1.3: Conclusions.

The last section highlighted the changes in indigenous tribes’ relationships to the wider world. This section draws some conclusions from these facts.

1.3.1: Tribalism is not the best means for Protecting Wildlife.

This section outlines the reasons why tribalists cannot be entrusted to look after Wildlife.

1.3.1.1: The Shift from Segregationism to Integration.

In the past, conservationists attempted to conserve Wildlife by protecting them not only from hunters and poachers but from tribalists who either exploited Wildlife or Wildlife habitats. In some cases, Wildlife had been slaughtered to such an extent the only way of guaranteeing the survival of the Animals left was by excluding oomans from these areas. However, from the 1980s onwards, as the poison of thatcherism spread around the globe, a new breed of conservationist emerged who insisted that segregationism is wrong and that tribalists ought to be allowed to live in proximity to Wildlife because they are the best people to look after Wildlife, “In 1971 the concept of the biosphere reserve emerged in the framework of the activities of unesco’s ‘man and biosphere’ programme, as an alternative to the idea of a closed sanctuary excluding humans from forming part of it. The programme stressed the role of human beings as an ecological force of the first order and considered the human population and its activities as a fundamental part of the territory. The IV global congress on national parks and protected areas in caracas, 1992, buried the old concept of protected areas preserved as islands outside the local communities and alien to human events. In its place a more up to date approach was adopted which makes protected areas the centre of sustainable development strategies.”[1]

During the 1980s and 1990s it became increasingly obvious that the pressures on Wildlife sanctuaries were becoming more and more intense. It was believed that something had to be done to stop the sanctuaries from being completely over-run by oomans. This involved making a choice. Either provide increased security for the sanctuaries so that Wildlife could continue to survive as independent creatures without being maimed, mutilated or murdered by oomans and then implement policies to prevent the surrounding societies from expanding at unsustainable rates. Or, allow oomans to exploit Wildlife as natural resources. The following quote indicates that conservationists decided it was better to allow ooman over-population (of cars, kids, cattle, capital and carnage) to continue at unsustainable rates and then cover up this barbaric greed by claiming the exploitation of Wildlife in Wildlife sanctuaries was sustainable - although quite what relevance it was to have an island of sustainability surrounded by oceans of unsustainability is difficult to understand, “Known under national laws as national park, nature reserves, protected landscapes and much more besides, the collective term for such places is ‘protected areas’. Protected areas have been defined as “areas of land and/or sea specially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means”. Iucn - the world conservation union, works with the world conservation monitoring centre to record all such areas over 100 hectares. At the latest count, there were nearly 10,000, covering about 930 million hectares or 5% of the Earth’s land surface. On the face of it, that is an impressive figure. But there are many where the pressures have partially or even completely overwhelmed the protected area managers. When the world’s protected areas managers met two years ago in caracas, venezuela on the eve of the Earth summit, they recorded their alarm at these trends. With the prospect of rising human numbers, climate change and other global pressures, the outlook seemed grim indeed. An agreed approach to protected areas emerged from this debate. The need was to turn away from regarding protected areas as islands set aside from the mainstream of human progress towards integrating them into development strategies. For example, rather than concentrating all conservation efforts on fighting poachers, it would be better to encourage sustainable development projects .. or to develop eco-tourism projects which would give local people a vested interest in the survival of the park and its wildlife. This approach is not really that novel. It has been a feature of unesco’s biosphere reserves for many years .. one of the major aim of the convention on biological diversity, signed at the earth summit, is to set up system of protected areas in each country.”[2]

The new integrationist policy holds that tribalists live in harmony with Wildlife and that their exploitation of Wildlife gives them a vested interest in ensuring the survival of rare and endangered Animals. The idea that tribalists live in harmony with Wildlife sounds extremely seductive - seductive to oomans that is, not to the Wildlife who face execution. What greens and conservationists actually mean by integration is that oomans have the right to murder Animals. Greens support for ‘communal integration’ is very much on a par with the tory government’s ‘care in the community’ policy - both of them unleash murderers into the community under the pretext of making life more harmonious for everyone. The only difference between the two is that whilst tories released murderers into the community to prey on local people, greens allow murderers to prey on local Animals and make a profit out of doing so. When conservationists and greens grandly and proudly talk about people ‘living in harmony with their environment’ what they actually mean is that they support oomans’ right to slaughter Animals.

1.3.1.2: The Integration of Oomans and Nature.

1.3.1.2.1: Green Organizations’ Support for the Invasion of Wilderness Areas and the Communal Exploitation of Wildlife.

There are many green organizations which believe that tribalists ought to be allowed to invade what were formerly Wildlife sanctuaries in order to exploit Wildlife.

The World Wide Fund for Nature.

“The largest environmental group in the continent (africa), the world wide fund for nature, is pulling out of the region’s game reserves and national parks. Senior wwf officials have admitted the organization’s traditional role in wildlife preservation is no longer tenable. The wwf’s idea, shared by many other conservation groups, is to integrate wildlife management back into the community and stop it being seen as the sole preserve of white men. The new york based conservation society now lists its prime activity as supporting african-based field scientists and works to tear down the fences between people and animals. In zambia, for instance, it aims to “help communities make informed decisions about the sustainable use of wildlife.” It is a strategy that claude martin has pursued since taking over in 1994 as director general from the more traditionally minded south african charles de haes.”[3]

Wwf and the World Conservation Union.

“The wwf and the world conservation union, an alliance of ngos and government agencies, both agreed new policies on indigenous people last year. For the first time, the two organizations explicitly recognize the rights of indigenous people to control their land.”[4] Indigenous control over land is code for indigenous people being allowed to execute Wildlife.

The Conservation Action Network - the World Conservation Union and CITES.

