprocal acts, such as in Australia where specific clan members will not eat their totemic animal (repeated micro-provincially so as to achieve real effect in native animal populations, are reduced by yourself and Chris as being "romanticisation" of Indigenous peoples, when in reality it is the very disruption of these practises that has led to the loss of relative equilibrium in these areas.
Granted, we don't want to romanticise these people nor reduce them to simplified products of our own projections, but neither should we overlook practises and relationships between human and environment forged over a period of time long enough to become part of the ecosystem itself.
I can't help but feel that many of the points yourself and Chris are making in refutation where in fact self evident and already countered in the original piece.
Hey Eamon, I appreciate your perspective. I'm not sure what claims you think can't be reasonably made. All of the "claims" I made were either from speaking to people who are Maasai, live alongside the Maasai, or from the time I spent in Africa, and from research I did after being in Africa. I don't feel that what I said was "claiming" anything. I am not passing judgements, I was just presenting additional facts. And more than presenting facts, the aim of my comment was to ask questions.
Chris nor I disagree with Maren. In Chris' case, he wrote an entire book dedicated to the claim you're accusing us of refuting - that the reciprocal relationships between humans and the environment have been destroyed as a result of civilization. That's a very general, broad claim, but I believe it's true on a macro level. We all agree.
I think the difference between where I was approaching this from, vs. Maren, was simply a matter of perspective. I think Maren's piece is about how we got to where we are, and my comment or reflection was to say okay, I agree, but what now? Can we accurately say that there is an easy solution to these problems and that we know what it is? How can we possibly feel that we know what to do to solve these multifaceted issues, especially at this stage of their evolution? Is it possible that the train has swerved so far off the track that there is simply no way to put it back on? Is it possible to rewind time? Or is it more realistic to move forward, honoring our lack of control, and accept the grief of where we've ended up?
Of course there's been a disruption of their practices, and of course this has led to a lot of ecological devastation. That part is relatively straight forward. However, I don't think the solution is straight forward at all. And that's all I was trying to impart. Personally, knowing what caused a problem doesn't give us the wisdom to know what to do next. It's helpful, maybe even imperative to learn about the past, but it's not a ticket to buy our way out of grief, loss of control, and the vulnerability and humility of not knowing. The new story has to be built on top of the old story. We can't tear out a bunch of pages and start over.
So, anyway, that was my comment in a nutshell. "What is the new story, and how can we be sure to take into account the complexity of the narrative thus far?"
Eamon, thank you for your comment. I really feel like you got what I was trying to say here, so thank you!
Anya, I think we just see this so differently (and that’s okay!). I don’t see returning land rights to the Maasai as "tearing pages out” at all— it’s not possible to go back. I see it as a collaborative, creative way forward, just as the Maasai/Savory institute partnership is helping wildlife, ecosystem function, and appreciation of cultural diversity. I see it as an opportunity for reconciliation and learning from the people who are at risk of being discarded. I view it as precisely what you’re saying, the new story being built on top of the old one.
I included dozens of voices who all agree that the Maasai benefit the landscape when able to practice their land management practices. Obviously, their land management practices would need to be updated and adjusted to accommodate changes that have taken place over the past decades, but it’s clearly not impossible. Part of the point of Holistic Planned Grazing is the ability to accommodate more animals on smaller tracts of land. The Masai Mara ecosystem accommodates over a million wildebeest among so many other hundreds of thousands of animals— surely it can accommodate intelligently planned grazing of only several hundred thousand livestock. Every ecosystem and the people within it will find a solution that works best for their holistic experience in the world— my point is that external forces are taking that choice away from people, and that’s the problem. What has to happen first, which is really the only prescription I gave, is that the enclosure needs to stop, and people in the west need to acknowledge that it's happening for our "benefit", essentially.
To answer your question, “how can we possibly feel that we know what to do to solve these multifaceted issues, especially at this stage of their evolution?” Exactly— which is why I shared so many people’s perspectives who *do* know what to do, and I stated how westerners simply do not have an equal stake in this landscape. I don’t know if you looked at the document I provided in the piece, but you would see the recommendations based on local’s perspectives, their awareness of the landscape, and what they see as degradation in their landscape and what to do about it. Their recommendations are extremely complex, collaborative, and specific to their landscape. Even still, just generally, if there currently is overgrazing in one area, and undergrazing in others, the solution is in fact relatively simple.
It’s not necessarily that tourism needs to be abolished or people shouldn’t be allowed to go on safari— it’s about balance. If the management of the landscape is disproportionately accommodating tourism over local people, clearly that’s an issue, no? That’s a mistake that can be learned from, as you said in your original comment, because it is clearly causing human rights issues, land use issues, and ecosystem degradation according to the people who are best able to assess the land and who have the most stake in the health of the land.
But I do have to echo Eamon— I didn’t get the sense you guys agreed with me at all! Must just be the medium of the internet. It seemed more like you were trying to convince me that I’m wrong about wanting to advocate for the Maasai, rather than engaging with the broader ideas and context I presented this matter in. It felt more like the questions were being presented in a black and white, either/or way which to me, didn’t acknowledge the potentiality for solutions at all, and also misrepresented certain key facts (such as the population of Maasai— there are only ~93,000 Maasai in Ngorongoro, not 1.2 million, which is their total population spanning over 2 countries). For example, it’s not either we “let” the Maasai kill wildlife unfettered or we evict them and keep them ensnared in poverty, or we “give” the Maasai education and healthcare or they get no benefits of modernity at all. There’s more choices than that.
