Welcome to Special Publications no.16.

This work started off as a critique of the world rainforest movement’s opposition to Reforestation in ‘terra firm’ no.9: ‘The Great Carbon Emissions Fraud. The Green Movement’s Opposition to Reforestation. Part Two’. Gradually it was realized the wrm’s reservations about Reforestation were allied to its views about tribalism and that these views were common in the green movement. It was decided a critique of tribalism was necessary. During the research for this publication an article by Paul Watson in the Sea Shepherd journal was discovered which confirmed the drift of this work.[1]

The first part of this work outlines six myths about tribalism. These myths are then contrasted with reality before some conclusions are drawn. The second part explores the way the world rainforest movement’s support for tribalism puts it into opposition to policies curbing global burning. An attempt is then made to show it is possible to support tribalism through policies aimed at combating global burning.

Introduction; The Explosion of Interest in Tribalism.

For many decades in brutland there has been a humanitarian concern for tribal peoples. Survival international was set up to highlight the plight of tribal peoples whose survival was being threatened by a range of modern forces. Various green organizations in the over-industrialized nations have publicized the destruction of tribal peoples and their Rainforests, in the hope of protecting both. Tribalism has always had its admirers within the green movement as greens compared the blatantly unsustainable lifestyles of consumers in the over-industrialized nations with the seemingly sustainable lifestyles of tribal peoples living in the world’s Forests. However, in the early 1990s, tribalism became a political creed in brutland. Many activists involved in the formation of Earth First! (uk) and green anti-roads protests, adopted a tribalist way of life and promoted tribalist ideas. The rancorous arguments that had taken place in the u.s. Earth First! movement in the late 1980s and early 1990s seemed likely to spill over the atlantic to u.k. Earth First! but the idea of tribalism was such a unifying influence amongst u.k. radicals that little of the american debate re-emerged in this country.

The rise of tribalism as a political movement in brutland, was triggered by the so-called dongas tribe in the first, green, anti-roads’ protest. Legend has it that one day a group of young people camping out on twyford downs found themselves in the path of the brutish road construction megamachine but instead of allowing themselves to be pushed on to greener pastures they decided to oppose this screaming geophysiological injustice and helped to create what became a formidable anti-roads’ protest group. Others give a different account of their role but, whatever the historical facts, a legend was born.

Political tribalism quickly acquired its own fashion in clothes and music - referred to as grunge. It rapidly became the chosen way of life for many young rebels who roamed the countryside in a variety of brightly coloured, clapped out, stinking vehicles. Tribalists merged effortlessly with other disaffected groups in society such as ravers and travellers - as if the essence of tribalism consisted of drugs, all night parties and powerful stereophonic soundsystems. Tribalists in brutland are what the hippies were in the 1960s; punks in the 1970s; and gothics in the 1980s. Tribalism became the hottest political trend through which young rebels could express themselves. Whether it was right or wrong was immaterial - it was just hot. Just as each generation creates its own music, dance and fashions, so each generation develops its own form of politics. If john lennon had been young at the time he'd doubtlessly have sat up a Tree in some ancient Woodland listening to the witterings of a world-renown witch-doctor with a fleet of rolls royces parked in the undergrowth.

Born of a legend, it’s hardly surprising that brutland’s tribalists seemed to develop fantasies about the lifestyles of real tribal peoples. They tried approximating to these lifestyles but, as far as is known, there is no record of indigenous peoples driving around the world’s Rainforests in clapped out double decker buses, vans or cars. But, then again, perhaps they were right. Given the increasing number of tribalists driving 4x4s/snowmobiles and using mobile telephones, then perhaps the lifestyles of the uk’s part-time tribalists were closer to the realities of tribal life than they might have appreciated.

Over the centuries, attitudes toward tribal peoples have swung from one moral extreme to the other. Originally, deprecated as ‘savages’ they were slaughtered, deliberately infected with diseases, tortured, or persecuted, “Most (indigenous peoples) have experienced contact, often devastating, with western industrial society through missionaries, loggers, miners, colonists and development projects.”[2] Even up until the 1980s tribal peoples in brazil had no legal protection whatsoever i.e. they were not regarded as humans. But, during the 1990s, the situation has changed dramatically. A number of television documentaries, films, and glossy books have been published applauding tribal peoples and a few scientists have travelled across the Earth to sit at the feet of tribal medicine men to discover the wisdom they have to impart. In some sections of society tribalists are worshipped for the simplicity of their lifestyle, ‘living in harmony with nature’ and ‘treading lightly on the Earth’, etc. Their way of life is hailed by some not only as sustainable but as the only sustainable way of living on Earth. One wonders how tribal peoples must have felt about this sudden adulation from green outposts around the world.

The swing from the negative extreme to the positive extreme led to the romanticization of tribal living. Tribalists came to be regarded as the living embodiments of rousseau’s noble savage - free from society’s pettinesses, corruption, and perversions. Tribal peoples are hailed not merely for having ecologically sound lifestyles, and thus being saviours of the Planet, but as people unblemished by the corrupting influence of society. Sometimes it seems as if having been discriminated against for being supposedly evil, greens now believe that tribal peoples are morally perfect. Unfortunately, both conceptions of tribal peoples, the good and the bad, are as ludicrous as each other since so little is known about their history.

There may be, however, other factors involved in this adulation of tribalism. Many people are aware of the geophysiological devastation taking place around the world as well as the colossal slaughter of Animals and some are beginning to suspect that oomans are evil. However, for many people such unpleasant doubts about ooman nature are difficult to confront. It thus becomes possible to avoid condemning the ooman race by regarding tribal peoples as redeeming examples of oomanity. And yet, just because a tiny minority of people are not bad doesn’t mean to say that oomans are not evil or, at the very least, inveterate evil-doers. Tribalism is a way for people in the over-industrialized world to avoid confronting ooman evilness.

Along the same lines, tribalism may also be a way for some people to avoid facing up to the possibility that oomans are not going to stop their destruction of their planetary life support system. The existence of tribal peoples gives people hope that oomans can survive on Earth. But the mere existence of tribal peoples doesn’t mean that oomans will necessarily avoid destroying the Earth’s life support system for oomans. Numerically speaking, tribal peoples compose a minuscule percentage of the ooman race.[3] Politically speaking they are an irrelevance in global politics. It is absurd trying to hide the geophysiological crimes of the vast bulk of the ooman race behind tribal peoples in order to uphold the belief that oomans will escape their ecocidal stupidities. Just because some oomans are not involved in destroying the Earth’s life support system for oomans, doesn't mean to say oomans are not going to destroy their life support system.