“The decision eight years ago to ban the ivory trade has created a deep and lasting schism among the convention’s signatories. The split is manifested in two lobbying caucuses: the species survival network, under which conservationists and Animal rights groups have united, and the conservation action network, which represents the rights of people to exploit local wildlife. (One of the members of the can) is eugene lapointe, secretary-general of cites until he left in 1990 following allegations that ivory traders were funding his cites ivory unit. (There is a swing to the exploiters). The world conservation union, a swiss based body, the world’s largest grouping of environmental scientists, argues that where possible cites “should avoid blanket trade bans” because they create conflicts and, notwithstanding the recent successful crackdown on ivory trading, are unworkable in the long run. Indeed, most cites insiders and their scientific advisers favour co-operating with hunters and traders rather than outlawing them.”[5] Imagine that instead of talking about the exploitation of Elephants the author was talking about the exploitation of oomans.

The Swedish Society for Nature Conservation.

“The story of how the swedish society for nature conservation’s promising plan to save the rainforest in samoa turned sour .. But it is not a tale that is confined to this one pacific island. All over the globe, western conservationists trying to co-operate with people in developing countries have run into similar opposition. The problem is the cultural arrogance of the incoming “experts” .. (The tribal chief refused to allow loggers to destroy the local rainforest but a couple of ecologists suggested that the tribes bring in ssnc to help them develop the Forest). In 1990, the ssnc and the chiefs of tafua signed an agreement which promised $65,000 to build a new school and establish a 5000 hectare rainforest preserve. (The two ecologists then helped the tribes to apply to) the swedish international development agency to build solar power stations, ecotourist centres and Forest trails in tafua and other villages. (One of these two ecologists) thinks that scientists who work with ngos can also be part of the problem because many of them believe that nature is best without people.”[6]

1.3.1.2.2: Green Individuals Supporting the Invasion of Wilderness Areas and the Communal Exploitation of Wildlife.

There are many greens who believe that tribalists ought to be allowed to invade what were formerly Wildlife sanctuaries in order to exploit Wildlife.

Fred Pearce - The Central Kalahari Game Reserve, Botswana.

Botswana’s government and scientists oppose .. “the traditional cattle herders and hunter-gatherer bushmen operating within the central kalahari game reserve. The arid reserve, which is about the size of switzerland, was set up in 1961, five years before botswana’s independence. In the mid-1980s, a system of zoning was created under which two central areas will be kept “pristine” - that is devoid of people.”[7] What this seems to suggest is that fred pearce finds it revolting that oomans are not in occupation of every single acre of the Earth.[8]

Gregg Easterbrook.

“Officially enviros want a lower human population so that humankind will ‘tread lightly on the Earth’. The subconscious motive is the desire to be alone with nature: to have entire vistas of the natural world to yourself. But in the end the desire to control human numbers so that areas of the Earth might remain bereft of people is not a modest urge, but a self-centred one. This is best seen in nature preserves that have been established in the past decade or so in several developing nations, often in conjunction with western environmental groups. In most respects such preserves are excellent ideas. The exception is their effect on human beings. To establish the royal chitwan (national park) the nepali government expelled some 20,000 indigenous peoples from the territory they had occupied for centuries. Soldiers of the nepali army patrol royal chitwan, authorized to shoot on sight any peasants suspected of poaching. That means that in royal chitwan, as in several third world wilderness preserves, people may be hunted but not animals. Nepal is hardly the place where the desire to be alone with nature blinds environmental orthodoxy to the condition of the indigenous poor. At kruger national park in south africa, an important elephant preserve, wardens are authorized to shoot on sight natives gathering fuelwood. When kenya established amboseli wilderness preserve it first drove out the indigenous masai, promising compensation that was never delivered. 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. When ethiopia founded bale mountain national park as a preserve for the endangered simien jackal, local peoples were barred from using the area as grazing grounds, as they had done for centuries. When the hated government of mengistu mariam fell in 1991, locals entered the park and began shooting the jackals, exacting revenge on animals that had been treated better than them.”[9]

So, according to easterbrook, the desire to protect Wildlife and allow them the dignity they deserve, and the desire to combat global burning and stabilize the climate, are both self-centred motives. Presumably then allowing oomans to trample over the Earth like an invading army of looters is the epitome of selfless, altruism? What a crackpot.

As has been pointed out earlier, it is not true that the masai are a destitute people living on the edge of a park without land or income. Some masai own huge areas of land and are very rich. The reason all the masai cannot find land to live on is because of their huge population growth over the last few decades.

Easterbrook believes that, in ethiopia, the simien Jackal was treated better than local people. But locals/tribals had been killing so many Jackals the only way to preserve them was by creating a Wildlife refuge. When the government collapsed it is hardly surprising these so-called Wildlife lovers resumed their hunting spree in order to sell Animal products for nike boots and pornographic mags of blonde bimboes. The arrogance of locals who believe they can just engage in wholesale over-population and then take over whatever bit of land they want in order to further boost their profligacy is incredible. They are just exercising the usual oomano-imperialist prerogative, ‘might is right’. They wouldn’t like it if Jackals started over-breeding and then tried to take over the land occupied by oomans.

It’s funny the way oomano-imperialists like easterbrook think it is perfectly acceptable for third world governments to relocate millions of people to build motorways, dams, hydro-electric power stations, etc and yet not do anything to preserve Wildlife. Easterbrook lavishes praise on the creation of massive dams in canada and yet still quibbles about the creation of Wilderness areas to preserve Wildlife.

Gregg Easterbrook on the Tiger Preserve in West Bengal.

