A Different Value of Education

I have always been told that college is the only option if I want to go anywhere in life. Everyone agrees; my parents, my teachers, the society in which I live; they all agree that a college education is the most valuable type of education. I believed them for a while, until these past few months.

First, my definition of education was much different than that of the rural villagers and NGOs that we’ve been talking with and learning from. I had always associated education with being in a classroom, led by a teacher that was knowledgeable in the subject. The tools used to measure the success of my education were in forms of papers, exams, and discussions. The grades I received would reflect how effective my education was.

I think that’s the image that many people associate with the word “education”, at least in Western society. When I first entered these communities, I was shocked. They were poor, had little access to education, and many of them lacked basic skills such as reading and writing. I didn’t really know how to approach the situation. I would try to communicate with these villagers by handing them my Thai-English dictionary to allow them to look up words. When they told me “mai dai” (not able to), I was surprised. The fact that these people are unable to read and write must mean that they are stupid right?

According to Western standards of education, the answer to that question would be “yes”. But there is a different perspective that I have been seeing throughout these last two months. Higher institutional education isn’t valued as much in the villages. In fact, traditions and lessons that are passed throughout the generations seem to be more valuable here.

It was apparent when we stayed with the farming communities especially. It is more valuable for farming communities to be knowledgeable in areas that cannot be taught in a classroom. Knowing the land, methods of farming, how to be self reliable, and understanding seeds, crops, and soil, are all lessons that are very valuable in this kind of lifestyle.

At first, I found myself thinking I was so lucky. I have been learning for years, I have opportunities of higher education and access to information of all kinds. I thought that I had so much more than these people. That’s not true at all. In fact, I think that I have a lot less than these people. I admire the basic life skills that they have, the skills I do not have. I do not understand a lot about farming, about supporting myself through my crops. I don’t understand planting seasons, crops, or the dedication that is involved. I might have an education in terms of Western standards, but I know nothing by the standards of the communities and villagers that I have come across so far.

A college degree is suddenly not as appealing to me. Sure, it might help me get a well paying job, make more money, and be more “successful”. But these people are so rich in knowledge. They know things that cannot be taught. I find this to be an extremely valuable kind of education: one that challenges the worth of my overpriced college degree.

Marissa Strong

Keene State College

Following the US Model for Preserving "Nature"

Picture nature.  What do you see when asked to imagine a scene that embodies nature for you?  Most people would respond that they picture a vast space of uninhabited land with lots of trees, maybe some animals, mountains, or bodies of water, but the underlying theme seems to be no people around.  What is the reason behind this idea of people and nature being mutually exclusive?  The truth is that we, and by we I mean mainly the United States, have completely fabricated this representation of nature.  There are very few parts of the planet that are uninhabited by human life and those places aren’t lush forests teeming with flora and fauna, they’re located in the polar caps or in the depths of volcanoes where very few life forms can survive.  The concept of uninhabited wilderness was created in the early nineteenth century in the United States with the start of national parks and forest reservations to “preserve nature.”

In 1864, Yosemite became the model for national parks throughout the country and eventually, much of the world (Usher 150).  What many people fail to recognize, or even realize, is that in order for these parks to be created, nature had to be manipulated.  In this instance I am using the term nature as it truly exists in the world, including the people and animals that have lived there for generations.  To establish the great national parks like Yosemite, Yellowstone, and Glacier, Native Americans that lived within those artificially drawn boundaries had to be removed.  “Acknowledging the fact of dispossession reveals American wilderness to be emptied, rather than empty land (149).”  The problem here is not only that people were forced off of the land on which their people had lived for generations, but also that this move to venerate the concept of uninhabited wilderness spread like wildfire.  It quickly became the norm for people to think of nature as unpopulated, and with the problem of forcibly removing people from their homes out of sight and out of mind, governments the world over began to adopt this model.

Another trend that’s found involves the natural animal inhabitants of the designated parks or sanctuaries.  In the early years of American national parks, animal populations were controlled even as the parks were being advertized as “true wilderness.”  Animal species that were seen as more desirable were taken care of and provided with food during the winter to ensure that there was a large population of healthy “desirable” animals in order to increase the chances of a spotting for tourists.  Park rangers killed off animals that were considered less desirable because they were potentially dangerous or just less attractive, and in some parks even tourists were allowed to hunt them (161).  These practices led to an unbalanced habitat, hurting both the “desirable” and “undesirable” species.  These practices were eventually stopped, but the ideal of getting to witness animals, especially animals consumers are most intrigued by, continues to hold strong in the expectations of tourists visiting national parks or sanctuaries.