What is so galling about libertarian/utopians extolling the virtues of tribal peoples in order to try and protect the good name of the ooman race is that their compassion, which usually fails to extend to the Animals they put on their plate, prevents them from seeing the geophysiological destruction being caused by the majority of oomans on Earth. This makes them far less able to combat geophysiological destruction.

This publication exposes the degenerate state of many of the world’s so-called tribal peoples. It is time that greens stopped romanticizing about tribalists as if, yet again, a new ‘working class’ has been found which would play a historical role in bringing about a green revolution and a green world. The vast majority of tribal peoples are now hitched to the capitalist system and suffering from their own fantasies about the marvels of consumerism. Theoretically, tribalism is just another naturalistic theory. It has nothing to do with understanding the way the Earth works; it doesn’t help people to fulfil their Planetary responsibilities; nor is it a way of challenging the world’s global Earth-rapists. The ecological knowledge of tribal peoples has nothing to do with geophysiology, the science of the Earth’s life support system, and pretending they are one and the same thing is dangerous.

PART ONE: TRIBALIST FANTASIES.

1.1: Tribalist Myths.

Greens romanticize the lives of indigenous people in a number of ways.

1.1.1: Tribalists Protect Wildlife.

Many greens believe that tribal people live in harmony with their local ecological surroundings and have a close, symbiotic relationship with Wildlife. Although they kill Wildlife for food, clothing and resources, it is believed that they treat Animals with respect, "Tribal societies survived thousands of years without creating species depletion and without needing a dualistic concept of nature."[4] Politically, this implies that tribalists are the best people to protect Wildlife. However, tribalism is currently being used to legitimize the slaughter and decimation of Wildlife by hunters and traders, “Indeed, most cites insiders and their scientific advisers favour co-operating with hunters and traders rather than outlawing them.”[5]

1.1.2: Tribalists Protect the Environment.

Greens suggest that tribal peoples have never caused ecological destruction. Given that tribal peoples have survived for tens of thousands of years they must know how to look after the Forests.[6] What this implies is that, once again, tribalists must be the best people to look after the world’s Forests, “It should also be remembered that these Forests (in the South) were preserved and protected for centuries by the same local villagers, and were decimated (within decades) only when villagers lost control of the Forests to urban and commercial interests.”[7]

1.1.3: Tribalists Live in Harmony with other Tribal Peoples.

It is held that tribal peoples live in harmony not only with Wildlife and the environment but with other tribes.

1.1.4: Tribalists have Created the Earth’s Forests.

The latest, and by far the most fantastic, green fantasies about tribal peoples are firstly, the belief that indigenous peoples have inhabited or used all the Earth’s habitats, including Forests, ever since oomans appeared on Earth. Some greens realize this proposition lacks credibility so they tend to argue that every acre of land has been changed agriculturally by oomans at one point or another during ooman history. This leads to the conclusion that oomans have created the Earth’s habitats including the Rainforests.

Marcus Colchester.

“For, despite the prevalance of myths about .. ‘virgin forests’, the forests have been inhabited for thousands of years. Few areas of forest are unused or unclaimed by local communities.”[8]

Gregg Easterbrook.

“Denevan goes so far as to propose that the amazon rainforests, the paragon of pristine nature to contemporary environmental orthodoxy, “are largely anthropogenic in form and composition.””[9];

Tropical Forests Ecoropa.

“Tropical Forests are not unpopulated zoos or botanical gardens. They are homes and territory of an estimated 50 million tribespeople - or were.”[10]

Jules Pretty and Michael Pimbert - There's no such thing as Wilderness.

Many greens believe the Rainforests should not be regarded as wild but as an artificial, man-made constructs. Rainforests’ celebrated diversity has been created not by the Earth and its incredible biodiversity but by tribal farmers. Although many Rainforests around the world may seem unblemished by ooman interference, this is not the case. Jules pretty and michael pimbert argue that, “Some “pristine rainforests” assumed to be untouched by human hands, are now found to have once supported thriving agricultural communities.”[11] The implication of this is that there is no such thing as Wilderness. The world rainforest movement also looks upon the Earth in terms of ooman creativity and believes that Rainforests aren't much different from shopping malls. Such is the outlook of people who spend too long perceiving the world through car windowscreens listening to stereos. In this antagonism to Wilderness there is more than an element of some warped form of male sexuality - if something isn't virginal then it isn't Wilderness and it's not worth saving.

The implications of this ‘no such thing as Wilderness’ argument are firstly, that many greens do not support the creation of Wilderness areas, let alone ooman free Wilderness zones, because they believe this would invariably entail having to move people out of these areas - even though there are unoccupied and unused areas. Secondly, once again, because ‘Wilderness’ does not exist tribal people have the right to destroy such areas. For example, the world Rainforest movement would be happy to see the total devastation of the world’s Forests as long as it meant permanent employment for the tribal peoples who lived there.

Donna Harraway - Wilderness is a Western Concept.

Donna harraway backs up the hypotheses that tribal peoples are using or have created the Forests, by suggesting that ‘Wilderness’ is a western settled concept. She argues that tribal peoples do not see the areas in which they live as Wilderness areas because these areas are as much home to them as streets are to urban people. What she means is that tribal people occupy the world’s Forest to such an extent they intimately know every plant and Animal. There are no areas of the Forests left for tribal people to explore which they might consider as “unknown” or “wild”. Harraway’s argument is used to imply that ‘Wilderness’ has no inherent worth so this gives people, either tribalists or outsiders, the right to destroy such areas.

1.1.5: Tribalists are Superhuman in Resisting Consumerism.

Some greens talk about indigenous people as if they are a superior race of beings who are not merely clever at surviving in extreme ecological habitats, but enjoy their way of life so much they don’t want to change it for a life of luxury in a consumer society.

1.1.6: Tribalists Know how to Live Sustainably.

Greens believe that indigenous peoples know not only how to live sustainably in local ecologies but how to live sustainably on Earth.

1.2: The Realities of Tribalism.

1.2.1: Tribalists’ Extermination of Wildlife.

1.2.1.1: Tribalists’ Historical Extermination of Wildlife.

Although greens concur that tribalists kill Wildlife to survive, they also believe that, in general, tribalists treat Animals with respect. It is quite true that there is a far greater range of biodiversity in tribalist areas than there is in either the industrializing world (dominated by peasant economies) or in the over-industrialized world, but this doesn’t mean that tribalists have not, and do not, exterminate Animal species. Just as most peoples around the world have experienced a rapid increase in population which has caused the destruction of many Wildlife habitats so the same applies to tribal peoples.

