Posted on 12/17/2011 1:38:03 PM PST by Mustang Driver
The Nature Conservancy — a tax-exempt corporation — is a pretty aggressive purchaser of land in the Third World in the name of environmentalism. One of its mottoes is “Donate to The Nature Conservancy and give back to nature.” In Kenya, a gift may have gone a little to far back to nature — all the way to the law of the jungle.
From the Guardian:
Members of the Samburu people in Kenya have been abused, beaten and raped by police after the land they lived on for two decades was sold to two US-based wildlife charities, a rights group and community leader have alleged.
The dispute centers on Eland Downs in Laikipia, a lush area near Mount Kenya. At least three people are said to have died during the row, including a child who was eaten by a lion after the Samburu were violently evicted in November last year.
The London-based NGO Survival International said the Samburu were evicted following the purchase of the land by two American-based charities, the Nature Conservancy and the African Wildlife Foundation.
The groups subsequently gifted the land to Kenya for a national park, to be called Laikipia National Park.
Survival International said the land was officially owned by former president Daniel arap Moi, although AWF simply said it bought it from a private landowner.
With nowhere to go, around 2,000 Samburu families stayed on the edge of the disputed territory, living in makeshift squats, while 1,000 others were forced to relocate, Survival said.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.dailymail.com ...
Send those environmentalists straight to the White House.
It’s the child’s fault. If the child wasn’t there, the peaceful lion would NOT eat the child. (that would be what Libs would say, I say go outand hunt the lion and these evironmental wackos.
As opposed to most environmental groups, which lobby for government restrictions on the use of private property, The Nature Conservancy purchases properties for conservation. If that isn’t the right way to go about preserving species which are at risk, I don’t know what is. I guess if Don Surber wants a world where the only lions are in zoos, that’s his right, but I think that wilderness should be preserved in Africa.
So, the charities evicted people from land that the charities themselves owned? I am horrified and shocked beyond imagination. That's not the way things are supposed to go. Not at all! The people own that land, not the idiots who paid all that money for it. Everyone knows that. Jeeze.
Clearly, this is a strong argument against private land ownership. The gentle natives know best. Just give them the land, write off the cost, and chalk it up to not being good enough at that whole Communism thing yet.
Sigh... Being led around by the nose is easy when you don't think things through. Here the charity did the conservative thing - they bought the land and took control of their property.
What did the charities do wrong, again?
Obviously I’m not going to dispute what any group does with the land it owns, but I wonder what might happen, as this ‘charity’ continually buys land and keeps pushing people off of it, because it’s not as though this group will ever be satisfied with how much land it eventually purchases.
Hypothetically, it could eventually own all of Africa, then what?
Several years ago Americans went nuts to close down a sneaker factory in Africa that subcontracted to (I think) Nike. The factory used children who had been purchased. The factory was closed. So a year later a magazine went to do a story on how the children’s lives had improved. The police told them the children had all been forced into prostitution to survive and they were, as far as the police knew, all dead from starvation, abuse, or murder.
The point is, American money and politics, which has the best of intentions, has unexpected consequences that nobody over here would really wish on the people who have to live with the results. (Assuming the people over here ever hear about it.)
***Members of the Samburu people in Kenya have been abused, beaten and raped by police after the land they lived on for two decades was sold to two US-based wildlife charities, a rights group and community leader have alleged.***
Who owned the land two decades earlier? A white farmer? Was he driven off? Was the land still in his/her name? Who contacted the charities concerning the sale? Where did the Samburu live before the land was abandoned by the owner? What kind of law is present in this area? What is the involvement of the Kenyan Government?
Um... in your world, it is impossible to outbid the evil Nature Conservancy? Or should land be free to whomever wants it, as long as they have a better sob story? Why would you say that? Does the free market scare you?
Hypothetically, it could eventually own all of Africa, then what?
No, it couldn't. It's ridiculous to even type that. Seriously. Because:
1. A lot of Africa is in private hands or is part of a national park, just like here in the US. A lot of money in Africa is tied up in tourism. People go to see the lions and giraffes. People in Africa have a vested, free-market interest in seeing those animals thrive.
2. Africa encompasses about 11.5 million square miles. The US encompasses about 3.8 million square miles. Africa makes up about 54 countries, give or take a disputed area. Almost 3x the land mass and 54x time number of countries. There is no way any one group or person could amass the sort of money to buy Africa.
The Nature Conservancy isn't here (or there) to shut off total access to their land. They are there to protect specific species from extinction in the wild. They aren't particularly anti-hunter, though they will insist that you not kill the endangered stuff on their land. They aren't anti-capitalism (they bought the land, remember?). They even understand that people have a right to protect themselves. Here is an article from TNC on their own site, about the need to cull wolves: It’s Time for Environmentalists to Stop Crying Wolf http://blog.nature.org/2009/09/environmentalist-wolf-hunt-matt-miller-conservation/
People who buy property have a right to use that property and not support others on or with that property. What is so hard to understand or scary about that?