In Thailand, there have been many national parks and wildlife sanctuaries that have been established for many years.  They have completely adopted the American model of trying to push people off of the land, fencing it in, modifying the animal population and selling it to eager consumers as “nature.”  This process only continues to support the distorted vision of “nature” the United States created and marketed, and it continues to pose as a problem for the people that live in areas that governments choose to make into national parks of wildlife sanctuaries.

Marissa Lowe

Williams College

Conservation and Sustainability: Who Protects the Forests

One of the recurring themes that came up during our Unit Two trip was villagers having to prove themselves not only as the rightful owners of the land, but also as able and willing to take care of their land and forests in a sustainable manner.  Villagers seeking to prove themselves were most apparent in the villages of Huay Gon Tha and Huay Rahong.

These two villages are in a somewhat unique situation because their lands are located completely inside of the Phu Pha Daeng Wildlife Sanctuary.  In the last decade since the wildlife sanctuary was declared, villagers have faced charges of “causing global warming” for working on their small farms in the name of “conservation” and “preservation.”  More recently, the new head of the sanctuary, Mr. Kung, and the villagers have begun to work together towards a better conservation model, one that allows both villagers and officers of the Forest Industry Organization to participate.

On the one hand, Mr. Kung of the wildlife sanctuary seemed to have a lot of faith in the villagers, stating that, "I think the best people who can take care of the forest are the people who are actually living in the forest."  But, although he believes that the villagers can take care of the forest and that they are perhaps the most qualified to do so, they are not without the need for training and education for conservation.  Mr. Kung’s strategy is to encourage villagers to take ownership of conservation projects in their own communities, including building weirs, and keeping natural water sources clean. 

From the villagers’ perspective, their traditional way of life in itself is sustainable, and what they are really in need of is, perhaps, a good PR campaign.  They know that the global warming charges for small-scale farmers are irrational and based on junk science, and they know that they know more about the forest than any officer serving a 4-year rotation.  Even so, they have organized their own campaigns and activities to show the powers that be that they are serious about conservation efforts, including planting trees, protecting firewood, and organizing youth projects.  As the head of the Phu Pha Daeng Preservation Group in Huay Rahong stated, “We want to show the government that we [the local villagers] are the true protectors of the forest.”

While it may seem unjust at first that the villagers must prove the lifestyle that they have been living for generations to be “worthy” to outside forces, the need to do so may not be entirely unfounded.  Both wildlife sanctuary officials and villagers have confirmed that in several nearby villages, villagers have sold their land to private investors, as much as sixty percent in some areas.  In addition to land being sold, even villagers committed to sustainability and conservation admit that the communities are not necessarily united under these causes; both villages have portions of the population who do not care or are actively opposed to joint conservation efforts.  Villagers from the Phu Pha Daeng Preservation Group acknowledged the need to encourage more organic farming in the communities, where many families use chemical agriculture within the wildlife preserve.

With all of this information, it is difficult to know what kind of policy to implement for conservation efforts in Thailand.  Villagers, obviously on the lower end of the power relationship with the government, need to be both respected and involved in the process of forest preservation-- and certainly should not be demonized as they were in the early years of Phu Pha Daeng.  But government oversight may also be necessary, at least to some extent.  The Phu Pha Daeng model works well in this particular sanctuary because it was created directly by the stakeholders on the ground: officers and villagers. While the exact model may not work elsewhere, the approach seems to be a good choice; decisions about conservation should involve all parties to achieve the best results.

Erin Oakley

American University

Who is in the right? Moral versus Legal

     The issue of land rights in Thailand isn’t one that can easily be solved. In our CIEE program we spend a lot of time with villagers and NGO’s who are experiencing a plethora of problems including having their land taken away or being forcibly removed from the land. Because we live and exchange with these people and not the other side, it is easy to feel sympathy for them and only want to defend their rights- because well, they do have just as much of a right to live there as anyone, right?