There are many example of tribalists slaughtering Wildlife species. This is especially true of the tribes that invaded the north american continent at the end of the last ice age. Somewhere around ten thousand years ago, the bering straits froze over, and groups of people crossed over to america and gradually spread the entire length of the north and south american continents. These people were responsible for the wholesale extermination of the remnants of pre-historic Animals on these continents.

James Clink.

Native Indians used to drive whole buffalo herds off cliffs, and killed off the mammouth, mastadon, sabretooth, american lion, dire wolf, teratorn, giant sloth and giant beaver long before we white boys set foot on this side of the Atlantic.”[12]

Anne & Paul Ehrlich

Hunters contributed to the .. “extinction of most of the so-called 'Pleistocene mega-fauna' - herds of mammoths, woolly rhinos, giant sloths, massive bison and many other impressive herbiverous animals that roamed ice age landscapes and were preyed upon by sabre tooth cats, dire wolves and other carnivores.”[13]

C.C. Park

“A third cause of extinctions has been direct hunting and the persecution of species. Towards the close of the Pleistocene, for example, over a hundred species of large American mammals (including mammoths and many species of horse) became extinct, but the fossil record shows no marked loss of small invertebrates, plants, aquatic organisms or marine life. Martin concluded that the use of fire in fire drives (to drive whole herds of big game over cliffs) for hunting led to massive extinctions because, by the very crudeness of the technique, whole herds had to be decimated to kill the relatively few animals needed for food. The fire drives would presumably have been frequent events because the food would not remain fresh or edible for long periods of time under primitive conditions.”[14]

Paul Watson.

“Where is the north American mammoth and wooly rhinoceros? They were slain by the early Clovis people, who brought their culture from Asia."[15]

1.2.1.2: Tribalists’ Current Extermination of Wildlife.

It is hardly fair to blame today’s indigenous peoples for what their forefathers did thousands of years ago but the point is that indigenous people, just like any other group of oomans, have a long history of exterminating Animals. This tradition continues even today.

Inuit (Alaskan).

In the over-industrialized world many people are opposed to whaling but are willing to tolerate tribal peoples who murder Whales as a means of sustaining their tribal way of life, "To the alaskan inuit people, whaling is part of their traditional life. They catch about 35 bowhead Whales a year from small Walrus-skin boats."[16] It is unlikely that tribal sympathizers are quite so willing to support the outbreak of wanton barbarism by tribalists such as the alaskan inuits, "Until the early 1970s, the eskimo people of alaska were hunting about 1500 Walruses a year for their meat, skin and ivory, as they had done for centuries. Suddenly the slaughter escalated and became so severe that the soviet union made an official protest at the number of headless Walrus corpses being washed up on its shores. The reason for the increase was the demand for trophies in the form of Walrus tusks. The result was the killing of ten thousand or more Walruses each year simply for the tusks. The wastefulness is considerable: a thirty year old Walrus, weighing over a ton, is killed for the sake of its tusks which weigh only about 16 pounds. The scale and the seriousness of the issue can be demonstrated by the evidence of a couple of exposed operations. In february 1981, the u.s. fish and wildlife service seized more than five tons of fresh Walrus ivory valued at over half a million dollars. The same year other investigations caught a group of traffickers who had updated the tradition of addicting the natives to whisky and then trading it at inflated prices for their goods. This group were doing a direct swap with the eskimos of tusks for cocaine."[17] It is difficult to understand why those in the over-industrialized nations won’t face up to the fact that alaskan inuits have long since given up their tribal ways of life for the sake of a consumer lifestyle. This new lifestyle has brought with it a western outlook on Animals. They no longer treat Wildlife with respect but see them solely as a means of making a profit.

Inuits (Russian).

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the americans were the world’s biggest whalers. They murdered millions of Whales and helped to drive many species to near extinction. After the second world war the american government banned the practice and, from the 1960s became the biggest opponent of whaling. In the 1990s the wise-abusers movement pushed the american government towards agreeing to a resumption of whaling by tribal peoples. At the 1996 iwc meeting the u.s. government was on the verge of allowing the makah (a north american tribe for which see below) to take up whaling when it was discovered what tribal peoples get up to these days when they resume their so called traditional tribal practices, "The u.s. was forced into an embarrassing U-turn at the annual meeting of the international whaling commission in aberdeen last week. The u.s. was not the only country to abandon a request for aboriginal whaling. The russian inuit have a quota of 140 grey Whales. But the revelation that many of the 85 Whales taken last year were shot with automatic rifles and anti-tank weapons outraged many delegates."[18]

Makah.

Ian katz presents the glossy, romantic advertisement for tribal whaling, “Dan greene, like every makah, has whaling in his blood. For centuries the indian tribe was revered the length of the pacific north west coast for the skill and courage with which its men hunted the California Greys and the Sperm Whales which abounded in the rich waters off the olympic peninsula, west of seattle. The makah were forced to abandon their traditional way of life in the 1920s after intensive commercial whaling drove both local species to the point of extinction. Now, with the California Grey numbers off the endangered species list and numbering 23,000 they want it back. The makah have asked permission from the international whaling commission to kill up to five California Greys next year for “ceremonial and subsistence purposes”. Its leaders believe whaling will unite the tribe again and help cure social problems such as drug abuse and alcoholism in the small communities where high unemployment has been compounded by a slump in Salmon catches.”[19] It should be pointed out that dan greene could have whaling only “in his blood” since the makah had given up whaling 70 years ago.

The reality behind this romantic portrait is quite different. Firstly, as will be noted later, the makah turned to whaling because their overfishing of Salmon resulted in a dramatic slump in catches which created high unemployment. Secondly, the proposed return to whaling was not going to be a romantic struggle of a tribal people desperately pitting their wits against an overwhelming adversity, "The makah nation, situated in the northwest corner of the state of washington announced their intention to resume whaling operations in the spring of 1996. Makah spokesperson dan greene has said that they wish to return to whaling as a way of reviving their traditions, strengthening the tribe, and providing pride and a sense of purpose to younger makah. The makah have not killed whales since 1926, and there is not one living person today who can teach traditional whaling. For this reason the norwegians have offered to teach modern whaling methods to the makah and the japanese have offered to purchase the Whale meat taken."[20]

The makah realized they could make huge amounts of money by murdering Whales and selling the meat to the japanese so they applied to the international whaling commission for permission to start whaling. They were on the verge of getting permission when, fortunately, as has just been noted, it was discovered that another so-called tribal people had been firing anti-tank rockets at Whales so the iwc rejected the proposal to extend whaling rights to tribal peoples.