According to easterbrook, the indian army protects Tigers in the sundarban Forest preserve in west bengal, “Not protected are the impoverished peasants who enter the sundarban to collect honey from its thousands of natural beehives. The soldier-guarded bengal tigers spring on and kill at least 50 honey-seekers per year; poor, unarmed people risking their lives to gather something they can sell to feed their children. Orthodox environmentalism considers the preservation of bengal tigers a priority, the deaths of peasants a distraction better left unmentioned.”[10]

As soon as these “poor, unarmed people risking their lives to gather something they can sell to feed their children” are allowed to exploit the Wilderness area there will be a ‘once and for all’ ransacking of resources which will ultimately lead to an explosion in the numbers of oomans. As a consequence, more and more Trees will be cut down until, eventually, the entire Forest will be converted into desert and mass starvation will ensue.

Tom Athanasiou

“In the ongoing debate about saving the african Elephant from ivory poachers, proponents .. of hunting bans are under attack by third wavers who believe as the ‘economist’ (sic) wrote, that conservationists would be wiser to “set up a toughly controlled trading system to market a limited quantity of sustainably harvested ivory” than they would be to attempt to prohibit its use altogether. Third wavers have a point. The ivory ban campaign does not even begin to address the social conditions that engender Elephant poaching in the first place.”[11]; “Today, in the south, ‘reforestation’ often means the eviction of local people from Forests slated to be clear-cut and sold, and then converted to monoculture tree plantations.”[12]

It is a little difficult to appreciate why, if oomans can’t organize a decent society for everyone to live in, they then believe they are perfectly entitled to to try and solve their problems by slaughtering Animals.

Andrew Rowell.

“Northern environmentalists were primarily concerned about the fate of the Forest and were slow to realize that people lived in the amazon who were also an integral part of the eco-system. Around 86% of the protected areas in the region are inhabited. Traditionally it had been up to groups such as Survival International .. to champion the cause of the Forest dweller in the northern hemisphere. Thankfully, some environmentalists have started adopting a more realistic, holistic approach. Rubber tappers, on the other hand, were initially interested in land reform and social justice, and only later recognized the importance of the forest ecology. This said, some of the policies that northern environmentalists have advocated have been totally ignorant of forest dwellers and have done more harm than good. There are, for example, still problems where northern environmentalists have advocated the setting up of northern parks where the traditional forest dwellers have been excluded and expelled from their land. .. the policies have also actually increased deforestation as ranchers and industry have invaded areas previously protected by the evicted inhabitants.”[13]

1.3.1.3: The Dangers of Integration - the Communal Exploitation of Wildlife.

It has been pointed out above that tribalists have a long history of slaughtering Wildlife. During the last ice age the tribalists who crossed the bering straits to america exterminated the remnants of pre-historic Animals across the north, and south, american continents. During the modern age many tribal peoples abandoned subsistence hunting and began the mass slaughter of Animals for profit. Today tribal peoples are in the vanguard of the revival of the global Animal exploitation industry.

1.3.1.3.1: The Free For All Highway to Extinction.

One of the main arguments put forward for the trade in endangered species is that by giving species a monetary value this will ensure hunters/traders have a self interest in protecting these species. Unfortunately, this is exactly the same argument that was put forward at the start of the trade in Animal exploitation and this has done nothing to stop the elimination of Animal species. Although Animal exploiters in general have a financial interest in ensuring the perpetuation of the species they have an even greater self interest in exploiting the species as rapidly as possible before their competitors. As soon as a trade in Animals is permitted there is a colossal rush to exploit the species before they are all exterminated which, of course, hastens the eradication of these Animals.

1.3.1.3.2: The Trade in Wildlife cannot be Regulated.

Even where there are regulations to prevent a free-fall carnage of Wildlife species there are always those who evade the regulations because of the huge financial rewards. Only outright bans can stop the cheating that takes place under partial bans.

Illegal Whaling.

The partial ban on whaling is being exploited so that more and more Whales are being killed each year, “More whales are being hunted commercially this year than at any time since the worldwide ban was introduced 10 years ago. 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.”[14]

1.3.1.3.3: Animal Exploitation Leads to the Extermination of Predators: The Reduction in Biodiversity.

Conservationists not merely allow the killing of their target species, they also kill off the target species’ predators. Transparently, if predators are killing the Animals which hunters want to kill this decreases the profits that can be made from hunting. This creates a huge financial incentive for so-called conservationists to slaughter all the target species’ predators. This leads to a reduction in biodiversity, "There is the possibility that game ranching and cropping will affect species diversity and ecosystem stability as much as poaching or even, in some cases, cattle raising."[15]; “It seems to be an axiom of game ‘management’ that the natural predators of pheasant and grouse must be killed in order that another predator, man, can slaughter greater numbers of the prey, ritually, at a later date. Peregrine, buzzard, golden eagle and other hawks and owls are still shot and poisoned on gaming estates, even though they are protected by law. .. other ‘vermin’ which are killed for the sake of the shoot: stoats, weasels, jays, magpies, crows, pigeons, rats, adders ..”[16]

The same also applies to bushmeat - the slaughter of Wildlife for their meat. This has led to specialities such as Elephant burgers. The first problem is that if one type of bushmeat becomes increasingly popular then there will be a tendency to boost the numbers of that species at the expense of other wild Animals e.g. Animals will be killed to make way for more Elephants. There will be an increasing temptation to rear Elephants in the same way as livestock - some may even be put into compounds. The profits from Elephant burgers will be used to expropriate more and more land used by wild Elephants in order to provide oomans with more housing, sports centres and shopping complexes - before an ecological collapse undermines this expansionism.

The second problem is that Elephant burgers may become so profitable then, like whaling, it may trigger off large scale poaching which will endanger the species.

1.3.1.3.4: Animal Exploitation Leads to a Boost in Bushmeat.

In the past Wildlife were slaughtered for self defence, ritual reasons, clothes, or to make way for Cattle but not often for food. Over the last decade or so there has been a vast increase in the consumption of bushmeat. This has happened especially since the introduction of safari parks. These days Wildlife are being encouraged to return to their former grazing areas so that they can be killed for meat. This is generating an increasing desire for bushmeat which could be satisfied either by the farming of Wildlife or by poaching Wildlife. Safari parks may be able to control the numbers of a particular species being killed within its boundaries but outside these boundaries Wildlife are increasingly being killed for meat.

