New at Reason
The mayor of Easter Island wants his people to be a museum. His people want to make money. Juliet Samuel looks at the conflict.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Mephistophocles | July 13, 2007, 4:50pm | #
Unfortunately Ms Samuel is a bit naive to believe that economic development will not destroy the culture of Easter Island. And I think that the Mayor of the island is wiser than she gives him credit for. While it's certainly not evil or undesirable for the people of the Island to seek a better lifestyle, to do so at the expense of their rich and colorful culture and history is a mistake. The tourist industry and other economic endeavors, if left unchecked, will destroy that culture, annihilating the diversity of its people. Historical examples for this abound.Russell | July 13, 2007, 4:54pm | #
There is a strong whiff of Connecticut Casino Indian peace pipe swirling about this tale of the South Pacific.Like the born again Pequot tribe, the surviving Ni Rapa Nui appear to be be undergoing reconstitution by good lawyering after centuries of ethnic and cultural dilution. They are a far cry twice removed from being virtual Hawaiians- or for that matter Inka.
They could always declare Jared Diamond Big Kanaka of the Casino Cargo Cult and demand a seat at the UN.
Gobbler's Knob | July 13, 2007, 5:06pm | #
The homeless folks living in the subway on the 1 line have their own culture and mores as well. Should we stop them form trying to escape from their situations?I guess the difference is that they don't stand to make money, so are more authentic.
Matt J | July 13, 2007, 5:54pm | #
While it's certainly not evil or undesirable for the people of the Island to seek a better lifestyle, to do so at the expense of their rich and colorful culture and history is a mistake.Fuck you.
They're humans not living museum dioramas.
Condescending prick.
Pro Libertate | July 13, 2007, 5:59pm | #
I think 21st century American culture will be fascinating in the future. Let's freeze it and make our country into a giant theme park.Stevo Darkly | July 13, 2007, 6:06pm | #
Well, here is the problem with a lot of indigenous peoples: A culture is simply a recipe for making a living in a certain kind of environment. If you are going to try to adhere to a Stone Age culture (or Bronze Age or Iron Age or whatever), you are pretty much going to be stuck with a Stone Age (Bronze, Iron, etc.) standard of living.It doesn't help you much if the world around you is living in an Industrial Age or Information Age culture/standard of living, unless you can figure out some way to participate in their culture. And in fact, if you try to stick to your old culture, you may even be worse off now than you used to be, because the dominant culture around you has changed the environment that your old culture was fitted to -- e.g., they killed off most of the buffalo or whales or whatever, so you can't hunt them anymore.
Some people try to compromise by trying to live according to their traditional ways, but also doing so as a kind of exhibit for paying tourists. However, that puts you in about the same economic niche as a carnival worker or museum worker (more like a museum exhibit, actually) and they don't make all that much money, comparatively speaking.
If you really want to be as well off as the typical Information Agers, you need to join their culture and live in their world. Or stick to your old ways and be relatively poor. Sadly, those are really the only choices you have.
Paul | July 13, 2007, 7:24pm | #
The tourist industry and other economic endeavors, if left unchecked, will destroy that culture, annihilating the diversity of its people. Historical examples for this abound.And who decides and makes the plan to "preserve" the culture?
Paul | July 13, 2007, 7:26pm | #
They're humans not living museum dioramas.Didn't Sting get nicked for that when he had that Amazonian Chieftan "on display" like a caged animal... but it was all for the environment?
joe | July 13, 2007, 8:16pm | #
They're humans not living museum dioramas.This is an argument for tourism, right? Help me out here.
Pro Libertate | July 13, 2007, 8:28pm | #
Aresen,That is correct. A young Eisner talked Disney into freezing himself first, then took over and destroyed all that was good. . .and evil. . .about Disney.
crimethink | July 13, 2007, 8:41pm | #
joe,I don't think it's an argument for tourism; it's an argument for letting people make a living the way they see fit. Forcing them to live a life of poverty because their culture is so friggin rich is the insult to their humanity, not tourism.