The iwc rejection didn’t stop the makah from taking matters into their own hands by illegally killing Whales, "On July 22, the young juvenile Whale in the resident Gray Whale family near neah bay was "accidentally" caught in a gill net set by makah "fisheries minister" dave sloanes. The Whale was drowned, the body was towed ashore, and cut up in direct violation of federal law. The governments of washington state and the united states did nothing. The makah used the Whale to experiment in butchering in anticipation of their plans to begin an illegal slaughter in the spring of 1996."[21]

The makah began planning for the time when they would be given permission to kill Whales. They applied for funding for a new marina on their reserve at neah bay but neglected to point out why they wanted such a facility, "The new marina will be used to haul out and process Whales. On May 2, 1995, the makah tribal council signed an agreement with the u.s. army corps of engineers to construct a new breakwater. The submitted environmental impact study listed fishing, tourism, and whale-watching as the reasons for having the marina improved. Whaling was not mentioned. On May 5 1995, only three days after the agrement was signed, the makah informed the u.s. department of commerce of their intention to kill Whales."[22]

It wasn’t long before one of america’s extreme right wing, loony, anti-environmentalist establishments waded in with support for the makah’s Whaling rights. Michael de alessi, a research associate at the competitive enterprise institute in washington dc, praised the makah's .. "strong environmental ethic and strict conservation practices stemming from a centuries old legacy of (private) ownership and stewardship.."[23] He went on to suggest the makah deserved the support of the american people and government because they were organized around private property rather than communalism like many other tribalists.

Paul watson explains his opposition to the makah resuming whaling, "The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society .. are not protesting whaling by the Makahs - we are opposing their plans to unlawfully kill the whales."[24] If the makah start whaling this will trigger off demands from a wide range of other tribal peoples who are also tempted by the huge profits to be made from whaling, "The consequences of illegal whaling by the Makah are considerable. Thirteen tribal bands on vancouver island have said that they want to exercise the same rights as the makah. This will escalate unregulated whaling and could seriously affect Gray Whale populations."[25]

Watson was none too impressed by the makah’s claims that they would carry out whaling on a sustainable basis because they live in harmony with their surroundings, "I recently toured the makah reservation and witnessed the devastation of total clear-cutting and the destruction of Salmon streams. This ecological devastation was not caused by outsiders. The makah pocketed the profits and laid waste to the land themselves. Now they suffer from high unemployment and with Whale meat going for $100 per kilo in japan, a Gray Whale is worth a great deal of money"[26]

Metis, (Canada).

Many of canada’s so-called tribal peoples have made a wholesale adoption of a consumerist way of life, “French and english fur traders moved through this territory even before the hudson bay company was given exclusive rights to organize a network of trading posts in 1670. Many early traders cross bred with indian women (sic) to produce a new native group: the metis. Even before the first europeans arrived, the four indian tribes of manitoba were trading with each other: the assiniboin to the south depended on the Buffalo of the great plains, the cree and salteaux on hunting, trapping and fishing, while the chipewyans in the remote north survived on the great Caribou herds. The early traders would not have recognized cross lake. There are simple timber houses .. There is a community centre, store, radio stations and landing strip for light aircraft. In the summer the lake has a lifeguard from 9am to 5pm. With their baseball caps, winter shirts and thickly padded windjammers - two even wore sunshades - the 10 elders, at first glance, could have been any group of canadians off to an ice hockey match. Trapping too has changed. Two houses still had Husky kennels but trappers now use skidoos, which are motorized, rather than sledges. Twenty years ago it could take two days to reach their trapping lines. Now it never takes more than a few hours. There are 80,000 trappers in canada only half of whom are indian. But thousands of other indians, on reservations where half of all indians still live, trap for their own needs. There are 1.2 million aboriginal people in canada - 950,000 indians, 190,000 metis and 50,000 inuit (eskimos) - representing 4% of canada’s 30 million people. Few survive only on trapping. None get rich. Yet unlike 60 other nations which have banned the leg trap, canada still uses it. Instead of killing an Animal the spring powered trap holds the Animal between steel jaws until the trapper arrives.”[27]

Inuits (Canadian).

For thousands of years the inuit maintained their tribal lifestyle by killing Wildlife solely to meet their immediate needs but during the modern age they have gradually become a part of the capitalist system by trading with fur trappers to acquire consumerist commodities. Some tribal peoples argue they want to resume fur trapping in order to rekindle their tribal ways but many tribal peoples gave up tribal living decades ago. Some tribal peoples have been a part of the capitalist system for centuries. In the 1970s when conservation groups succeeded in getting fur trapping banned, many tribal groups were devastated not because of the loss of their traditional way of life but because of the loss of their consumer lifestyle, "In the canadian arctic, the inuit people hunt Seals for their fur and meat. Traditionally, they have taken only what they need but as demand from north america and europe for the fur increased, they developed their industry to supply these markets. (After several conservation groups complained about the trade) .. the e.c. and american governments banned imports of Seal products. The inuit economy collapsed and many were left without jobs or money."[28]

Once the inuit lost the right to commercially hunt Animals they could no longer survive by reverting back to their tribal lifestyle because most had lost all knowledge about, and desire for, such a life. They were so appalled at losing their place in western consumerism they lapsed into the same behaviour traits found amongst any group in society which suddenly loses its source of income i.e. alcoholism, drug addiction, family breakdown, etc.

The status of the canadian inuits, however, has recently increased dramatically. In 1994 they were granted land rights over a vast part of canadian territory, “Canadian eskimos gave the queen a joyful welcome as she celebrated the creation of an arctic homeland that makes them the biggest private landlords in the world. Under an historic deal signed with canada last year, the eskimos - or inuit as they prefer to be called - are forming a vast new self governing territory called nunavut. They won title to 136,000 aquare miles of the eastern arctic, an area bigger than Italy but with a mere 22,000 residents. The deal makes them the world’s biggest land holders.”[29]; “In april 1999, canada will redraw its map to create the new territory of nunavut. It will stretch across the eastern half of the north-west territories - including hudson bay, baffin island, ellesmere island and the rest of the arctic ocean archipelago .. Nunavut is a vast land: 1.9m sq km in area - eight times the size of the u.k. but with just 25,000 people.”[30]

As soon as they acquired their new found status, they began campaigning for permission to engage in Animal exploitation not, of course, to revive their tribal culture but to make as much money as they could to sustain a consumerist lifestyle. Their first campaign was for a resumption of Seal trapping. Ostensibly, the reason given for this was to sell the meat and oil but in reality what they were actually after were Seal penises which can be sold for huge profits to chinese pharmaceutical corporations. The canadian government has recently given the go-ahead for the export of Seal penises to china. How times have changed and yet everything remains the same.

