Suchergebnisse

AbstractOver the past five centuries, Europeans have enclosed the global commons and, in the process, incorporated whole continents of aboriginal land. Some scholars argue that Indians in North America were spared the ravages of compulsory enclosure, having sold their land to non‐Indians through willing‐seller transactions and benefited from federal government trust and treaty policies. Moreover, where enclosure existed, it is widely believed to have ended as Indians converted to agriculture, thereby internalizing hard work, sedentary life styles, and allotted ownership. This study disputes such historical accounts and suggests a wave of new enclosures in accordance with recent U.S. Department of Agricultural minority lending policies. By discriminating against Native American farmers and ranchers, the federal government has enabled the erasure of title, livelihood opportunities, and cultural identity among Indian farming and ranching communities. Evidence from the Fort Berthold Reservation of North Dakota reveals the complex complicity of the federal government in Indian land erasure and points to a changing reservation geography that, even now, makes castaways of agrarian Indians.

Extraterritorial ownership and control of sub-Saharan African land have a long and troubledhistory. This research investigates a much-studied practice—the recent enclosure of African landand resources—but asks a little-studied question: how are non-Africans reasserting terra nulliusnarratives of the past to justify the present transformation of African landscapes? The answersuggested here lies in a bulwark of de facto terra nullius claims couched in security needs of theglobal North and referenced to the low density of Africa's rural population, its land and laborunder-utilization, the ambiguity of its land tenure and related low yields, and its "arrested"civilization. De facto terra nullius is neither narrow in scope nor static in application. It isstirring again as a potent justificatory logic for north-south land relations.

Résumé Certains déplacements de population sont parfois insidieux bien qu'ils soient de grande ampleur. La présente étude se penche sur le cas d'une de ces catégories de déplacements, celle des personnes chassées des parcs naturels et des zones protégées (« réfugiés pour cause d'opérations de conservation ») à mesure que le nombre de ces équipements s'accroît dans le monde entier. L'auteur s'emploie à dissiper plusieurs idées reçues : que le déplacement des habitants des zones protégées est rare, qu'il est peu dommageable lorsqu'il se produit et que l'appauvrissement des expulsés qu'il occasionne est « tolérable » au regard des enjeux de la lutte contre un développement qui se traduirait essentiellement par des opérations d'aménagement et des travaux d'équipement. Le raisonnement de l'auteur est tout autre : le classement en zone protégée constitue souvent une stratégie de développement en soi, impliquant une sorte de « super projet d'aménagement » susceptible de produire d'impressionnants déplacements de population. De tels déplacements contribuent à l'appauvrissement de ces populations de bien des manières. De plus, les réfugiés victimes des mesures de conservation sont souvent pauvres au départ. Ils sont chassés en partie parce qu 'ils sont à la fois pauvres et privés de pouvoir, absence de pouvoir encore aggravée par leur déménagement forcé. L'article s'achève par un examen de la relation particulière entre la politique de création de zones protégées et le développement capitaliste.

Some forms of displacement are subtle, despite their magnitude. This research examines one such case: those people evicted from parks & protected areas ('conservation refugees') as these facilities expand worldwide. The paper dispels several common misconceptions: that displacement from protected areas is unusual, that it causes little harm where it occurs, & that the impoverishment it brings to the evicted is "tolerable" given the larger stakes in the struggle against development. A counterlogic is proposed: protected area conservation often constitutes a development strategy in itself, a form of "mega-project" with impressive displacement potential. Such displacement contributes to impoverishment in multiple ways. Moreover, conservation refugees are often poor at the outset of their ordeal. They are victims of displacement in part because of their combined poverty & powerlessness that is then compounded by forced removal. The paper ends probing the specific relationship between protected area policy & capitalist development. 1 Figure, 28 References. Adapted from the source document.

Some forms of displacement are subtle, despite their magnitude. This research examines one such case: those people evicted from parks and protected areas ("conservation refugees") as these facilities expand worldwide. The paper dispels several common misconceptions: that displacement from protected areas is unusual, that it causes little harm where it occurs, and that the impoverishment it brings to the evicted is "tolerable" given the larger stakes in the struggle against development. A counterlogic is proposed: protected area conservation often constitutes a development strategy in itself, a form of "mega-project" with impressive displacement potential. Such displacement contributes to impoverishment in multiple ways. Moreover, conservation refugees are often poor at the outset of their ordeal. They are victims of displacement in part because of their combined poverty and powerlessness that is then compounded by forced removal. The paper ends probing the specificrelationship between protected area policy and capitalist development. 1 Figure, 28 References. (Original abstract - amended)

This paper focuses on the interaction between public and private land ownership as a backdrop to future tenure research. It challenges various myths about land ownership in both sectors and emphasizes the problems in expanding tenure terms of reference to include the socalled "new property." It concludes with an examination of macro‐sociological forces influencing the changing distribution of public and private ownership in the United States.