Message-ID: <32E610D1.6A88@mind.net> Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 13:06:25 +0000 From: "B. Diamond" <mailto:bdiamond@MIND.NET> Subject: [Fwd: Re: Who speaks for Mandalay?] To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Folks, I hate to keep resending things to the list, but several of the posts I send, I don't get repro acks on, and sometimes I see people quoting from threads I've never seen. I don't know if the problem is on my end or devel-l's end.
B. Diamond wrote: >
> mailto:EUNSteve@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> > For our purposes here I accept your account of the history of tourism in
> > Mandalay.
> >
> > For their own purposes and self interest outsiders with money dangled that
> > money and the concept of "eco-tourism" in front of the government of
> > Mandalay.
> >
> > Perhaps those outsiders went further than dangling concepts and provided more
> > tangible incentives to move in their direction.
> >
> > However: the dilemma remains.
>
> I'm glad to be moving beyond our differences, and instead seek solutions. For the
> record, the eco-tourism example I used was in Malaysia--not Mandalay. The
> Mandalay project was a dam, and I know little about that situation, however, as
> you said, the dilemma remains.
> >
> > There are now at least two voices to listen to in Mandalay: the voice of the
> > legal government of a sovereign entity, and a subgroup within that entity.
>
> This, I believe, is the quintessential problem of development...who is really being
> helped? Who are the "real" locals?
>
> > You are saying that our government has the right, the moral obligation, to
> > choose the voice to which we shall attend.
>
> No, I'm not saying that our country has either the right or the moral obligation...I
> believe that the development community as a whole has a moral obligation to
> help those less fortunate than ourselves. But I would certainly not want to limit
> this just to the U.S (there are many, many other countries with foreign aid
> programs) nor would I want to suggest that helping people is a "right." What I
> am suggesting is that development projects must carefully consider the impacts
> on all of the people involved; all too often the local elite benefit enormously from
> development projects while the more traditional peoples receive little of no real
> benefit.
>
>
> > You are not saying, withdraw from Mandalay, refuse to take sides.
>
> I think that this should always be an option, that is we should not just engage in
> development projects fro the sake of development as a whole. As in both the
> Malaysian and the Mandalay example, local elites benifitted financially, while
> poor farmers were left out in the cold. This happens over, and over again
> throughout the world.
>
>
> > You are saying, yes, we should use our money and our influence--but use it on
> > the side of ecological and cultural virtue.
>
> Well, if the only choices are economic betterment for local elites, or "ecological
> and cultural virtue," obviously I'd root for the latter, but I have to ask why we
> can't have both? We need to empower indigenous peoples so that they are not
> victims but partners in/of development.
>
>
> > Why not instead propose that all the people of Mandalay, including the
> > thousands of landless who might like the jobs generated by the tourist
> > industry as well as those with land to preserve, have an opportunity to
> > debate the matter and vote?
>
> Unfortunately, I think we all know too well that legitimate elections are hard to
> hold. In many countries, native people don't even have the vote.
>
> > Choosing one voice as you propose and putting our power and our money to work
> > for that one opinion seems as morally suspect as the actions you criticize.
>
> I honestly couldn't agree more. I think the key to successful development is a
> balance between the various stakeholder's interests.
>
> B. Diamond