The second campaign was for an end to the ban on the notorious leghold trap. This is not a traditional inuit way of capturing Animals - and neither is rounding up ensnared Animals using snowmobiles, "Canadian eskimoes yesterday sought a hearing at the european parliament in strasbourg over fears that european union regulations, due in force at the end of this year, will ban imports of fur from Animals they trap in the arctic. Jim sinclair, an inuit from northern saskatchewan who is president of the congress of aboriginal peoples of canada, said, 'All we want to do is preserve our way of life, not get rich. It is not a matter of living at the animals' expense, but of balancing with nature.""[31]

Scandinavian Tribes.

Scandinavian tribes use snowmobiles to round up reindeer. The reindeer are then transported in refrigerated lorries.

Norwegian Whalers.

Norwegian tribes continue to support whaling, “More whales are being hunted commercially this year than at any time since the worldwide ban was introduced 10 years ago. Around 1,000 minke whales are expected to be killed before the end of the season. The brutish position has changed this year. Arguments about lack of whales and humane killing have been jettisoned for a simple moral position - whaling is wrong. The norwegians allocated themselves a quota of 425 minkes this spring .. The norwegian communities which struggle to market the meat they catch, would like to export their whale products to japan where there is a rich market. It is illegal to do so but a large smuggling operation has been uncovered this year involving 60 tons of meat described as mackeral.”[32]

Siberian Tribes.

.. "siberia natives recently sold a slaughtered Blue whale to Japan."[33]

Okavango Tribes.

Okavango tribes also carry out Animal exploitation, “Today, most of the 40,000 people who live in the okavango region still live by fishing, hunting, harvesting wild plants and herding cattle outside the fences.”[34]

Tribes in Zimbabwe, Botswana and South Africa.

"The Elephant populations in three southern african countries are undisputably growing - in zimbabwe, botswana and south africa. The southern african countries do not oppose the ban simply so that they can continue a lucrative trade. They argue that the success of their programmes of elephant management depends on the animal having a financial value. South africa and zimbabwe need to cull their Elephants annually. Every bit of the carcass is used; the meat goes to local people and skin and ivory to international trade, the proceeds of which are ploughed back into conservation."[35]

Masai.

George monbiot has taken up the cause of the masai tribe in kenya who have been pushed off their land to make way for a safari park. He believes the masai have been good to Wildlife, "On the whole, their impact on the game was neither lasting nor profound. Nomads lived alongside enormous numbers of wild Animals for centuries."[36] He argues the land is everything to the masai so they wouldn’t do anything to harm it, "The land and the traditional way of using it are not just a means of survival; they are the very basis of the maasai's identity."[37] Gregg Easterbrook concurs, “Today the masai, a cattle grazing tribe that for centuries lived in reasonable harmony with amboseli wildlife, dwell in poverty on the park’s outskirts.”[38]

Monbiot accuses conservationists of pushing the masai off their land. The concentration of masai tribes in the remaining areas has led to land degradation, "But conservation, having annexed so many of their dry-season grazing areas, has been of profound importance. This as much as any other factor has stopped the maasai from moving between pastures, forcing them to remain in one region throughout the year. The result is that genuine overgrazing is now taking place. The parks and the reserves are becoming islands of biodiversity in a sea of degradation. As people have been alienated by conservation, they have shown few scruples in attacking Animals with which they once co-existed. By comparison, the growth in human population, most commonly blamed for what is now the real degradation of the savannahs, is of limited significance. While human numbers have risen steeply, with corresponding effects on water supplies and settlement patterns, livestock numbers appear not to have done so: data from tanzania suggests that the maasai's Animals have not increased in 25 years."[39]

According to monbiot then it is not masai over-population nor an increase in livestock numbers which is to blame for ecological devastation but conservationists - a peculiar name to give people who are creating safari parks. This proposition is not true. Firstly, much of the land is being taken over not by the safari park but by the masai themselves. The masai were originally a pastoral people but in recent times, as a result of massive population increases, many of them have started fencing off the savannah grasslands for pharming. This has meant that Wildlife, the original inhabitants of the area, are being treated as pests needing to be exterminated, “To the masai, the pastoralists .. the wild Animals are a nuisance, at best. Predators, such as male Lions too old or lazy to chase an impala, occasionally attack Cattle and, less frequently, their keepers. The annual migration (of Wildebeests) is one of nature’s great spectacles .. but to the masai it is a disaster. (So much for their renowned ability to live in harmony with nature - a natural phenomena that has been happening for the last tens of thousands of years! The pastoralists can’t move away because they are fenced in by the masai mara reserve to the south and farmland to the north). Recently many more (masai), lured by the promise of greater income, have taken an even more drastic step: planting crops on their land and fencing it off. The masai once roamed across some of the choicest rangeland in western and central kenya .. The traditional masai way of life poses few obstacles to the Wildlife. As nomadic pastoralists, they eschew fences .. and rarely kill game for meat .. Yet the pressures on the masai are largely self generated. Some 300,000 masai now live in kenya, and their population is swelling at nearly the national rate of 4% a year. (This is becoming unsustainable and so some masai are going to live and work in the towns). More significant, as far as the wildlife is concerned, is the growing number of masai who are abandoning pastoralism for farming. Masai (in mara) generally lease their land to non-masai farmers rather than cultivating it themselves. The more prosperous masai landowners live not in the mud huts that tourists find so picturesque but in big ranch style houses surrounded by four wheel drive vehicles. Iowa comes to mind. “Most people think the masai like striding across the plains, playing the noble savage,” says allan earnshaw of ker and downey safaris ltd, “but they’d rather drive a land cruiser just like the rest of us”. The government has sought to induce the masai to keep their land open to Wildlife by giving them an even greater share of the benefits from tourism. The (masai) councils have used funds from tourism to dig wells and establish Cattle innoculation programs; the funds also help to build schools, medical facilities and roads. The (Kenyan) Wildlife department has begun providing funds generated by tourism not only to the councils but also to so-called group ranches, formed by families of masai who share a common grazing area. Now some of these ranches are subdividing their land still further - into lots as small as five acres - and distributing it to indivuduals. Eventually, all of masailand may be parcelled into individual lots .. At that point the councils may no longer have any political power and the masai may have no unified voice.”[40]

Secondly, it is absurd to believe that masai over-population has had no detrimental effect on Wildlife or Wildlife habitats. Thirdly, if the population of livestock Animals has not decreased in line with the decrease in the area of pasture then obviously the masai are responsible for the consequent degradation of the land.

The Rise of Community Commercial Wildlife Exploitation.