A few eggs have to be broken in order to make a utopian omelette.
True. There are often unintended consequences. But it isn't up to Americans to make other countries change their laws. Child slavery should be prosecuted in the same way that child prostitution is. That these African nations allow and encourage both is not our fault or our doing.
All we can do sometimes is demand (through laws, boycott or stock ownership) that our companies not run their businesses on the backs of children. If it becomes unprofitable, the African nations will change. They do it because it is profitable.
Any nation which allows and encourages children to be purchased as slaves today cannot possibly claim that those same children weren't already being sold as prostitutes or being abused or murdered. Blaming the evil Americans for not continuing to employ enough child slaves is sick and disgusting.
If children are property to be sold, those countries have already made it clear that children are without value as humans and only have value as "things". The idea that the abuse stops at being sold as a piece of human machinery is ridiculous.
We (you, I, us as a nation) can only make ourselves do the right thing. We can't make other sovereign nations do the same. In this case, the right thing involves not employing slaves and not propping up a system built on abusing children.
“Who owned the land two decades earlier? A white farmer? Was he driven off? Was the land still in his/her name? Who contacted the charities concerning the sale? Where did the Samburu live before the land was abandoned by the owner? What kind of law is present in this area? What is the involvement of the Kenyan Government?”
The Samburu are semi-nomadic pastoralists. The men & boys move with the cattle following grass & water. The women & smaller children keep the village, raising sorghum, millet and, in a good year, maize (corn). How former president Moi ended up with title to the land is “unknown”. (”It is good to be King”?) Moi is a Kalenjin, a member of a group of smaller tribes in western Kenya. The Samburu are an offshoot of the Maasai living in north central Kenya.
Back in 1980 I visited a million acre ranch owned by an American. He had built very strong fences, hired a private anti-poaching team and eventually had far more elephants & rhino than the range could support. He offered them to the Kenyan government to restock the national parks, but the government told him to keep the elephants & rhino. Kenya said that they could not keep them alive if they were in the national parks.
Thanks for sharing. Since the UK lost the colony in 1963 Kenya has been in political turmoil which always results in the powerful seizing land and assets for themselves.
I expect it will take several more decades to become stable and functioning. Such beautiful land for agriculture and other vast resources. The US trade and foreign policy should be focused as much on Africa and South America as well as the middle East, Europe and Asia IMHO.
Call me biased, but most environmental groups are quite anti-human, who often don’t give a damn as to the possible consequences of their fantasies. They would gladly have another Ukranian famine, if it means less humans and more wilderness.
It doesn’t matter how big Africa is, and I know it’s bigger than North America, but give somebody with an agenda and time and they would eventually subjugate whomever it is that they want to subjugate.
The free market doesn’t scare me, but the vast majority of NGO’s do.
As a matter of principle, I admire the commitment by The Nature Conservancy to buy land to preserve natural resources for everyone.
However, in this case, I think they over-reached. The need to preserve natural resources does not justify ignoring the needs of the poor residents and planning for an appropriate transition.
After purchasing the land, The Nature Conservancy could have permitted an adequate transition for the indigenous people to relocate over an extended period (years) or made provision for a cooperative situation where they were permitted to continue to live there in a non-interference manner with the refuge rather than just unceremoniously ejecting them.
This kind of thing seems abusive to me because it ignores the culture and traditions of the indigenous community and it gives the impression of a lack of empathy for those who are poor and without power. It smacks of neo-colonialism except that now the governments have been replaced by wealthy private foundations who take over the land by buying it from greedy corrupt tyrants or or private profiteers.
As much as I believe in private property in the US it seems to me that we cannot expect to just move into an African country with different laws, traditions, and culture and extremely poor people and mindlessly treat the land they live on as though it were an extension of the US.
Of course, for the “green” crowd, people are just the root of all environmental deterioration and the fewer of them, the better.
This is like buying an orphanage then throwing the kids out in the street. Not much of a charity.
Yep, like what’s going on with the selling end? Is Kenya being a little loosey goosey with their version of eminent domain, hey they don’t like these peasants paying peanuts for taxes so they sell it as lion refuge for much more to a foreign (to them) conservation agency? Even if you are technically in the right, you don’t always come out of a fight with a skunk smelling like a rose.
This is one thing about the allegedly heartless capitalist US. When a story like this gets out, usually the B.S. stops. Unless it’s the US government that’s committing the B.S.
Kenya: Court Blocks KWS, Moi Park Deal
Nov 22, 2011 ... “KWS will accept the court orders and will not gazette the proposed park (Laikipia
National Park),” Dr Wekesa said. allafrica.com/stories/201111230683.html The US-based Center for International Human Rights Law and Advocacy threw its weight behind the community activists, threatening to sue KWS should it go ahead with its plans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.