The Shortcomings of Conservationism

  An article in the New York Times titled “Under a Tented Roof, an Unknown World Beckons” paints a beautiful picture of an exotic oasis where people can go to escape the monotony of their modern lives and enjoy a world of exciting new landscapes, people, and wildlife. This place is Kenya’s Masai Mara, a wildlife reserve. I argue that this wildlife preserve is a perfect example of the idea of colonialism manifesting itself in the world of conservationist movements.

  During the discovery of the new world, Columbus and other explorers wrote of the wondrous things that this peculiar land of had to offer. He was fascinated by the wildlife and by the people who inhabited this bizarre world. In many ways I think this parallels the Western fascination with less developed parts of the world. Westerners wish to preserve lands like the Masai Mara because they fascinates us; maybe they make us feel some latent superiority, but what is more likely is that the juxtaposition of our world with theirs is so different that it sparks a curiosity and excitement within us. However, there is a trouble in trying to preserve these lands because doing so prevents the indigenous people from making any type of advancement. Whether or not these people wish to advance their society is not a question I can answer, but to prevent them from changing because people are fascinated with their beautiful land and wildlife is wrong. Some people may argue that the Masai people are benefiting from this preservation in the form of tourism.

  Who is this tourism really benefiting? Well, it certainly isn't the indigenous people in the case of the Masai Mara. According to the article “as traditional grazing land is reduced through wildlife preservation and agricultural practices, the Masai’s ability to sustain themselves has also been greatly reduced.” This is a good example of how conservationism can be much like colonialism under certain circumstances. The indigenous people of this reserve were not consulted when the plan to create a wildlife preserve was put into place, much like during the era of colonialism when powerful countries would take land from the indigenous people to serve their purposes. I admit that the intentions of conservationists are certainly not to hinder the agricultural system of the Masai people, but the end result is still the same as if those were their intentions. The question of morality now comes into play; are misguided conservationist movements more acceptable because they don’t have malicious intent? I believe that there is no difference.

   Conservationist movements need to take into account the needs of the people who live on the land. I’m all for saving the lions, but when it puts the livelihood of people in jeopardy, it is no longer worth the cost. In the case of the people living in the Masai Mara reserve, they desperately need increased education to compete with neighboring tribes who also run safari camps or the preservation of wildlife will continue to be a hindrance on their lives. While the plight of the Masai people is only one case, it serves as a good example of how conservation movements can have good intentions yet still yield negative results because of a lack of consideration for the local people.