1.3.1.3.5: Animal Exploitation Leads to the Extermination of Wildlife posing a Threat to Oomans.

Tribal peoples are no different from any other oomans; they will kill all those Animals which pose a threat to their children’s survival.

1.3.1.3.6: Tribalism Perpetuates the Suffering of Animals.

The vile leg-hold trap is still in use around the world primarily because of tribal peoples, "Some, in sentimentally over-emphasizing the value of tribal and peasant communities have perpetuated unnecessary cruelties arguing, for example, that traditional methods of hunting and killing animals should be allowed to continue."[17]

1.3.1.3.7: Tribalism being used to Legitimize the Commercial Exploitation of Wildlife.

A couple of decades ago the issue of the commercial exploitation of Wildlife by tribal peoples erupted during a greenpeace campaign against the slaughter of Seals. Greenpeace decided to terminate the campaign because of the detrimental effect a ban would have on the well being of tribal peoples even though, as has already been noted above, the damage was to tribal consumerism rather than to traditional tribalism. The tribal capitalists defended their commercial practices by pretending they were poor, subsistence tribalists. Although they had given up their tribal ways long ago they exploited their tribal origins to win public support for activities which denied their tribal origins. As a result of greenpeace’s decision a number of people left the organization and set up lynx which continued the anti-sealing campaign on the grounds that .. "because the fur industry hides behind the cause of aboriginal people, the latter must considered agents of the fur lobby."[18]

From the mid 1990s, tribal ideology has increasingly been used to protect and promote the Animal exploitation industry. For the last couple of decades the wearing of fur has become more and more unpopular so the fur industry started to think up ways of countering people’s reservations about fur. They eventually adopted the tactic of co-opting supposedly indigenous people. The Animal exploitation industries want to encourage the public to feel good about buying fur because it would help to alleviate the poverty of tribal peoples. This has helped to counter the tatty image of the fur industry. Tribal people began to be employed to front the fur industry and thus deflect criticisms about Animal exploitation.

Even worse is that tribal ideology is being used to justify the entire Animal exploitation industry. Commercial Animal exploiters use the argument that if indigenous peoples are allowed to wear furs/eat meat then why shouldn’t everyone else? Just as tribal peoples’ tradition of wearing fur is used to legitimize the rights of everyone to wear fur, so indigenous peoples’ exploitation of Animals is beginning to be used to condone the global Animal exploitation industry. The tradition of tribal hunting is used to support everyone’s rights to hunt.

Tribalist ideology is also being used to ensure the expansion of the Animal exploitation industries. Up to the mid 1990s only a few countries around the world killed Whales even though there is a huge market for Whale meat. One way of increasing the supply is by encouraging tribal peoples to return to their traditional whaling practices, "Japan has been actively encouraging aboriginal communities to resume whaling. Tonga was recently approached by Japan as a conduit to supply whales, and siberia natives recently sold a slaughtered Blue whale to Japan."[19]

There is one further way in which tribalism is currently being used to promote the Animal exploitation industry. Tribalists are being used to open up Wilderness areas which were previously off-limits to hunters - as has been noted above under the pretext that tribalists are the best people to protect Wildlife. Many people in the over-industrialized world have a great deal of sympathy for the preservation of Wilderness sanctuaries and would oppose many attempts to open them up for the commercial exploitation of Wildlife, but the Animal exploitation industry is using tribalism to counter this sympathy. It believes that no matter what sympathy the public has for Animals they have even more sympathy for the poverty of tribal peoples and would thus be willing to allow tribal peoples to escape poverty by exploiting Wildlife in safari parks. Unfortunately, this strategy is just a backdoor method of allowing the Animal exploitation industry to increase the mass slaughter of Animals.

Further implications of this strategy deserve to be mentioned. Tribalism is based on the assumption of oomans living harmoniously with Wildlife. However, there is a common sense argument which runs completely against this assumption i.e. that no parent would be stupid or callous enough to endanger their children’s lives by allowing Wildlife to live in their vicinity. Ask any person on Earth whether they want Lions, Tigers, Wolves, Bears, Snakes, Coyotes, etc living on their doorstep and they will answer of course not. And yet tribalism, and the idea of living harmoniously with such creatures, is being used to undermine such common sense. So, when a planning authority decides to allow oomans to live in a Wilderness area, having been persuaded by the tribal propaganda of harmonious living, the first thing the settlers do when they move into the area is to exterminate all the Animals that pose a threat to their children’s survival.

Even more absurd is that tribal propaganda insists that oomans not only live harmoniously with Wildlife, but that oomans are good for Wildlife. This implies that oomans should be allowed to settle in Wilderness areas to help to enhance the Biodiversity of that Wilderness. The implication of this fantasy is that there hadn’t been any biodiversification on Earth until homo exterminous arrived to boost the number of Wildlife species. However, the history of the ooman race shows that oomans are all too prone to slaughter everything in sight and that whenever oomans live in proximity to Wildlife the level of biodiversity drops dramatically. Whilst ooman numbers have increased hideously over the last hundred thousand years, the numbers of Wildlife species have declined reciprocally. The reason that both the Animal exploitation industry, as well as greens, including green radicals such as those in the ‘land is ours’ and ‘green anarchist’, promote this gross distortion of reality is because they all have a commitment to an oomanistic ideology of almost cult like proportions. Whilst these oomano-imperialist bigots are incessantly chanting that oomans can live harmoniously with Wildlife, in reality, everyday, in every corner of the world, oomans are destroying more and more Wildlife species. If there was ever an example of ooman intellectual sickness this is it. The policy of living in harmony with Wildlife is the green equivalent of the tories care in the community.

