|
Volume XVI (2005)
Book Review: Culture and the Question of Rights: Forests, Coasts, and Seas in Southeast Asia
Cynthia T. Cook
Department of Social Science, SUNY Rockland Community College, Suffern, NY 10901
Charles Zerner. Culture and the Question of Rights:
Forests, Coasts, and Seas in Southeast Asia. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2003. 289
pp. $19.95 (paper).
When William of Normandy landed on the shores of
England in 1066, he foraged the land. Goods were confiscated,
farms were burned, and the inhabitants killed to prevent
them from upporting King Harold. By 1071 one-fifth
of the English population had been decimated. William gave
their land to the knights and vassals who had sworn allegiance
to him. Only two Anglo-Saxons owned land 20 years
after the Normandy invasion; the English had been disenfranchised.
This method of disenfranchisement has been the
fate of non-Western people. Europeans discovering new
lands, claim those lands for their monarchs. The indigenous
people have no title, and therefore no rights. In the name of
civilization, indigenous people are then transplanted to reservations
so that the land can be developed by “civilized”
folks.
Discovery of new land has always resulted in the disenfranchisement
of the local people. European powers ignored
the customary practices that regulated the land, water,
and produce, and imposed their own property laws. These
first world powers had national sovereignty over the land
that was recognized by the European community. In the
United States, the landmark case of Johnson v. M’Intosh
(1823) validated the “discovery doctrine”. Johnson had purchased
land from the Pinankeshaw Indians in 1775 when
the United States was still an English colony. The land was
controlled by Virginia when the colonies declared its independence
from Britain in 1776. In 1784 the Virginia colony
transferred the land to the United States government. In 1818
Congress sold the land to M’Intosh. Johnson’s heirs brought
suit in federal court to regain ownership of the land. The
Marshall court held that the land originally belonged to
England based on the “discovery doctrine” but was ceded
to the United States Government after the American Revolution.
The court’s position was that Native Americans had
the right to occupy the land but did not own it, and could
not sell it. Johnson’s heirs lost their claim to the land. The
same reasoning has isenfranchised indigenous people
worldwide.
However, today indigenous people are challenging this
doctrine. Indigenous people are the local people, the first
ones to settle the land. They are the people who were conquered
by Europeans, or other foreigners, who occupied their
land. They have been subjected to genocide and ethnocide -
annihilation of the culture of an ethnic group by the dominant
group. It is these indigenous people that Charles Zerner
discusses in his book Culture and the Question of Rights.
They have survived the initial contact with the colonizer
and are now struggling to retain or regain their rights to
land, water, and produce via “translation” — sharing, promoting,
and interpreting their culture to outsiders. It is
through this cultural information of song, dance, and linguistic
text that these indigenous people assert their rights
to the land. Through translation government and others know
that there is a culture that governs the everyday activity of
these people.
Culture and the Question of Rights is a discourse on
property rights in Southeast Asia. It is a discussion of indigenous
people fighting to have their culture, rights, and laws
respected and accepted by the state. In a series of articles,
Charles Zerner documents how the local people challenge
the “discovery doctrine” that disrespected their customary
laws. We learn about local land, water, and agricultural practices.
Through song, dance, poetry, and dreams, ownership
and usage is recognized by indigenous people; westerners
use a deed to convey the same rights. These ethnographic
articles expose us to the injustices perpetrated against indigenous
people in the name of development, progress, and
civilization while at the same time providing information
on customary property law.
The first article by Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing, “Cultivating
the Wild: Honey-hunting and Forest Management in
Southeast Kalimantan,” discusses the importance of culture
in defining what is considered to be a commodity. Among
the Meratus Dayak of Indonesia, no one has legal claim to
honey trees or the honey that they produce. The community
recognizes claims of ownership based on finding and nursing
the trees. Even when a man claims ownership, the honey
belongs to everyone and must be shared. Ownership of the
tree is not absolute; the hunter must convince the tree, the
bees, and the community that the tree is his through song,
poetry, and his ability to get the honey. Tsing reminds us
that not everyone sees the world through Western lens.
The second article by the editor, Charles Zerner,“Sounding the Makassar Strait: The Poetics and Politics of
an Indonesian Marine Environment,” is a discussion of the
precarious nature of fishing and the inequities of the state.
Mandar fishermen must propitiate the spirits every time they
60 Cook
enter the waters. They offer food and speech in return for
fish, safety and prosperity. “Failure to tell the one in control
that one has arrived, to tell it the daily news, that one is
fishing or traveling, and to make requests…is to steal from
the guardian spirit” (p.74).
