Start › Forums › Courses › Current Debates and Themes in Global Environmental History › National Parks, civilisation and globalisation
- This topic has 18 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
wytt2002@sina.com.
Author | Posts |
---|---|
Author | Posts |
May 22, 2014 at 08:05 #12794 | |
|
Reply to Yongliang Gao National parks are a political issue. As Anna stated in her reflection, Kenyan national parks are concerned with tourism and conservation of animals. However, it is in these parks that elephant poaching happens, and Kenya’s elephant population has been consequently decreasing. To make a statement to the poachers and international community, the former Kenyan president Kibaki burned tonnes of ivory within the Tsavo West national park, where some of the poaching was happening. He was making a clear statement, that enough is enough, and that the ivory will never leave Kenya, and should not leave the national park. National parks can be and are divisive and are consistently used by the government and/or politicians to paint a certain picture to the public. It is through the national parks that Kenya is sending a message to the international community that they are conserving nature and taking care of their wildlife, which attracts the tourists. The national parks are dependent on revenue from western tourists, and if Kenya’s government denounced the protection of elephants, for example, Kenya’s tourism would drop dramatically. In effect then, the international community is putting pressure on Kenya through their national parks and the wildlife therein. |
May 22, 2014 at 10:57 #12795 | |
|
Reply to Nik Petek’s reflection Since we were in the same discussion group I will try not to repeat myself too much, but I think it’s inevitable. Now that you mentioned that our group did not touch upon the problem of globalisation explicitly, I do find it curious, but I guess the question is implicit in the question of standardisation. You also mentioned that you wonder what effect do these almost semi-formal conferences have when it comes to national park management. It was something I was wondering too; if we lack an institution or at least a binding legal text, how do these ideas get transferred? What (who) decides that some ideas get implemented, whereas others do not? I guess it boils down to who wields the power and knowledge, so I think we can claim that it is the western scientific paradigm that constructs the ideological framework. Which brings us to the other issue; the issue of definition of what a national park is. I think that there is too much focus on the purpose and I believe this emphasis on purpose has its roots in what Carruthers calls the commercialization of nature; as if nature is just another tool we use in order to achieve an end, possibly an economic gain. And as you mentioned, defining something according to its purpose, completely misses the point. You know the old phenomenological question; how do you define a hammer? Is it just a tool (can we cay its purpose defines its essence)? I think not and I think we can say the same about the definition of a national park; I wouldn’t like it either if Triglav national park was renamed into Triglav tourist park, precisely because we are emotionally invested in this, which again proves that we shouldn’t limit ourselves to exclusively pragmatic explanations. Also, the remark about the connection between a consolidation of a nation and the creation of a national park, prompted a silly thought in my head, like something from an absurd Monty Python sketch: if we renamed it into a tourist park, I imagine all Slovenians walking around in flip-flops and cameras around our necks all the time 😀 |
May 22, 2014 at 11:32 #12796 | |
|
Reply Yongliang Gao’s reflection by Kristina Berglund |
May 22, 2014 at 17:02 #12797 | |
|
Repy to Wilen’s post- Nationalism,Conservation and Globallisation: the History of National Parks |
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.