1.3.1.3.8: The Exploitation of Wildlife will Boost Ooman Overpopulation and Poverty.

The resources obtained from the exploitation of Wildlife in former Wildlife sanctuaries will lead to an increase in economic growth, an increase in ooman overpopulation, and increasing demands for the more extensive exploitation of Wildlife. This spiral will eventually lead to the extermination of Wildlife, the collapse of local ecologies, and widescale poverty amongst those who’d pursued such a get rich quick scheme.

One of the great puzzles about those who advocate the communal exploitation of Wildlife is what tribal peoples are going to do to survive when they have exterminated all the Wildlife in their local area. Their exploitation of Wildlife is unsustainable over the long term so how are they going to earn their living once they have massacred Wildlife?

1.3.1.4: Greens opposed to the Communal Exploitation of Wildlife.

Thankfully there are individuals and organizations who support the belief in the segregation of the species in order to protect Wildlife.

Conservation International.

“The rich and influential washington-based Conservation International, which specializes in buying up and preserving rainforest, notes that traditional approaches to conservation are the only ones so far that have been shown to work.”[20]

John Robinson.

One scientist who argues that indigenous people should be relocated in order to protect Animals is john robinson, who oversees 250 projects in 52 countries for the Wildlife conservation society of new york. He thinks it is a ‘desirable goal’ to move up to 6000 people from the nagarhole national park in southern india in order to preserve 40 asian Tigers. Robinson stresses however that people shoud be encouraged, not forced, to leave. People living near nagarhole illegally hunt Deer and other Ungulates, he says, thereby depriving Tigers of their prey. In earlier times, when local tribes were able to move around much larger areas, such hunting may have been environmentally sustainable. But robinson claims that now there is simply not enough room for human and feline hunters to coexist. Many local people commute out of the park to work on tea plantations rather than hunt for a living.”[21]

1.3.1.5: Concluding Remarks.

Greens argue that tribalists respect Wildlife and are the best people to protect Wilderness areas. Unfortunately, it should be transparent from the above examples that, since the second world war, an increasing number of tribalists have abandoned their traditional lifestyles, and the subsistence killing of Wildlife, and are now slaughtering large numbers of Wild Animals for the sake of a consumerist lifestyle. Tribal hunting practices have been replaced by more modern methods enabling a bigger slaughter of Animals and thus greater profits. Tribal peoples are no longer killing Animals to reinforce their tribal lifestyles and values but, on the contrary, to discard them for the sake of consumerism. The commercialization of tribal hunting means it is no longer possible to condone the tribal slaughter of Animals. Some 'primal peoples' may have 'biocentric belief systems' but when they start trading Animals for consumer items they no longer deserve sympathy. When they trade Animals to buy motorized transport such as snowbikes (Lapplanders) or motorboats, etc., to help them catch even more Animals then they should be opposed as vigorously as any other eco-nazis. There is a great deal to admire about tribal peoples but when they discard their tribal identity and start buying western consumer items, they should be treated like any other group in society.

1.3.2: Tribalism is not the best means for Protecting the Environment.

1.3.2.1: Tribal Peoples Hoping to Create a Forest Harvest.

The destruction of the environment carried out by tribalists is far less than that carried out by multi-national corporations in the over-industrialized world. However, the danger is that as tribal peoples become more and more integrated into capitalism they will boost environmental damage. A number of green organizations are hoping to protect tribal peoples by encouraging them to exploit their (non-Animal) resources for the global market - even if this means the dilution of their tribal culture. It is also believed the cash cropping of Forests will not cause too much damage to the Forests - although no evidence has been put forward to show what protection the Forests would be given. Rubber tappers have used this propaganda for nearly a hundred years to defend their exploitation of the Forests.

1.3.2.2: Supporters of the Forest Harvest.

Andrew Rowell

“In fact there are many ways in which the forest can be sustainably utilized by harvesting fruits, nuts and rubber.”[22]

World Rainforest Movement (wrm).

“Organizations such as the wrm hope that tribal peoples will convert Forests to grow cash crops either food such as nuts or resources which can be turned into a range of natural products e.g. hair conditioners, hair-shampoo, etc, “These were areas (extractive reserves set up by the brazilian government) where only sustainable traditional practices such as rubber tapping and forest harvesting of nuts, fruit, cocoa and oils would be allowed.”[23]

1.3.2.3: Critics of the Forest Harvest.

There are a number of critics of a Forest harvest.

Stephen Cory.

“Stephen cory, director general of survival international, one of the major indigenous rights groups, is one of the most radical opponents to ‘the harvest’. The ‘harvest ideology, charges cory, ‘reveals itself to be essentially an integrationist philosophy which, if allowed to gain momentum, could set the campaign for tribal peoples back 25 years or more playing right into the hands of those who want to oppose the movement for land rights.’ He continues, ‘If allowed to take hold, this new integrationist ethic masquerading as environmentalism will be deeply corrosive to the struggle which so many indigenous peoples’ organizations are waging to the outside world that their land is not for sale and that they will not put a cash value on it any more than they would sell their own mother. In a recent attack on cultural survival and the body shop, cory describes all trading with indigenous peoples as ‘slow poison’ and those involved in such activities as ‘not rainforest traders, but rainforest raiders, squeezing what they can out of the public’s goodwill and the latest forest fashion.’”[24];

Jon Entine.

The rainforest harvest, which proponents claimed provided natives with an alternative to selling land to industrial groups, may encourage the nightmare it seeks to contain. The project was launched in 1988 when ben cohen of ben & jerry’s, the ice-cream firm, met an anthropologist promoting capitalism on the amazon. Soon after, cohen launched rainforest crunch ice cream and roddick brought out brazil-nut hair conditioner. The result was that a tiny crop of high-priced nuts was targeted by the region’s giant agri-businesses. Production volumes soared and prices tumbled, cutting native incomes just as governments used the harvest as an excuse to cut aid. Finally, ben & jerry’s changed the wording on its Rainforest crunch label after its own social-performance review revealed that 95% of its brazil nuts came not from Forest people’s co-operatives but from commercial suppliers.”[25]

Anthony Anderson.

