ANT364_ Midterm Prep

.pdf

School

University of Toronto *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

364

Subject

Geography

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

pdf

Pages

3

Uploaded by UltraPorcupineMaster1002

1. Why does Dove use the words "uncertainty", "humility" and "adaptation" in the title of his Article? - Dove chose these words to describe how the Kantu in the tropical forest uses an augural system to decide the location of their swidden practice. “Uncertainty” refers to the indeterminate and unpredictable nature of the climate. “Humility” must accompany this nature of climate because the humans who live in its effect admit the limitations of their knowledge of the environment. It takes humility to know how much you can actually know, predict, or influence, whereas hubris will lead a society to assume that everything is knowable with enough time, technology, and control. “Adaptation” speaks of the ways in which the Kantu people have developed farming systems that yield to the unpredictability of nature. The augural system severs any legitimate linkage between the bird call omens and the prediction of weather patterns, thereby making it an effective strategy to use in a context where nature is unknowable and randomization is the most successful approach. Together, these 3 words describe the intimate relationship that the Kantu have with their environment and are the simplest way to summarize the key components of their swidden augural practice. 2. How have changing descriptions of Amazonia and wilderness been linked to changing descriptions of its residents? Why is this significant? - With the basis that nature and culture are inseparable, descriptions of nature become descriptions of the people who live there. During the colonization of the Americas by Europeans, the forests of Amazonia were seen as dangerous jungles that were chaotic and fundamentally hostile. The views of the residents of the forests reflected this thinking; they were savage, wild, uncivilized, cannibals that were in need of civilizing and modernizing (i.e. controlling) (Cronon). The shift from wild and dangerous jungle to fragile rainforest also came with a shift from uncivilized and primitive savages to wise and mystical knowledge keepers (Slater). The significance in the wording we use to describe these places essentially works to other them. In either case, certain people and realities are excluded from these narratives if they don’t align with them. This has been used to justify the eviction of Indigenous peoples from their homes in so many cases throughout history, as is the case with the removal of San from the Moremi Game Reserve in Botswana (Taylor). By defining nature (and therefore the people who live in those places), you gain the power to control it and the people living in it (Taylor). This is why these changing descriptions are significant. 3. Why does Ingold title his article “From Trust to Domination: An Alternative History of HumanAnimal Relations? - Ingold uses this title to describe an alternative way of viewing human-animal relations that go against mainstream views of hunter-gatherer societies being passive actors in the environment. Trust is a crucial aspect of these cultures where they follow certain protocols in hunting and other practices with the trust that by doing their part, nature and the animals will do their part in return and provide human communities with food and everything they need, as is seen in the Cree nation in Canada (Ingold). This shows an active engagement with the environment. But when they are perceived as passive and unknowledgeable of the environment they live in then the Western view will try to
interject with their own strategy of domination rather than trust. This is observable in the contrast between the trust-based hunter-gatherer communities and the domination-based pastoralist regime that is often pushed onto so-called “primitive” societies in the name of modernization. 4. The creation of game reserves in Botswana relied on the eviction of the local San residents. How, according to Taylor, did ideas about San ethnicity justify these evictions and how are they related to ideas of nature? - Taylor argues that the eviction of the local San residents was justified by the claim that their agricultural practices were unsustainable and a threat to wildlife. The government’s prioritization of game reserves for the revenue they produce through tourism led them to portray the San as unknowledgeable of their environment, uncivilized and destructive to the “pristine” environment of the game reserve. In order to protect the “purity” of nature and wildlife, the San had to be evicted because they do not belong there, which outright ignored the long, rich, deep history that the San have with the land and wildlife. The way that the San were living on the land did not align with the management practices that would capitalize the most profit for the government and conservation organizations because they did not control or manage it “properly”. To the governing bodies, wilderness means “without people” so in this case, people pose a threat to the wilderness by being there., thus the justification for their eviction ensued. 5. According to Fairhead and Leach, the idea that savanna is expanding while forests are shrinking due to human action in Guinee's forest zone is incorrect. Rather, humans are responsible for the creation of forests. What are some of the reasons that this problematic narrative about human-induced deforestation remains unchanged since Colonial times? - The colonial view of the landscape of West Africa is simplified and limited and it holds a strict dichotomy between forest and savannah ecosystems. This leads to a lack of nuanced understanding of the processes that create the different landscapes, especially the role which human activity plays in the creation of forests. Furthermore, colonial powers prioritize the monetary value of a landscape and see it for the natural resources that may be extracted from it. Seeing as Colonial powers still influence data collection and research, there is no surprise to see that political interests are biased toward focusing on the negative effects of human activity on wildlife. These powers playing together results in a dominant narrative that is upheld by political parties and the limited research that is being conducted. This makes it very difficult to challenge the colonial narrative that has persisted for so long. To the governing bodies, wilderness means “without people” so in this case people pose a threat to wilderness by being there. 6. Why are the highly problematic “Malthusian” and “Tragedy of the Commons” explanations of environmental degradation so common within environmental degradation narratives? What are the shortcomings of these narratives? - These explanations of environmental degradation are so common because they offer a simplified reason for degradation that is built on the basis of human behaviour which makes sense within the dominant narratives of these issues in our society. It fits within
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help