   On one side, yes, they do have all the rights- the moral rights that is. If we’re looking at this issue from a moral standpoint, it makes sense to want to give full benefit to the villagers. They have been on this land for hundreds of years; working and playing and raising families. For example, the railroad slum communities are living on the railroad’s land illegally and are being forced to move so Thailand can build a high speed railroad where their houses are now in preparation for joining the ASEAN economic community. The communities have been on this land without issue for over sixty years and now are being faced with the decision to stay and wait to be evicted or find new land and start over. The problem with starting over is that it costs money in which they don’t have and the state doesn’t offer much help to the slum communities. This puts the slums in a bind and one can’t help but to feel sorry that there is nothing they can do and be angry at the state for being so apathetic.

    From a moral standpoint the villagers deserve their right to the land. But, to play devil’s advocate: the railroad does legally own the land. The villagers, according to the law are well, breaking the law and have no right to be on the land. The railroad, in the eyes of the government, has been kind enough to ignore the squatters for these years and allowed them to live relatively peacefully on privately owned land, but now they have business to do and money to make, so they need the villagers off. In a legal point of view, the railroad is right and the slum villagers are wrong.

      As you can see, it isn’t easy to place blame on anyone because it depends on how and who is perceiving the situation. As students we only see one side of the problem and feel more obligated as moral beings to defend the villagers. But, if one takes the time to step back and view the situation objectively, both are in the wrong and both are in the right. This is a problem that many philosophers, sociologists, anthropologists, historians, etc. have been studying for decades, who is right and from what grounds is their being right from?- a moral one, a legal one, a cultural one, an economical one.

Brytnee Miller

Whittier College

Community Land Titles in Thailand

“Having money is not sustainable but having land is,” said a villager from Baw Kaew protest village. Villagers from this area were evicted from land they had lived on for many generations. The government said it would give back the land after the contract with investors expired. This did not happen so villagers took the land back. Some villagers are currently being charged with trespassing and have been told to leave the land.

In Thailand, 90% of private land is held by 10% of the people, 40% of farmers are landless or own a small amount of land and 4.8 million people lack land access.

In the early 1990’s, six million people, 1,253 communities, were relocated. These people did not have land titles although they have been living and working the land for generations. The government claimed the land for forest conservation.

There are two types of legitimate land ownership in the eyes of the state: state ownership and private ownership. According Baw Kaew villagers, in the past people just work land and people would know, they did not need land titles. People working land do not have land titles but have a tax receipt that states they work the land. These tax receipts do not give people the right to the land but a right to work on the land.

As a way to gain the land back, NGOs and communities affected by eviction have been fighting for community land title deeds. These community land title deeds are a tool for landless people to gain land back. It is a community based land management with each community having a community land title committee. This committee determines the rules and regulation community members must follow to be included in the title deed. Community members would not be able to sell land to outside parties. Some NGOs and villagers believe that individual land title will not make land ownership stable. A community land title deed will protect land from corporations for future generations.

The question is, are community land title deeds the answer for the landless in Thailand. Professor Archela brings in some aspects of a community land title deed that are not often spoke about by NGOs. Community land title deeds can be used as a tool to control villagers. To be part of the community land title villagers must follow rules and regulations and many community land titles require members to use the land as a means of producing. Villagers may want an individual land title, but throughout the exchanges this was not even an option for communities. She also brought up the point that community land titles will not bring about equality if only the poor are offered this type of land title.

She also brings up the idea that a community is not homogenous. Within each community there are wealthy villagers and poor villagers. Throughout the units I feel that communities have been portrayed as homogenous with no conflict within that community. If one person in the community land title deed decides to sell they must sell to another person in community. The wealthier may buy the land and eventually land distribution within the community will be disproportionate. The take away point is that one cannot generalize about a community. This can be seen in Thoong Lui Lai and Huay Rahong villages. In Thoong Lui Lai there were originally 103 members in the community land title group; now there are only 70. In Huay Rahong 30% of villagers do not agree with the community forest set up. However portraying a community as homogenous does have benefits like giving a more powerful voice to communities.

There are both good and bad aspects of a community land title deed and portraying a community as homogeneous. It is important to bring up and talk about both sides.

April DesCombes

Occidental College