Anthony anderson has drawn attention to the relatively low productivity of some traditional models of economic exploitation, including, most specifically, the ‘extractive reserves’. He shows how reliance on only brazil nuts and rubber is not only economically impoverishing, but decreases biodiversity as well.”[26]

John Browder.

John browder is yet another persistent voice in pointing out the over-rated productivity of traditional Amazonian models of exploitation. He expounds the somewhat politically incorrect position that chico mendes and ‘his rubber tappers’, for example, were a political movement and not an environmental one. Quite to the contrary, says he, rubber tappers will deplete their resource base as any other group will when given the chance. He maintains that too many funds have gone to ‘help one small segment of the rural poor hold onto their cultural heritage and economic way of life’, while what is needed are ‘solutions for millions of other poor inhabitants of tropical Forests’.”[27]

1.3.2.4: Concluding Remarks.

It is likely that turning tribal peoples into Tree pharmers will damage the Forests. It will also transform tribalists from a nomadic to a settled lifestyle and push them from self sufficiency to consumerism. It can be concluded that tribal people cannot be trusted to look after the environment, “Likewise, kent redford has warned that many ‘traditional societies’ heavily exploit the fauna of their reserves and provoke reduction, even local extinction of heavily hunted species. Indigenous peoples, says he, are not the ‘ecological noble savages’ we have made them out to be. The degree of ecosystem destruction on the global level may mean that, in some cases, the only way to conserve biodiversity is to abolish all types of human behaviour - from road building and timber extraction to indigenous hunting and extractivism.”[28]

The dictum ‘indigenous people know best’ is less a reflection of reality than the decentralist ideology of green activists in the over-industrialized world i.e. ‘local people know best’. Perversely the people in the over-industrialized nations who promote this view tend to travel around the world by car and aeroplane extolling the virtues of living in tightly knit communities, closely rooted to the soil, whilst enjoying harmonious relations with the local Wildlife. However, if the Wildlife were asked about these greens it is all too likely that they would utter with one accord, “Get these friggin shit oomans off our land.”

1.3.3: Tribalists should not be Granted Sovereignty over Wilderness Areas.

1.3.3.1: The Demand for Tribal Sovereignty.

Greens’ biggest fantasies about tribal peoples are firstly, that tribal peoples have inhabited Forests for thousands of years so there are few unclaimed areas. Alternatively, that at one time or another tribal peoples have transformed all ecological habitats around the world so that in effect the Forests have been created by tribal people. Both of these arguments are being used to suggest that indigenous peoples should be accorded sovereignty over Forests, “The wwf and the world conservation union, an alliance of ngos and government agencies, both agreed new policies on indigenous people last year. For the first time, the two organizations explicitly recognize the rights of indigenous people to control their land.”[29] At the same time as countries around the world are losing their sovereignty in the global economy, greens insist on giving sovereignty to tribal peoples. This section looks at the arguments for and against of granting tribal people sovereignty over the Forests.

1.3.3.2: The Case against Granting Sovereignty to Tribal People.

1.3.3.2.1: Oomano-Imperialism; Greens believe that Oomans have the Right to Expropriate any Land they Wish.

The belief that tribal peoples have created Wilderness areas is used to suggest that trial peoples should have sovereignty over their land. The granting of sovereignty to tribal peoples would reinforce oomano-imperialism - the belief that oomans have the right to expropriate any land they wish around the Earth. Many green organizations support oomano-imperialism. They protest about land inequalities around the Earth and demand the redistribution of land for the landless but they oppose any redistribution of land for Wildlife or for Reforestation to stabilize the climate. For example, the world rainforest movement (wrm) supports land redistribution for oomans but not for Wildlife or the climate. Land reform groups in the industrializing/disintegrating countries make no attempt to limit the amount of land which should be expropriated as a result of land reforms - as if oomans are entitled to expropriate all land for their own benefit. The same is true of land reform groups in the over-industrialized nations e.g. 'the land is ours', ‘green anarchist’, etc ad nauseum.

1.3.3.2.2: Giving Sovereignty to Tribal Peoples would prevent Land from being given to Wildlife or the Earth.

Whilst some green organizations pretend that all land on Earth is currently under permanent use or occupation by oomans, other green organizations believe there is plenty of spare land to redistribute to landless peoples. Even more paradoxical is that the green organizations which believe there is land available for redistribution to the landless then persuade themselves there is not enough land to redistribute for Wildlife and the climate. What this reveals is just how ignorant many greens are about the way in which the Earth works and just how much they are closet oomano-imperialists. It has been pointed out that in brazil, “At least 170 million hectares of farmland lie idle" and that whilst, "3.3 million farmers work 19.7 million hectares of land, the 20 largest landlords own 20 million hectares. Multinational companies own 36 million hectares.”[30] In addition, “In guatemala .. half of the agricultural land, held by the landowning minority, is almost unused.”[31] There is more than enough land for redistribution to Wildlife, the climate and oomans - once the big landowners and multinational corporations have been expropriated.

1.3.3.3.3: The Dangers of giving Tribalists Sovereignty over the Rainforests.

If tribalists are given sovereignty over the Forests they will be able to do anything they wish to the Forests and slaughter as many Wildlife as they desire. The fear is that in attempting to attain a consumer lifestyle they will treat the environment as badly as the over-industrialized nations. Even if tribals have created the Rainforests this shouldn't entitle them to have sovereignty so that they could then decimate the Forests and kill off the Wildlife.