After the second world war, zimbabwe cleared communal land of Wildlife and introduced Cattle. Today the Cattle are being removed and Wildlife allowed to return in order to be murdered by hunters. "Game ranches in dry regions can earn 3 times more per hectare than cattle ranches. In 1975, a new Wildlife Act gave private landowners the right to own the wild animals on their land. Zimbabwe's wildlife industry is worth Z$300 million (£150m) a year, Z$92 million more than the country spends each year on its widely acclaimed health services. In 1984, Zimbabwe's Department of National Parks and Wildlife Management started the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources better known as Lampfire. The aim was to help people in the communal areas to get the most out of natural resources, including trees, grazing, water and wildlife. All profits from wildlife are returned to the locally elected district councils. EC supports buffalo extermination and tsetse fly eradication."[41]; “The (zimbabwe) government has set aside 10,700 square kilometres in northern zimbabwe to form the zambezi valley wilderness complex, an area which boasts the 2,196 square kilometre mana pools national park. .. the dande safari area - the 520 square kilometres set aside for hunting. “Hunting is the only hope for game to survive in africa,” says harry. “Wildlife must pay its way or humans will take over. We hunt a sustainable quota of 3% per year. And that earns a great deal of money used to preserve the Wilderness needed by the Animals.” Zimbabwe attracts about one million tourists a year and hunting brings in about 2,000 clients, who spend a total of $20 million. The Dande area is part of zimbabwe’s Campfire programme, which channels a significant proportion of the money earned from hunting to the rural people who live among the wildlife. (The meat from hunted Wildlife is shared amongst) 210 families registered with the local Campfire programme .. Far more significant to the masoka community is the money earned from hunting. “We have earned Z$500,000 (£31,250) each year for the past three years,” says joseph chisunga, masoka’s wildlife committee treasurer. “We have used that money to develop our community. We have built a new school block and a health clinic, we have purchased a tractor for tillage. We erected a solar-powered electric fence to protect our agricultural land from the Wildlife. Gift Zirota, the wildlife chairperson, explains how the programme has changed the community’s attitude towards wildlife. “Ten years ago, the animals destroyed our crops and attacked us. Now with Campfire, we get meat plus money from hunting. The wildlife is now an asset and we look after them. We do not allow poachers. We welcome hunters because they help us to improve our community. Campfire’s pioneering concept, to balance the needs of africa’s rural people with wildlife, has already spread to zambia, namibia, and south afriuca. Throughout zimbabwe, Campfire schemes last year earned more than Z$13 million (£812,000) for rural communities. The number of communities participating has grown from 15 in 1989 to more than 100 in 1996.”[42]

This portrait of life in tropical africa seems to resemble something approaching a green nirvana with tribal people living in harmony with Wildlife. But they are earning a good living solely solely because wealthy tourists fly into africa to exterminate Wildlife. As far as is known there is no study of the ecological damage caused by bloodsport tourism.

It has to be suspected that in 15-30 years’ time the masoka community in the dande safari area won’t be in such a good condition. The population is likely to increase requiring more land to be converted to pharming. If the tractor is used over a wider area it will require more petrol which will be purchased only by killing more Animals. As the people in the masoka community become more prosperous they will want more commodities whether televisions, computers, stereos, etc which will mean killing even more Animals so that instead of slaughtering 3% a year it will gradually become a less sustainable 10-20% a year. The increasing number of tourists means that more hotel accommodation will have to be built for them with all the ancillary services that requires. The 1996 snapshot of sustainable life in the dande safari area is an illusion because wealth is obtained from cherry picking the area’s outstanding resources. These resources can not be used sustainably to provide large numbers of people with a consumer lifestyle and the Wilderness area will be destroyed from within by its so-called friends rather than from the outside by its enemies.

1.2.1.3: Tribalists Invading Wildlife Refuges.

Some tribal peoples have found that some of the land they once roamed has been taken over by cash crop plantations. Their response has not been to fight against this loss of land but campaigns to expropriate the tiny areas of land that have been dedicated to Wildlife. This is the oldest reaction in evolution - if you can’t regain what has been taken by the strong, take what belongs to the weak - in this case Wildlife .. “most of the good agricultural land (in natal, south africa) had been converted into plantations producing cash crops, in particular sugar cane and eucalyptus, largely for export. The ‘tribal lands’ to which the bulk of the zulu population has been consigned occupy rocky and infertile slopes that are eroding fast. The various tribal groups are desperately seeking more land. They know that they cannot obtain access to the plantations, because the lands provide foreign exchange, so they are lodging claims for much of the land that at present forms part of the national parks.”[43] If men started invading women’s refuges then many left wingers would find this abhorrent but they appear not so concerned when it is a question of oomans invading the tiny pockets of sanctuaries left to Wildlife.

1.2.1.4: Tribal Medicine.

Tribalists not only kill Wildlife for food and clothing but for medicinal and recreational uses.

Gall Bladders.

"The trade in bear gall bladders, "one of the most coveted medicines in the entire Oriental pharmacopoeia" is having an impact on bear populations that is "at least equal" to that of habitat destruction says Christopher servheen."[44]

Tonic Wine.

"Poachers have more than halved the number of tigers in Ranthambhor, India's showpiece nature reserve. The biggest trade is not in skins but bone. There is a big demand for the bones in China, where they are ground up and used to make 'tiger bone wine' which is regarded locally as a tonic."[45]

Fever Remedies.

"China alone uses more than 500 kilograms of rhino horn every year in fever remedies."[46]

Chinese Tribalism.

“Field surveys assessing conservation risks posed by traditional chinese medicine (tcm) deal almost exclusively with the few medicinal mammals. The results are disheartening. Continued demand for Tiger bones makes over-exploitation a greater threat than habitat loss. Similarly, medicinal use of Rhinoceros horn has accounted for much of the decline in numbers. Between 1970 and 1993, 95% of the world’s population of black Rhinoceros disappeared, and javan and sumatran Rhinos hover on the brink of extinction. Demand for Bear bile still threatens asian Bears, even though there are now regulations on international trade in all species. One solution is to farm medicinal Animals and plants. Chinese officials have promoted this as a way of guaranteeing supplies as well as protecting endangered species. Even when it works, farming usually fails to match the scale of demand. China’s demand for Animal products such as musk and pangolin scales far exceeds supply from captive-bred sources. Bear farming in china is particularly controversial. Around 7600 captive Bears have their bile “milked” through tubes inserted into their gall bladders.”[47]

1.2.2: Tribalists Damaging the Environment.

Although greens claim that tribalists are environmentally friendly, the fact is they damage the environment. This damage may not be on the same scale as that created by the over-industrialized nations but in proportion to the size of their populations and technology it is still substantial.