The sea forces fishermen to renegotiate every time they
enter the water with the pantheon of gods. However, the
power of the gods are superceded by the power of the state.
Customary law allows local fishermen to carve out their
territory on a first come basis. Once a roppong is anchored
to the floor of the sea, the fisherman has customary claim
for two to five kilometers surrounding the area. Newcomers
must cede their rights to fish to owners of the first
roppong site, and first roppong fishermen can use violence
to reclaim their territory. If there is conflict, first roppong
must prevail based on customary law. However, the state
perceives customary law as an impediment to development.
According to the state, the sea belongs to all citizens, and
first roppong sites can not prevent new roppong sites from
fishing in state waters. Mandar fishermen have been forced
to share the local waters with interlopers while they continue
to appease the guardian spirits. If they fail to acknowledge
the guardian spirits, they risk misfortune; if they fail
to acknowledge state law, they risk jail. In a society that
depends on fishing for its livelihood, Mandar traditional
practices have been labeled maladaptive for state development,
an impediment to progress. But progress promotes
inequality, enriching some while impoverishing others.
Development policies support the privilege; opening local
waters up to everyone allows non-Mandar tuna vessels with
modern technology to usurp the tuna industry. Their technology
allows them to catch more fish and sell it cheaper.
Local fishermen fearing the lost of their livelihood opposed
the state’s new law and reinstated the customary one that
barred non-local fishermen from fishing in local waters.
Zerner’s article is an indictment that cultural practices usually
function to level the playing field or redistribute the
wealth. Governments do not always recognize the negative
impact that progress may have on indigenous people.
Progress in this case created unequal access to scarce resources,
which the locals refused to accept.
The next article by Marina Roseman, “Singers of the
Landscape: Song, History, and Property Rights in Malaysian
Rainforest,” tells how the Temiar of Malaysia claim
title to their land through song and dreams. These people do
not recognize individual ownership but communal rights.
Members of the village have the rights to live, gather, plant,
harvest, hunt, fish, and be buried on communal land. They
decide how the cultivable land will be divided among members.
Household ownership rights are acknowledged for
production and distribution of produce only. Fruit trees,
which are associated with past residences, are associated
with the person who plant and tend them. This person does
not own the fruit they produce but does have a say in when
it is gathered and how to distribute it. The rights to the fruit
tree are inherited by the children of the parent who planted
it.
Stephanie Gorson Fried’s “Writing for their Lives” is
the most poignant article in the collection. The author discusses
the Bentian Dayak leaders attempt to salvage their
land rights by asking the government of Indonesia to issue
them a certificate of ownership. One is almost moved to
tears as the leaders initially condemn their slash and burn
farming in order to convince the government that they are
pro-development. They switch from condemning their traditional
agricultural practices to defending it as less destructive
to the environment than tree logging. The local leaders
contend that their people have not been adequately compensated
for the destruction of their farms and land, and
that the land the national government wants to give to developers
is land that the Bentian Dayak bought from the
original indigenous people many, many years ago.
One is distraught to discover their efforts futile; the
land is given to developers, and the farms destroyed. One
wonders how the Indonesia government could be so insensitive
to the needs, customs, and laws of these indigenous
people. The reader, if not the government, is convinced by
the end of the article that the “adat,” Dayak customary law,
should be the law of the land.
Nancy Lee Peluso further elaborates on the concept of
property and resources for the indigenous people of Indonesia.
When the Dayaks were no longer able to practice slash
and burn agriculture, they planted rubber in their gardens.
Rubber trees increased the value of their land and allowed
them to feed their families. Durian trees were also planted
along side the rubber. These trees, and their fruit, belonged
not only to the planter but to their wives and children and
the children of their children. Two or three generations down
the line, the trees are owned by cousins. The fruit must be
shared, but it is usually agreed that the person who tends
the tree has primary ownership. Peluso’s article shows how
one group of Indonesia people have benefited from the political
and economic changes that have been imposed upon
them.
Ethnocentrism, racism, mercantilism, and capitalism
have deprived the indigenous people of Southeast Asia of
their land and water rights. Today these people are trying to
educate the government and all who will listen about their
culture and laws. They seek recognition and utilization of
their law in deciding property rights. Unfortunately, their
struggle has just begun. Only time will tell if they will be
victorious. In the meantime, Zerner has exposed us to the
problems of indigenous people everywhere, not just those
in Southeast Asia. This book is recommended reading for
anyone interested in Southeast Asia and international studies.
Volume XVI |
