Land Rights and the Forest Peoples of Africa
Land Rights and the Forest Peoples of Africa
Land Rights and the Forest Peoples of Africa
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>L<strong>and</strong></strong> rights <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> forest peoples <strong>of</strong> <strong>Africa</strong> – Part I<br />
what that is once joined to, at least where <strong>the</strong>re is enough, <strong>and</strong> as good left in common<br />
for o<strong>the</strong>rs. 16<br />
Here Locke’s <strong>the</strong>ory <strong>of</strong> property ownership can be seen to rely on a distinction between l<strong>and</strong><br />
in a ‘state <strong>of</strong> Nature’ <strong>and</strong> domesticated l<strong>and</strong> which has been adapted by <strong>the</strong> labours <strong>of</strong> ‘men’.<br />
As Argyrou writes, ‘mastery <strong>of</strong> nature came to be seen as <strong>the</strong> unmistakable mark <strong>of</strong><br />
civilisation, <strong>the</strong> core characteristic not <strong>of</strong> European “man” but <strong>of</strong> “man” as such. To<br />
paraphrase Marx … “man” makes himself only ins<strong>of</strong>ar as he remakes <strong>the</strong> world around him.<br />
The more he changes <strong>the</strong> world around him, <strong>the</strong> more he becomes his true self’. 17<br />
Locke’s <strong>the</strong>ories have had two fundamental impacts on indigenous peoples – whe<strong>the</strong>r his<br />
<strong>the</strong>ories are understood as causing or rationalising European behaviour towards <strong>the</strong>m. First,<br />
as will be elaborated below, Locke’s <strong>the</strong>ories deny indigenous peoples <strong>the</strong>ir rights <strong>of</strong><br />
ownership, individually or collectively, <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir ancestral l<strong>and</strong>s. They legitimise <strong>the</strong><br />
appropriation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se l<strong>and</strong>s by colonial forces, a process <strong>of</strong> exploitation that continues today<br />
in <strong>the</strong> denial <strong>of</strong> indigenous peoples’ rights to <strong>the</strong> protected areas that were formerly <strong>the</strong>ir<br />
homes. Specifically, Locke writes that <strong>the</strong> failure to apply ones labour denies individuals or<br />
groups <strong>the</strong> ability to call a good or piece <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong>ir own: ‘if ei<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong> grass <strong>of</strong> his enclosure<br />
rotted on <strong>the</strong> ground, or <strong>the</strong> fruit <strong>of</strong> his planting perished without ga<strong>the</strong>ring <strong>and</strong> laying up,<br />
this part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> earth, notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing his enclosure, was still to be looked on as waste, <strong>and</strong><br />
might be <strong>the</strong> possession <strong>of</strong> any o<strong>the</strong>r’. 18<br />
As Buchan <strong>and</strong> Heath write, ‘<strong>L<strong>and</strong></strong> use o<strong>the</strong>r than settled agriculture was declared “waste”,<br />
ra<strong>the</strong>r than industrious <strong>and</strong> rational use, <strong>and</strong> incapable <strong>of</strong> forming <strong>the</strong> basis <strong>of</strong> property<br />
rights. This Eurocentric framework establishes indigenous social forms as inferior <strong>and</strong><br />
reduces <strong>the</strong>ir distinctive features to a derisory comparison with European social forms’. 19 This<br />
concept <strong>of</strong> ownership through <strong>the</strong> application <strong>of</strong> labour was joined by a second <strong>the</strong>ory,<br />
derived from 19th-century evolutionary anthropology, which suggested that<br />
indigenous peoples were seen to be extremely primitive ins<strong>of</strong>ar as <strong>the</strong>y apparently did<br />
not have institutions or concepts related to sovereignty or jurisdiction. They could not,<br />
<strong>the</strong>refore, legally occupy <strong>the</strong>ir own l<strong>and</strong>s. Since it could be presumed that <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>s were<br />
‘vacant’ from a legal point <strong>of</strong> view, <strong>the</strong> Crown could legitimately acquire sovereignty <strong>and</strong><br />
jurisdiction merely through placing authorized colonists on <strong>the</strong> l<strong>and</strong>s. 20<br />
When <strong>the</strong>se two <strong>the</strong>ories were used toge<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>y enabled colonial forces to deny <strong>the</strong><br />
customary l<strong>and</strong> rights <strong>of</strong> indigenous peoples formalised through <strong>the</strong> legal concept <strong>of</strong> terra<br />
nullius in Australia <strong>and</strong> Canada, <strong>and</strong> vacant et sans maîtres (which literally means empty<br />
16 Ibid., p 116.<br />
17 V Argyrou (2005) The logic <strong>of</strong> environmentalism, p 5.<br />
18 J Locke (1823) The works <strong>of</strong> John Locke, p 121.<br />
19 B Buchan <strong>and</strong> M Heath (2006) ‘Savagery <strong>and</strong> Civilization: From Terra Nullius to <strong>the</strong> “Tide <strong>of</strong> History” ’, in<br />
Ethnicities, vol. 6, no. 1, p 8.<br />
20 M Asch (2005) ‘Levi-Strauss <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Political: The Elementary Structures <strong>of</strong> Kinship <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Resolution <strong>of</strong><br />
Relations between Indigenous <strong>Peoples</strong> <strong>and</strong> Settler States’, in Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Royal Anthropological<br />
Institute, vol. 11, no. 3, p 431.<br />
Kidd & Kenrick 9<br />
March 2009