If indigenous peoples had sovereignty over the Forests there is also the danger they could be tempted by offers of development projects which would destroy the Rainforests. David orton is quite correct, "Just as there is government and corporate 'green wash', there is 'native speak' which uses seemingly progressive or spiritual rhetoric as a cover to advance a narrow self-interest which is anti-Earth."[32] As far as the Earth is concerned, giving tribal peoples the right to exploit their resources and become consumers is no different from giving these rights to multi-national corporations.

1.3.3.3.4: The Fading Tactic of using Tribal Peoples to Protect Wildlife/ Forests.

One of the reasons it is tactically wrong to use tribal peoples as a means of protecting the Rainforests is because, unfortunately, the numbers of traditional tribalists are dwindling so rapidly that soon there won’t be many left. Whilst there is an increase in tribal capitalists there has been a decrease in tribes maintaining their separation from the rest of oomanity. There is no point in demanding the protection of Forests on the grounds that they are the homes of tribalists when tribal peoples are being exterminated at such a rapid rate, "In fact, tough, it is probable .. that within a very few generations, there will be no stone age people on Earth, and this brings with it the corollary that humankind will then have to defend the Wilderness for its own sake rather than for its value to a few scattered cultures which got a living in it."[33]

1.3.4: Tribalists want to be Consumers like Everyone Else.

1.3.4.1: Tribalists are no Different from any other Oomans.

In the past, large numbers of tribal peoples lived in various Wildernesses around the world. To the extent that they were cut off from the outside world they were able to preserve their tribal customs and rely on the survival techniques which have been passed down through the generations for thousands of years. But when they started communicating and trading with the outside world they gradually lost their tribal ways of life, ideas and customs, and became a part of the capitalist system.

When given the chance most tribal peoples have abandoned their tribal lifestyle for the sake of consumerism in modern capitalist societies. This has happened, to one degree or another, over the centuries but especially since the second world war. Virtually all tribal peoples now wear consumer clothes, use consumer products and enjoy consumer culture. Baywatch babes are as much of a pin-up amongst tribal peoples as amongst adolescents in the over-industrialized world. Tribal peoples want to exchange commodities with the outside world in order to obtain more consumer commodities. Some have even entered into agreements with multi-national corporations to exploit tribal lands. They are not interested in returning to, or restoring, their previous way of life but hope to integrate themselves into global consumerism,[34] “A faction of the environmental movement is burdened by a post-schumacher trance-state in which it is imagined that third world billions would rather tend to small ecological niches and live in self denial, to avoid the horrors of western consumerism. For good or ill what the overwhelming majority of the third world wants is what the first world has.”[35]

Tribalists are no different from the poor who are desperate to join the wealth making system which excludes them. Both believe their best long term hope for survival is to find ways of joining capitalism. The garimpeiros, gold-diggers, in south america are not seeking to make a long term living from the Amazonian rainforest, as traditional tribal peoples have done for thousands of years. They are ransacking the area in the hope of getting rich quick. They are no different from the get-rich scum who run multinational corporations.

It is faintly racist to believe that indigenous peoples are different from, and superior, to consumers in the modern world in being able to resist the lures of consumerism. Unfortunately they can't, "It is a mistake to assume that Native Americans are different from any other ethnic or racial group. At one time, as a result of their dependence on the land, they held a great respect for the Earth and all of her creatures. In these contemporary times, most native peoples have no special affinity for the land and her inhabitants other than as individuals, and in this sense they are no different from anyone else. It is a myth and it is racist to pretend that the "indian" is anything but a human being."[36]

Most oomans, whether consumers or tribal peoples, are motivated by similar desires and would do anything, no matter how barbaric, to join the global capitalist economy. They all play a part in supporting the global Animal exploitation industry which generates such a substantial part of the wealth of consumer societies, "Human beings are the problem - self primates who have ravaged the earth and who have trod at least a million species beneath their feet. Where is the north American mammoth and woolly rhinoceros? They were slain by the early Clovis people, who brought their culture from Asia. There are few innocent cultures of homo sapiens. We are historically a brutal species, and it is this brutality coupled with ecological ignorance that has defined us as a trait in common, despite all other cultural differences."[37] There may be those who find such sentiments offensive but all that needs to be done to confirm this view is not merely to glance at ooman history but to estimate the numbers of Animals which oomans around the world are currently slaughtering - it must be in the region of hundreds of billions. Why is it that oomans are not more ashamed of this appalling barbarity which casts nazism/stalinism in a less odious light?

1.3.4.2: It is not possible to Protect Tribal Culture.

It is a matter of common humanity for those in the over-industrialized world to try and protect tribal peoples from those seeking to exterminate them. There is, however, one thing the over-industrialized world cannot do and that is to protect tribal culture. If tribal peoples do not want to perpetuate their tradition and culture there is nothing that can be done about this.

The problem for tribal peoples is that they face a fate similar to that of icarus in greek mythology. Tribal people may have lived happily in seclusion from other oomans for millennia but as soon as they discover the modern world it is too late for them to save their culture because the discovery undermines the intellectual assumptions of their culture. Even if all they want to do is find out more about the modern world for the sake of curiosity, the mere knowledge of consumerism makes it impossible for them to return to their old cultural values. The more curious they are about what exists beyond their own world, the more impossible it is for them to be content with their tribal beliefs. They not only lose their ignorance, naiveté and self-aggrandizement, they become as infected by western ideas as they are by western diseases, "There is no primitive society so coercive that it can stop its young people swapping their blow-pipes for ghetto blasters."[38]

1.3.4.3: There’s no such thing as Tribal Peoples.

There may be a few tribal groups left undiscovered on Earth but most have been discovered and all of them are rapidly losing their identity. The huge cultural chasm which once separated tribal peoples from all other peoples has all but closed. Tribal peoples are no longer some incredible, almost incomprehensible, remnants of stone age civilizations but just another ethnic group - about as distinct from the mainstream of society as cockneys, geordies, brummies or lancastrians. In effect, there’s no such thing as tribal peoples.