Canadian Tribes.

A number of canadian tribes are doing their best to cast off their tribalist lifestyle by exploiting their resources as ruthlessly as possible. Paul Watson reveals, "Some natives, for example, support the 'sustainable development' projects of the Forest industry (e.g. pulpwood logging in la verendrye park in quebec). They have sanctioned logging of temperate old-growth Rainforest in clayoquot sound in british colombia, despite international protests. There is considerable support for the fur industry and commercial trapping (even though this industry was imposed by european colonial powers). Other native groups have backed the yukon Wolf kill and the commercial exploitation of Wildlife in national parks and reserves (e.g. in ontario). The meadow lake tribal council in saskatchewan has proposed the siting of a nuclear waste dump on its land. In nova scotia, the pictou landing micmac band council supports scott maritimes proposal to build a pipeline to discharge pulp mill toxic, chlorine-laced effluent, one kilometre out into northumberland strait, but away from the landing."[48]

Over the years watson has found himself campaigning against a number of tribal peoples, "I have stood with the yukon Wolves in opposition to the tribal council of the champagne ashihik, and I have stood with the old growth forests to oppose the nuu-chah-nulth band council plans to co-operate with the logging companies."[49]

Colombian Indians.

“Colombian indians given back their rights to half the country’s rainforest by a conservation-minded government, are busy issuing logging licenses.”[50]

Kayapo.

“Several Kayapo groups are felling their forests for cash (and in one case, for the price of 15 km of road and a Toyota to run on it!).”[51]

Makuxi Indians - Brazil.

The village of the howler Monkey, the land of the Fox and the mountain of the sun are the homes of .. “the Makuxi Indians from the northern most tip of Brazil, beyond the Amazon rainforest, where the wide grassy savannah rises up to meet the mountains of the Guyana Highlands. Since the 1950s, the 15,000 Makuxi who live in the brazilian state of roraima have seen much of their land taken over by Cattle ranchers. More recently, their rivers have been polluted by goldminers. The makuxi are in london and other European capitals, on a trip sponsored by survival international and partly funded by oxfam, because they feel that only international pressure will make the brazilian government respect their land rights. The state of Roraima is at the heart of a little publicized international plan to turn this remote region of rainforest, mountain and savanna into an Amazonian “Ruhr” - with mines, roads, cities, sawmills and airports. The mighty Amazon and Orinoco rivers would be linked by the Casiquiare Canal, enabling large ships to sail down from the Caribbean. But instead of “development” dictated by company profits, the makuxi want to choose their own way to achieve economic self sufficiency. A first step was helping each village acquire its own Cattle ..”[52] It is a little hard to believe that tribal peoples could be so stupid as to try and save their Forests by grazing Cattle. Cattle are four legged Earth-moving tractors which destroy Forests not protect them.

Australian Aborigines.

Almost throughout their history, australian aborigines have set fire to the bush dramatically transforming the environment and its life forms across the continent. Today, one aboriginal leader supports environmental damage, "Australia's most famous aboriginal leader, big bill neidjie, wants a u.s. multi-national to open a uranium mine in the heart of one of australia's most beautiful national parks."[53]

1.2.3: Tribalists at War with other Tribal Peoples.

Tribal peoples are not as peace-loving towards other tribes as many greens seem to suggest.

Yanomano

“Anthropologists who have studied the Yanomano (hunter-gatherers of venezuela) generally conclude their culture is both violent and possessive of women. Yanomano sometimes raid other villages looking for women to kidnap, killing whoever resists.”[54]

Brazilian Rubber Tappers.

In the 18th and 19th centuries, large areas of the brazilian Rainforest were overrun by people wanting to become rubber tappers. They caused considerable damage to the Rainforests as they promoted rubber Trees over other Tree species; killed huge numbers of Animals perhaps exterminating many species; and waged cruel and bloody wars against indigenous peoples in order to take control of their land .. “in the late 19thc they were considered as bad as cattlemen; many indigenous brazilians were killed by tappers fanning into the jungle during the rubber boom.”[55] In other words, rubber tappers were the bounty hunters of their time. The current view of rubber tappers as peaceful people who have always lived in harmony with the Rainforests is historical bunkum. Even those who support the rubber tappers admit that, “Rubber tappers .. were initially interested in land reform and social justice, and only later recognized the importance of the forest ecology.”[56] What happened \during the 1980s and 1990s was that the rubber tappers realized it was pointless continuing to murder indigenous peoples when both were being slaughtered by a bigger, and more violent, enemy - the bounty hunters. Rubber tappers have acted out of political necessity and joined forces with indigenous peoples to protect each other from these violent thugs .. “the rubber tappers, under mendes’ leadership, joined forces with their traditional enemies and formed the alliance of the peoples of the Forest.”[57] Aided and abetted by ‘green’ organizations around the world they rapidly acquired a green image to go with this new tactic. Rubber tappers only seem like protectors of the Rainforest in comparison to the current batch of violent cutthroats destroying the Forests in a manic search for riches. Whilst indigenous peoples may have bestowed some civilized respectability on rubber tappers, the rubber tappers continue to infect tribal peoples not only with diseases, as they did in the past, but with consumerism.

1.2.4: Tribalists have not Created the Forests.

Greens’ biggest fantasies about tribal peoples are firstly, that tribalists have used all of the Earth’s Forests since oomans first appeared on Earth and, secondly, that tribalists have in effect created the Earth’s habitats.

As regards colchester’s claim that all the Forests have been used or inhabited for thousands of years, this begs the question of what is meant by ‘inhabited’. According to colchester’s anthropocentric logic even when there were only two oomans on Earth they still occupied all the Earth’s Forests. Twenty thousand years ago there were barely a few million people on Earth so it is doubtful that they were able to use or permanently inhabit every acre of land on Earth. Surely, it is only over the last few decades when ooman numbers have bloated enormously from two billion to six billion that oomans have been in a position to use or occupy the Earth’s entire Forests.

Donna harraway believes that there are no areas of the Forests left for tribal people to explore which they might consider as “unknown” or “wild”. But there is no way that any tribe has the capability of getting to know intimately hundreds of thousands of hectares of Forest.

As regards oomans creating the Earth’s habitats, it is twaddle to believe that, at one time or another, all habitats have been used agriculturally. Given the low level of the ooman population for most of the last 20,000 years it is a little difficult imagining that this small number of oomans was logistically capable of converting the Earth’s habitats to agriculture - to put some perspective on the way ooman numbers have exploded in the 20thc it should be remembered that there are more oomans alive today than have ever existed in the past.