Jackson Kuhl | July 13, 2007, 8:55pm | #
The issue here isn't one of preserving indigenous culture so much as the conflicts of island living. Because small islands often don't have the space to develop subsistence agriculture or pastoralism, and because they almost always reject manufacturing in favor of the rural character of the place, islanders often turn to tourism to support themselves but develop a love/hate relationship wherein tourists are viewed as invaders wrecking the tranquility -- but without whom the islanders couldn't exist. Ms. Samuel's article could just as well be describing Block Island, Martha's Vineyard, or any of the others here in New England or along Long Island Sound.See this travelogue -- about a visit to Block by a Shelter Islander, no less -- and count the similarities of opinion between its author and Mr. Edmunds.
Another example: I once wrote a travel piece about Shelter Island, which lies between the forks of eastern Long Island, for a NYC newspaper. I phoned an islander who ran birdwatching tours to include her contact info, prices, etc. in the article. She hesitated to cooperate, however, because while she depended on tourism as a secondary income, she was worried that too many city dwellers might read the article and swarm the island -- as she said, she wanted the tourists but didn't want them. After several minutes of her hemming and hawing, I hung up on her in frustration.
I suppose this happens in any seasonal vacation spot but to me it seems exaggerated on islands. People who live on islands seem to do so because they crave the frontier-like isolation, but my feeling is only half of them have the patience to make the necessary compromises to keep on living there.
Grotius | July 14, 2007, 12:03am | #
Stevo Darkly,It is generally not so binary as that when it comes to the contact between cultures.
Jennifer | July 14, 2007, 9:39am | #
Personally, I think the Easter Islanders had a richer and better culture before they wasted all their time carving those stupid stone heads. Let's pulverize them all into dust so that the people of Rapa Nui can return to their authentic culture, the one they had before the tourist-magnet moai fad destroyed it.And before anybody gets mad at me, let me point out that my idea is no more stupid than Hizzoner the Mayor's. The only difference is, we disagree on when exactly the culture needs to be dipped in amber* and thus preserved forever.
.
.
.
*Kudos to me for resisting the urge to type "carved in stone" here instead.
9 year old boy | July 14, 2007, 12:04pm | #
Isn't Rapa Nui a type of bionicle?LarryA | July 14, 2007, 12:59pm | #
Unfortunately Ms Samuel is a bit naive to believe that economic development will not destroy the culture of Easter Island.A group’s “culture” is simply the way that group lives. Economic development may change the culture, may indeed change it radically. But it won’t “destroy” it.
And I think that the Mayor of the island is wiser than she gives him credit for.
Evidently the mayor agrees with you, since he’s complaining about “his” people thinking for themselves and not following his master plan.
While it's certainly not evil or undesirable for the people of the Island to seek a better lifestyle, to do so at the expense of their rich and colorful culture and history is a mistake.
Isn’t it interesting that how “rich” a culture is supposed to be is so often related to how poor the people living in it are.
The tourist industry and other economic endeavors, if left unchecked, will destroy that culture, annihilating the diversity of its people.
So how far would you go to prevent this tragedy? Mayor Pedro Edmunds: “Asked if he thinks such a (master) plan can possibly please everyone, he laughs: ‘My dear, we can never satisfy people.’”
Are you willing to forcibly keep most of the island’s people in poverty? Will you go so far as to prevent the young people from leaving?
It would be interesting to see the “master plan.” How much would you be willing to bet that under the plan the mayor ends up living in a hut like the rest of “his” people?
IMHO “preserving history” is a leisure activity. Wealth brings opportunities to build museums, stage reenactments, make and consume literature, and otherwise record the history of a culture.
Which is all you can do. Cultures are living things, and thus are either constantly adapting to changing environments or dying off. That’s the real choice.
PS: The "Discuss this article online" link at the end of the article returns to the article.
joe | July 14, 2007, 1:33pm | #
crimethink,Who's forcing anyone to do anything?
The line that brought about Matt J's little outburst was While it's certainly not evil or undesirable for the people of the Island to seek a better lifestyle, to do so at the expense of their rich and colorful culture and history is a mistake.
Let me know where the "forcing people to live in poverty" part is, ok?
joe | July 14, 2007, 1:38pm | #
The missing link that you uber-materialists are failing to grasp is that there is value in culture.How incredibly arrogant it is to assume that the only thing these people can offer the outside world is land to build a casino and labor to staff it!
