Identifying the Author’s Argument
Davis’ article focuses on the consequences of the Wilderness Act of 1964, specifically its negative impact on residents. Each region has historically developed its own features in fishing and hunting, which African Americans adhere to, including the species composition of biological resources, traditions of their consumption, and extraction methods. The Wilderness Act does not take them into account, which causes many problems (Davis, 2018). The author believes that it is necessary to change approaches to forming the legislative framework in the field of fishing and hunting of indigenous African Americans.
According to the author, the law should reflect only the conceptual provisions of the fishing organization by indigenous African Americans and their communities. Everything else should be included in the state’s legislation, as the local government is better aware of the indigenous people’s way of life (Davis, 2018).
Meanwhile, the state authorities of the states were practically excluded from making decisions in the field of organizing the hunting and fishing practices of indigenous Afro-Americans. For this reason, at the moment, the Wilderness Act, although it has a positive impact on the white population belonging to the upper and middle classes, has a highly negative impact on the lives of indigenous African Americans.
Critical Response
Previous Attitude
This article helped me to look at phenomena such as hunting and fishing from a different perspective. Previously, I perceived them more negatively and supported the Wilderness Act. The consequences of human intervention in the animal world have always been purely negative. For example, I believed that hunting and fishing contributed to the decline of animal and fish populations across a vast territory and the extinction of many species of fauna (Davis, 2018). It contributes to the extinction of species that serve as food for humans. Due to this one-sided view of the problem, I viewed the Wilderness Act of 1964 as a positive measure.
In fact, historically, the traditional community has developed several practices that were aimed at preserving nature. Their actions were not aimed at destroying species of flora and fauna but, on the contrary, at their preservation. All the necessary decisions were made collectively; no private land was owned. There were restrictions related to fishing: they tried to get no more than was required to provide for the family.
It was also forbidden to hunt or engage in other economic activities; certain types of animals and plants were considered sacred in sacred places (Davis, 2018). A traditional belief system supported such practices. All these rules are transformed when nations are involved in market relations. Moreover, conflicts often arise in the territory with industrial companies and those engaged in commercial hunting and fishing.
Gained Perspective
After reading the Davis article, I viewed the problem from a different perspective. Previously, I did not think that fishing and hunting were the most important branches of the traditional economy of indigenous peoples. However, their well-being and problems are now closely linked. His role in the lives of African American indigenous ethnic groups is especially significant.
Fishing and hunting serve two important functions here: meeting the basic needs of the indigenous population in terms of food and ensuring their participation in the country’s and region’s economic life (Davis, 2018). The first function has developed historically: fishing and hunting have always been the basis of the existence of the majority of the aborigines of the Far East, determining their way of life. The second took shape during colonization, when indigenous peoples became important suppliers of fish and meat products.
The traditional nature management of indigenous peoples is highly dependent on the landscape. The connection between the ethnos and the landscape determines which branches of the economy are developing. Any changes in nature make traditional nature management problematic. The state often creates restrictions that prevent the implementation of traditional economic activities. Approximately 95% of national parks are situated in areas where the indigenous population resides (Davis, 2018). However, the current policy towards indigenous peoples did not take shape immediately.
When the British arrived in Canada, their policy became colonialist, utilizing natural resources for industrial purposes. The locals were assimilated: the native language was banned, and the children were sent to compulsory boarding school. Aborigines were engaged in hunting and fishing, and in winter, they built temporary houses. The traditional culture of the Indians was lost mainly, partly because its representatives died out and partly because of the state’s assimilation policy.
The first attempt to create national parks was unsuccessful: residents were forced to relocate to reservations. These processes contributed to the extinction of entire tribes. I have heard about these events, but did not associate the creation of modern nature parks and reserves with them. Reading the article gave me the idea that the problems of segregation are still relevant in our time, although they have taken on a slightly different form.
Reference
Davis, J. (2018). Black faces, black spaces: Rethinking African American underrepresentation in wildland spaces and outdoor recreation. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space, 0(0), 1–21.