Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [permaculture] Waving not Drowning

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Gaden@ziplip.com" <Gaden@ziplip.com>
  • To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [permaculture] Waving not Drowning
  • Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:57:29 -0700 (PDT)

Re: Russ Grayson's - "It is attractive to some of us to idealise a
subsistence existence but this is not a universal sentiment and many
developing country people see economic development or emigration as a means
to a better life."

"What I am raising is whether Pitcairn can be a viable entity in anything
beyond a subsistence economy?"

To tangent off in a slightly different tack. Several people have written (and
I'd guess that most would agree), that future options including permaculture
plans, should be driven by the islanders themselves. It is easy for external
people and agencies to develop a, albeit well-intentioned, 'rescue'
mentality. Becoming focused upon the community from a pathological
perspective.

Many years ago (another life, another time, another tie) I was invited to
give a presentation to a Regional UNESCO conference. The international
delegates came from China to South Pacific Islands and all SE Asian countries
inbetween. The aim of the presentation was to attempt to rebalance the focus
of discussion surrounding the delivery of educational and health services
into remote and isolated communities.

Over a period of numerous exchanges of information between delegates, the
notion had crept in that these 'unfortunate' communities had become trapped
by their isolation. That because of a range of social, political, and
geographical factors, they were 'victims' much like refugees from a
catastrophic natural disaster. And they needed rescuing (and pitying).

'Waving, not drowning.' The multimedia presentation, which included clips
from members from various communities, focused on quality of life issues.
That while the delivery of certain services was of concern, people were
actually quite happy living where and how they were.

Outsiders tended to obsess about the disadvantages of the communities. The
people who lived there, believed they had a great life, free from many of the
disadvantages of living in intensely populated cities etc. They considered
their communities as very safe nurturing places to raise their families.
Theirs was a lifestyle they had chosen, not been forced into.

They didn't want or need to be rescued. They were not asking for 'handouts'
or repatriation. They simply needed access to the means to improve the nature
of certain health and education services. Independence building tools like
providing the means for community members to be trained as teachers and
nurses. (rather than bring in short-term outsiders). Appropriate levels of
support. They didn't need doctors when 95% of their health needs could be
provided by experienced (paramedic style) nurses and midwives.

The premise of the presentation was quite simple (Look at us, we're happy and
proud). It was quite a wakeup call for many delegates. In post-presentation
discussion, people realised that most of the delegates (senior government
figures) came from a city, not rural backgrounds. That they had allowed much
of their own preconceptions and urban lifestyle preferences to color what
they thought the communities should have. With retrospection, some delegates
started feeling a little envious of the community members. They really did
seem to be happy 'out there'.

It was an interesting and valuable experience for all of us.

Gaiden




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page