How incredibly arrogant to think that nothing will be lost, either to the residents or to world at large, if the population is indistinguishable from mainland Chile in thirty years!
How incredibly fucking arrogant to assume that people can't achieve a decent, modern standard of living unless they become a whole lot more like the people who comment on Reason Magazine's blog threads!
Somebody set out to sell a big, stinking bag of false dichotomies. He sure knew his audience.
Seems to me joe's the one with the false dichotomy: have the mayor choose this for you, or that for you. Why should the mayor choose for them at all? Can't they pick whatever they want for themselves, individually?
joe | July 14, 2007, 3:24pm | #
Robert,People don't only act individually. They often act in concert.
In a sense, the cultural traditions of the islanders can be thought of as a commons. Everyone has an interest in kepping that commons intact and strong, and everyone has an interest in maximizing their own wealth, even if it erodes the culture. In the end, each individual's interests would be best served if everyone else remained as true to the traditional culture as possible, while that individual sold out big time. Of course, there is no way for this to work.
Situations in which each individual's pursuit of his self interest produces, in the aggregate, and outcome that harms everybody pose the biggest challenge to libertarian philosophy, with its equation of individuals' most authentic selves and interests with what they can achieve as individuals, rather than in terms of a broader public.
Anyway, I don't want "the mayor" as an individual to decide this for anybody. I want the community as a whole to decide the best way to accomplish this balancing act.
robc | July 14, 2007, 4:50pm | #
joe,People don't only act individually. They often act in concert.
People choose individually to act in concert. Which is still acting individually.
Situations in which each individual's pursuit of his self interest produces, in the aggregate, and outcome that harms everybody pose the biggest challenge to libertarian philosophy, with its equation of individuals' most authentic selves and interests with what they can achieve as individuals, rather than in terms of a broader public.
No challenge at all - Fuck the broader public! Problem solved.
joe | July 14, 2007, 8:46pm | #
robc,Yes, it is both - it is an authentic expression of their individual will when they choose to pursue collective goals through collective means.
Yeah, like I said, libertarians have a problem with that one.
crimethink | July 14, 2007, 8:49pm | #
joe,Before you start tossing out accusations of rank arrogance, keep in mind which people are causing the supposed destruction of this culture: individual Rapa Nui natives who want a better (yes, materially speaking) life. If anyone here is arrogant, it's you and the others who have decided that they need to continue living a life of bare subsistence, rather than "destroy their culture" with their uber-materialist choices.
Anyway, I don't want "the mayor" as an individual to decide this for anybody. I want the community as a whole to decide the best way to accomplish this balancing act.
Bwahhahahahaha! First off, how, pray tell, does the community as a whole decide? Sorry, but in my experience when I hear anything about a collective entity "deciding" something I check for my wallet. That's code for the leader deciding, and then branding his decision the "community's decision" so as to more harshly punish those who disagree.
So, what happens if some people within the community disagree with the community's decision to eliminate their source of a living? Do they get exiled, imprisoned, or do they just have to STFU and learn to love their culture and their hunger?
crimethink | July 14, 2007, 8:56pm | #
The missing link that you uber-materialists are failing to grasp is that there is value in culture.Damn straight I do. I value the well-being of an actually existing individual human being far more than I value some nebulous, ill-defined idea of culture. If someone with a full stomach and an air-conditioned roof over his head thinks that makes me an uber-materialist, so be it.
wayne | July 15, 2007, 9:11pm | #
A few years ago I saw a philosopical masterpiece spray painted as grafitti on a concrete wall at Huntington Beach, CA:"Tourists, leave your daughters and your money and go home".
Words to live by.
Isaac Bartram | July 16, 2007, 11:43am | #
Yeah, like I said, libertarians have a problem with that one.Ummm, no, joe, actually, the "that one" we have a problem with is when some self-righteous busybod/y/ies use the threat of fines or imprisonment to force people to comply with their schemes and then pretend that everyone is happily cooperating.
We have absolutely no problem at all with a group of people agreeing that some course of action is to their mutual benefit and then acting as a group to to pursue that course of action while leaving those who do not feel like pursuing that course of action out of it.