Idealizing Inhabited Wilderness: A Revision to the History of Indigenous Peoples and National Parks

Abstract

Whereas most histories of national parks and indigenous peoples have largely focused on dispossession of resident populations in the making of uninhabited wilderness areas, this article surveys the problematic history of the idea of preserving human communities today referred to as ‘indigenous’ in parks. In the very first‐ever call for a national park, as well as in frequent proposals for national parks throughout the 19th, 20th, and now the 21st century, protected areas have been envisioned as places of conservation, study, and display not only of endangered species but also of human groups perceived to be endangered. Drawing on cases from the early United States, colonial Africa, Indonesia, and India, as well as on histories of international conservation policies emerging around WWI, the article argues that this alternative conception of what national parks should look like has been pervasive, perennial, and deeply problematic. The problem is not only that indigenous groups have long been perceived as in danger of becoming extinct and therefore paternalistically projected as in need of protection. It is also that these peoples, who have long suffered dehumanizing animal analogies, are envisioned as endangered like wildlife, and in need of protection in parks.

Representing Indigenous Sacred Land: The Case of the Niyamgiri Movement in India

“…The symbolic politics that characterises this kind of activism can silence indigenous peoples by encouraging them to construct themselves in a way that fits into this discourse (Conklin 1997). A similar strategy of encouraging Native Americans to live in national parks in accordance with their traditional lifestyles (Rashkow 2014), has also been criticised by scholars as being essentialist. It has been argued that discourses such as these offer indigenous peoples ecological rights and agency as incentives for adhering to standards of ecological stewardship that may not, in fact, be theirs (Lindroth and Sinevaara-Niskanen 2013).…”

Can’t carve air, can’t weave names: Plant species used in Colombian artisan crafts are not equally assessed for vulnerability at the international and national level

“…This study was inspired by calls to conserve ecosystems according to biocultural values-protecting biodiversity for the relationships between people and the natural world as much as for ecosystem function, evolutionary history, and biodiversity for biodiversity's sake (Bond et al, 2019;Gavin et al, 2015;Rozzi, 2013;Reyes-García et al, 2023). However, we acknowledge the present critiques for bioculturalism as a term and conservation goal (Rashkow, 2014). Rashkow (2014) makes the argument that biocultural conservation can still fall back on colonial ideas and stereotypes that paternalistically call to "protect" Indigenous peoples, as if they do not have their own voices and must be spoken for, or worse, are akin to animal and plant species in need of "preservation" (Rashkow, 2014).…”

The role of pre-19th century art in conservation biology: An untapped potential for connecting with nature

“…The interest of integrating the topic of aesthetic experience into conservation biology stems from a simple observation: affective and emotional factors play a fundamental role in the conservation of biodiversity, for we tend to protect and to invest in the conservation of what we love and find beautiful in our environment (Gobster et al, 2007;Saunders, 2013;Swaffield and McWilliam, 2013). A telling example dates from the 19 th century, when landscape beauty motivated the creation of the first national parks in the United States: this initiative was greatly influenced by the painters of that time who depicted the wonders of nature (Rashkow, 2014). The beauty of nature can therefore be considered as a powerful argument for conservation, provided that the perceived aesthetic value is convergent with the ecological objectives of conservation (Gobster et al, 2007).…”