It is known that a couple of thousand years ago the entire north of africa was converted into desert as a result of ooman agriculture but this was due to the military and exploitational skills of the roman empire, the biggest empire on Earth until the modern age. Most of britain’s habitats were transformed during the bronze age. It is possible that substantial parts of the central american Rainforest were at one time or another transformed into agricultural areas but this is unlikely to have happened to every acre of Rainforest around the world. There is no evidence that, at one time or another, oomans have used all parts of the african, asian, and american, Rainforests for agriculture. Thankfully there are some greens who object to this green propaganda, “The fossil records show that the Forests of south east asia have existed in more or less their present form for 70 to 100 million years.”[58]

Perhaps a more accurate pointer to the fact that oomans have used an area for agriculture is not so much the existence of Rainforests as the presence of deserts since whenever oomans have used an area intensively for agriculture they invariably leave behind them deserts. The Earth is able to reclaim these deserts only over thousands of years. If the amazon was once an agricultural region, in the same way as north africa was under the romans, it would probably be a desert like the sahara. It is precisely because there have been so few oomans in the amazon Rainforest that it has such an abundance of biodiversity. The fact is then that there are areas around the world which haven’t been used by oomans just as there are also areas which have rarely been visited by oomans. Oomans cannot be praised for having created the Rainforests albeit by accident.

1.2.5: Tribal Consumerism.

The desire for consumerism rather than traditional lifestyles is now rife amongst virtually all tribal peoples around the world.

Cree and Inuit.

“About 11,000 cree and 7,000 inuit (eskimos) live in the gigantic watershed of the (james bay) system: a land area, most of it permafrost, larger than alaska. With the arrival of hydro quebec (the company building the james bay project) .. cree homes are now pleasantly warm through the long winter, and most cree now hunt from snowmobile or chevy blazers rather than on foot.”[59]

Namoaporo.

(Chevron wanted to extract oil from lake kutubo, papua new guinea. Environmentalists opposed the construction of roads around the oil field, “But the local namoaporo wanted the road; they had been petitioning the government for one for years. So chevron built a road to lake kutubo ...”[60]

North American Bingo Indians.

Some north american indians are raking in billions of dollars from bingo and gambling casinos on indian reservations .. “the national indian gaming association, a confederation of 85 indian tribes, with 67 casino sites in 18 states. Last year their gross revenues were close to $6 billion. Gambling is the biggest social revolution to hit the native americans since the coming of the white man.”[61]

Navajo Indians.

Navajo indians had their own broadcast team at the 1996 american superbowl.

Kayapo Indians.

The kayapo are the thatcherites amongst brazilian tribes, “Redencao is a bustling town with a population of over 100,000 on the br-159 highway that cuts through eastern Amazonia. Two decades ago, redencao was an isolated outpost of the economic frontier driving into Amazonia (much of this earlier wealth has now gone). These days, paradoxically, much of the town's prosperity is dependent, directly or indirectly, on the kayapo indians .. who retain control over two large reserves, covering together 70,000 square miles (the size of ireland). And it is from these lands that comes most of the gold and timber sustaining redencao. The gold panners pay the indians a tribute. The new wealth has enabled the indian chiefs to build houses in redencao, to buy planes, video-cameras, and televisions and to invest in the local money market.”[62]; “Several kayapo groups are felling their Forests for cash (and in one case, for the price of 15 km of road and a toyota to run on it!).”[63]

In their defence the kayapo have argued that they have to exploit the Rainforests to protect the Forests from being exploited by other Earth-rapists, “Kayapo chief, paiakan, has often spoken of how warriors from his people traveled to the brazilian capital during the constitution convention to defend native peoples against proposals that, if included in the new constitution, would have stripped many groups of their protective status as indians. Had the physical presence of the kayapo lobby not been evident during the convention, indians would not have achieved the new laws which guarantee to them in the new constitution the right to independent legal representation, and decisions regarding their lands would still be signed behind closed doors by government officials. The kayapo are in a fortunate position: they are relatively wealthy indians, whose money comes from mining and lumber extraction. Ironically, with all of the much heralded biological and ecological richness of Amazonia, the only products which command stable and reasonable prices are Cattle, minerals and timber - all of which require the destruction of tropical ecosystems. It was with gold and timber money that the kayapo sent on many occasions their delegations of 100 or more warriors on the costly 1000km trip to brazilia, “If we had not had that money’, explained chief paiakan, ‘Brazilan indians would have had to sit helplessly on their reserves as the politicians did exactly what they wanted. The government certainly was not interested in funding our journeys to the capitol. Indians these days must have financial resources too. Our people want radios and batteries for their tape recorders. We need the white man’s clothes when we go to the city - and we must go to the city to defend ourselves against those who would dispossess us of our lands and turn us all into fourth class citizens with no food, medicine, or money.’”[64]

This is one of the more revealing statements about the current realities of tribal politics. The kayapo leader suggests that the point of agreeing contracts with multi-national timber and gold corporations was solely to raise enough cash to send a delegation of people (dressed in white man’s clothes) to defend indian rights at a brazilian convention. Closer to the truth is that the kayapo had been exploiting their land for years before the convention was even thought of and the tribe is using the convention simply as a post facto legitimization of what they had been doing. Their seemingly simple desire for a few tape recorders neglects to mention their expenditures on aeroplanes, televisions, stereos, microwaves, and other expensive hi-tech consumer gadgetry. Even more incredible is the argument that they wouldn’t have any food or medicine if it wasn’t for the money which enabled them to buy such services. This doesn’t seem to say very much for their deep knowledge of the dietary and medicinal properties of the innumerable Plants and Trees growing in the Forests.

The kayapo leader has attracted a degree of unsavoury publicity, "Two months after the launch of the body shop's wild brazil nut product and its Rainforest associations in april 1992, there were reports that one of the most important figures in the deal was facing a charge of rape. The scandal involved paiakan, a leading member of the kayapo tribe and a person the body shop had been keen to promote as legitimizing their work. (Paiakan's) .. style of life - involving homes in the city, cars and drink - seemed a world away from the village and forest simplicities presented in the body shop material ..."[65]

Brazilian Indians.

There are brazilian indian chiefs who have opposed the brazilian courts ruling against a road building project and who have opposed the timber trade federation which wanted to ban the illegal export of timber.

1.2.6: Tribalists Cannot Live Sustainably.

It has been pointed out that greens believe that indigenous peoples know how to live sustainably. However, whilst indigenous peoples may know how to live in harmony with their local environment (nature) this doesn’t mean they know how to live in harmony with the Earth. The assumption here is that the concept of ‘nature’ is different from that of ‘the Earth’ as outlined in lovelock’s science of geopysiology.