1.3.4.4: Tribal Peoples should be Treated just like any other Group in Society.

Some so-called tribalists extol their authenticity in order to win special concessions or special treatment from the modern world. They pretend to live in accordance with their tribal customs but when they start wearing western clothes and using consumer durables such a proposition becomes meaningless. They might pretend to uphold 'biocentric belief systems' but when they exterminate more Animals than they need for their own survival then they cannot be regarded as tribalists - especially when they use the money to buy technologies to increase the number of Animals they kill e.g. snowbikes, motorboats, anti-tank rocket launchers, etc. Tribal people have a perfect right to demand that they should be able to enjoy exactly the same sort of lifestyle as all other groups in society but if they do then they shouldn’t be allowed to trade on their tribal name in order to carry out activities which most consumers in the over-industrialized world do not approve. Tribalists living a consumerist lifestyle should be treated with the same contempt as any other money-grubbing section of society.

1.3.5: Tribalists do not Live Sustainably.

1.3.5.1: Tribalists Know nothing about Geophysiology and therefore cannot Live Sustainably.

Greens claim that tribal peoples know how to exploit local resources; they know a vast number of different Plants, which ones are edible and which can be used medicinally; they are capable of perceiving the thousands of different shades of green to be found in Forests; they may know an area of Forest inside out; and, their knowledge of tropical Rainforests may be more comprehensive than most western scientists.[39] However, this does not mean to say they have any understanding of geophysiology - the science of the Earth.

* The vast majority of tribal people have no idea how the universe came into existence, how the Earth came into existence, or even how oomans came into existence;

* The vast majority of tribal people have no idea they are living on a planet spinning through the solar system;

* The vast majority of tribal people do not understand how the Earth’s position within the solar system affects the Earth’s climate;

* The vast majority of tribal people have no idea that there have been about 20 ice ages over the last two million years and that the last one finished 10,000 years ago;

* The vast majority of tribal people know nothing about the Earth - the way that mountains form, the way the oceans flow, or the drifting of the continents. In sum, they don’t understand how the Earth works;

* The vast majority of tribal people have no concept of the Earth as a living entity and thus no idea how to look after the Earth’s life support system as a whole;

* The vast majority of tribal people do not know very much, if anything, about other continents on Earth. How could they when their entire lives are spent living in local areas? In fact it could be argued that if they did know about the existence of other continents then this would suggest they were no longer tribalists;

* The vast majority of tribal people know little about what is currently happening to the Earth’s life support system - they did not discover ddt poisoning, they did not discover the hole in the ozone layer or acid rain, and they know little about the greenhouse effect.[40]

In essence, the difference between the ecological knowledge of tribal peoples and the geophysiological knowledge of modern societies is that the former obtain knowledge from local experiences whilst the latter derive knowledge primarily from scientific technologies such as telescopes, microscopes, computers, and satellites. Tribal peoples know nothing about what has been learnt about the Earth from satellites - as far as is known, tribal peoples haven't yet developed a rocket launching capability, “We probe the ocean vents and study exotic metabolisms. We measure the biomass of algae within Antarctic sea ice. We launch satellites to monitor ozone in the stratosphere and productivity on land and across the sea. We pull up sediment samples from lakes to learn, from ancient pollen, which trees lived in the surrounds during the last ice age. We bring microbial mats into laboratories to decipher the exchange of gases between members.”[41]

There is a huge difference between the concepts of nature and that of the Earth - which derives primarily from lovelock’s geophysiology. There is, correspondingly, a huge difference between living in harmony with nature and living in harmony with the Earth. Tribal peoples may know how to look after the local environment but they know nothing about creating a sustainable Planet. They may be first rate ecologists but they are not geophysiologists. Ultimately, the Rainforests may need to be protected against indigenous peoples.

1.3.5.2: Tribal Peoples need to Play a part in Stabilizing the Climate.

Although tribal peoples bear no responsibility for destabilizing the climate, they have got to play a role, like all other oomans, in helping to stabilize the climate. They should, however, be rewarded for their positive contribution to stabilizing the climate whilst those who have contributed to global burning should be penalized. As has been argued elsewhere, stabilizing the climate requires the creation of regional Forests (from which oomans would be able to develop regional Wood economies), climate Forests (to stabilize the climate), and ooman free Wilderness areas (for oomans to repay their debts to Wildlife). Just like all other peoples, tribal peoples would be free to live in whatever way they desired in their regional wood economies. But, in order to bring about a sustainable Planet, they would also have to do the same as all other peoples around the Earth i.e. no longer use those areas designated as climate Forests or ooman free Wilderness areas. Once this tripartite geophysiological structure had been created tribalists, just like everyone else around the Earth, would not be allowed to wander into other regions (without permission), ooman free Wilderness areas or climate Forests.

The proposal that some tribalists would have to move out of areas going to be converted to ooman-free Wilderness areas or climate Forests may sound a lot like those examples in which tribalists have been forcibly ejected from their homelands to make way for safari parks. This would not be the case - for the simple reason that many oomans in every country around the world would also be required to move out of such designated areas.

Monbiot is right to berate those authorities who have created Wildlife sanctuaries without adequate compensation for those who used to use the land. Some of the people who have been prevented from exploiting the resources that were once available to them in these reserves have been shabbily treated. But in many cases, tribalists have not been moved off the land, as if they were some pre-historic peasants attached to a particular piece of land. Tribalists wander over large areas and, in many cases, they have just been prevented from using the entirety of their tribal lands. But this loss of land was going to happen anyway given the continuing rise in ooman numbers. It is no longer possible to allow tribalists the right to lay claim to vast tracts of land which they might visit once every decade. The fact is that the Earth is over-populated. The days when tribalists could wander where-ever they wanted over vast tracts of land is over.