<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<TITLE></TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Tahoma
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Paul Duncan
[mailto:pduncan@uga.edu]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, January 21, 2004 10:12
AM<BR><B>To:</B> mpwg@lists.plantconservation.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> [MPWG]
Ethnobotanical Research<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<P>The ISE recognises that culture and language are intrinsically connected to
land and territory, and cultural and linguistic diversity are inextricably
linked to biological diversity. Therefore, the right of Indigenous Peoples to
the preservation and continued development of their cultures and languages and
to the control of their lands, territories and traditional resources are key
to the perpetuation of all forms of diversity on Earth. </P><BR>
<P><SPAN class=491223117-21012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Like
many similar statements of principle these days, half of this seems to
me to be obvious -- matters of basic decency, although since such have
been ignored in the past there may be a need to prescribe them -- and half to
be a sort of political correctness that, by defining indigenous peoples as
fundamentally "other" from ourselves and having different fundamental
interests, almost dehumanizes them. Before everyone jumps on
me, let me clarify. In the quote above, the ISE claims that
"cultural and linguistic diversity are inextricably linked to biological
diversity." It is true that biological hotspots are frequently,
though not always, areas with numerous cultural and language groups
(e.g. New Guinea), but both of these are probably dependent upon factors
such as geography and climate: in a mountainous, rain-forest area,
where travel is difficult and thus many different human groups will develop in
isolation, you also have great biological diversity. It is
ridiculous to imply that, if all those tribes suddenly began speaking the
same language or allowed their cultures to be polluted with outside ways,
biodiversity would plummet as a result. </FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=491223117-21012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Now,
of course the absolute rights of indigenous people to control their own
land and speak their own language should never be violated; but there may
be very good reasons why those people might not want to go on living
quite as their ancestors have done. For example, the ability to
speak a language that is known outside one's own village conveys real
benefits. We, who are for the most part comparatively wealthy
Westerners, should not wallow in those benefits while pressuring
others to reject them because we believe that their sacrifice might provide
indirect gains to us. I am reminded of an article in which an
ethnobiologist pondered how far she could ethically go to prevent the building
of a road to a certain village (whose residents appeared to welcome
it). How many white middle-class Americans would permit their
own children to live in a roadless village where there was no means
of reaching a hospital in case of medical emergency, much less a
school? The Western extension of even basic creature
comforts to the masses is not a unique tradition of our cultures,
but a recent innovation. Most people do not realize that just a
century or two ago, many Europeans still lived in what we would
now call barbarous squalor, as deprived as any Third World peasant of
today. Do any of you wish that your ancestors had rejected
those creature comforts, or trade or literacy or dentistry or
universal suffrage or women's rights, because they were not
"traditional?" If not, then in justice you should do nothing to
discourage other peoples from striving to obtain the same goods if
that should be their choice. To suggest that they should
live, perpetually, in conditions of isolation, poverty and
oppression that you would never tolerate for yourself or your
descendants, just because you think that your culture may somehow benefit
from the traditional knowledge thereby preserved, is to make
those people into museum dioramas or zoo exhibits, not individuals who
are your moral equals.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=491223117-21012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=491223117-21012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Just
my $.02 worth....let the throwing of organic, non-GMO tomatoes
begin.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN class=491223117-21012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </P>
<P><SPAN class=491223117-21012004><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Wendy</FONT></SPAN></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>