Which is why I didn’t respond previously… I just felt like these questions had so many assumptions underlying them that I just don’t agree with, which makes it hard to reply without feeling like I have to break down my entire worldview (which is impossible in this format lol)— for instance, I don’t know why the assumption is that I don’t agree that women should have more rights and access to education, when I said nothing of the sort. My whole point is about self-determination, which can include pastoralism and modern medicine/education at the same time. So-called “modern” people are choosing to become pastoralists all the time— I know them. In this sense, the “timeline” (which is a concept that I just don’t really agree with: I don’t see a timeline where we are in one part and the Maasai are on another, I just see diversity) isn’t as linear as you seem to be presenting, if it exists at all. I never assumed that they were distant from modernity— I did a zoom call with a Maasai human rights lawyer haha. Again, I just see diversity and want to advocate for the rights to cultural difference and self-determination.
I also don’t think we can impose our worldview so cleanly onto the Maasai or any other group. Accumulating cattle and children is not the same as accumulating yachts or mansions. Similarly, as far as being mad about healthcare and how that might have contributed to population increase, I don’t think you should be mad about population growth of the Maasai at all, so the question just doesn’t really land for me. The environmental degradation of the Maasai is not even remotely problematic when you consider the way the western world lives. It’s like going to a reservation – the most marginal lands that people were literally forced to live on, witnessing poverty, psychological problems and health problems – from a completely industrialized city and saying the people on the reservation are the problem, and that their condition is their own doing. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
On hunting— Elia said to you guys that the Maasai don’t hunt, and that zebras and other animals love to be around the Maasai because they are protected. I thought he painted a pretty clear picture of that dynamic. And as Eamon said, I presented within my essay the changes being implemented in lion hunting— changes that the people themselves chose because they understood it was unsustainable to kill too many.
To be honest, I felt that a lot of your statements about the Maasai were totalizing and present them as static, bad, and incapable of changing with the times, which did upset me. It felt dehumanizing. I can acknowledge perhaps that wasn’t your intention though. Both yours and Chris’ comments seemed to me like an advocation for the status quo, justifying the past and present conditions they are facing, which surprised me a lot, but I can also acknowledge that I might have been reading your comments through my own defensive filters. Because it did seem like you guys were criticizing me for being a “romantic” when you guys talk in similar terms all the time lol. It didn’t feel like I was being met on equal footing, but instead I needed to field projections. I can accept that that wasn’t ultimately y’all’s intention.
I appreciate your clarification, however! It’s giving me more understanding and also encouraging me to refute some of the things I had wanted to respond to in your original comment. I can see how I might have read your comments as justifications rather than just questions, but still… I think we have a lot of disagreements about this topic! I just don’t accept that the “train has swerved” too far off track in this case— not in the case of thousands of people demanding something as basic as human rights. I believe in human and ecosystem resiliency— everything has the ability to bounce back, heal, and be healthy again.
I’m sure you would agree with this— that grief isn’t a place that we stay in continuously forever— it propels us forward, and sometimes pulls us back in. It is so, so important, as you’ve said here. Jake and I have experienced so much grief doing this project, but through it, we’ve also seen the light: the potential of what is possible. The grief comes and it goes, but it’s only part of the story.
It’s not my job to figure out the fate of the Maasai, but it is my job to witness, listen, and share their story, struggles, and triumphs. It’s my job to share their humanity. I didn’t offer any definitive prescriptions— I only shared their own. That’s all I tried to do here. :)
I hear you though— I’ve heard your take on your podcast, and I hear you here. I just think we have come to different conclusions about this based on our own experience of the world— each is valid, and I tried to include your perspective in my piece as well. It was meaningful to hear your lived experience of seeing the degradation in the villages. I just view it as an example of a broader pattern, and as an opportunity for positive change if it can be understood as part of a broader pattern. We don’t have to agree! I have experiences that you don’t, and you have experiences that I don’t. :)
What kind of world/life/system we are trying to create? How does it look like? What "we all" are allowed and not to do/be in that world?
I believe in starting with these questions, much before identity-based arguments.
This was quite informative reporting Jack&Maren, thanks! And i felt the lack of what these "indigenous" people want/promise to rest of the world (more than "we live with nature" slogans), beside keeping things (land mostly) that they had/have for themselves. As it is (even though maybe it isn't), it looks like people (asymetrically) fighting about who should have things, and whose faults is what. History repeating.
I dont necessarily believe a person/people being additionally and unconditionally special and/or to be "biased" for being from this or that culture. It is about what they think and even more, what they do. A white male young hetero regenerative herder-to-be without land or a climate-change dismissive And soy feeding (which may not be as naive and victimhood as portrayed) Sami who already graze quite some land? (I'm sure these people you spoke are great, just to make my point...) I may emphatize more with the first one even if it doesnt sound as of a cool "identity" (which is funny also on how we categorize people)
Enclosure (preventing someone to be and act somewhere) is bad by default, you argue and i tend to agree. And in these 2 examples, this is also what has been happening before. You simply cant graze in sami land (or have reindeer), if you are not that "blood". So, it was and is "enclosed" by them to others as well...
I'm not saying that is bad. I'm saying it may not be an obvious David vs Goliath story, even though that would make things so easy:)
So, back to beginning: can we go beyond the identity fights and talk as fellow and equally respected homo sapiens about the world we want and each of ours'responsibities/tasks?