Democracy in the US? Not so much.

You know, we're supposed to be all about democracy here in the US--about liberty, freedom of choice, and open electoral process and all that good stuff.  I remember back in 2000 when Ralph Nader was on the ballot.  Do you all remember that?  Well, people can think whatever they want about Nader as a person, or his politics or whatever.  Fine.  But something happened back then that made me quite a bit more cynical about our electoral process: Nader was excluded from even trying to attend the first presidential debate.  The Commission on Presidential Debates did eventually apologize to him--two years later.  Like that does any good.

So, more of the same is happening this year: Green Party candidate Jill Stein was arrested for trying to attend last night's debate.  And she apparently spent 8 hours handcuffed to a chair under police supervision.  Is this our democratic process at work?  Read more about this on Democracy Now.

Here's what Stein said just before she was arrested (from the Democracy Now link):

Well, we’re here to stand our ground. We’re here to stand ground for the American people, who have been systematically locked out of these debates for decades by the Commission on Presidential Debates. We think that this commission is entirely illegitimate; that if—if democracy truly prevailed, there would be no such commission, that the debates would still be run by the League of Women Voters, that the debates would be open with the criteria that the League of Women Voters had always used, which was that if you have done the work to get on the ballot, if you are on the ballot and could actually win the Electoral College by being on the ballot in enough states, that you deserve to be in the election and you deserve to be heard; and that the American people actually deserve to hear choices which are not bought and paid for by multinational corporations and Wall Street.

I think she makes some pretty good points.  Meanwhile, democracy steamrolls forward.

Ed Carr on Publishing, peer review, and how "only the senior faculty can save us"

Who can save us...from ourselves?  Who can put an end to the current fiasco that is academic publishing?  Since we are all so entrenched in this system, where can we look for a way out?  In a post about some of the issues that academia faces when it comes to the current politics of publishing and peer review, geographer Ed Carr over at Open the Echo Chamber makes the case that escape and salvation from may lie in the hands of senior faculty.  Is he right?  He might be.

Carr starts off the post by expressing his concern that academia is using practices like peer review as a way to segregate itself from wider audiences.  He argues that peer review is, at heart, not a bad thing, since it provides a way of vetting ideas in an important way.  But, he writes:

the practice of peer review in contemporary academia has turned really problematic. Most respected journals are more expensive than ever, making access to them the near-sole province of academics with access to libraries willing to purchase such journals. The pressure to publish increases all the time, both in rising demands on individual researchers (my requirements for tenure were much tougher than most requirements from a generation before) and in terms of an ever-expanding academic community.

One of the deeper issues, Carr argues, is that peer review can be riddled with politics that end up "slowing the flow of innovative ideas into academia" because those ideas may "run contrary to previously-accepted ideas upon which many reviewers might have done their work."  Ultimately, Carr writes, these issues with peer review certainly don't do much to help with the public image of academia (although he is speaking more specifically to geographers here, this applies to academics in general).

Here's Carr's solution, or, at least, his ideas for a way to start digging out of this trench:

So, a modest proposal: senior colleagues of mine in Geography – yes, those of you who are full professors at the top of the profession, who have nothing to lose from a change in the status quo at this point – who will get together and identify a couple of open-access, very low-cost journals and more or less pronounce them valid (probably in part by blessing them with a few of your own papers to start). Don’t pick the ones that want to charge $1500 in publishing fees – those are absurd. But pick something different . . .

Again, although he is speaking directly to other geographers here, I think this proposal applies to and should resonate with the anthropological crowd as well.  For Carr, such a move would be a critical step for opening up academic publishing to wider possibilities, conversations, and collaborations.  I agree,nd I think he is right that certain established faculty members are in an important position for inciting and promoting change.  It's a matter of interest and desire.

At the same time, coming from the position of a graduate student, I can't help but wonder how those of us on, well, lower rungs of the academic ladder can do to actively foster these kinds of changes.  Since we are all encouraged to publish publish publish, maybe it would be a good idea to start thinking more strategically about how and why we are publishing, and more importantly WHO we decide to publish with.  If every graduate student and new professor is constantly upholding the current regime by basically giving up the fruits of their labor (and effectively providing certain publishers with a never-ending stream of valuable products), why WOULD anything change?  So, in the end, I think that Carr is definitely right, but that many of these changes are going to have to start taking place on multiple fronts as well.

On that note, check this out.

Cross-posted on Savage Minds, of course.

UC Davis: Dissent and pepper spray

The police show the world how NOT to handle dissent and protests at UC Davis.  From the Huffington Post:

On Friday, a group of University of California, Davis students, part of the Occupy Wall Street movement on campus, became the latest victims of alleged police brutality to be captured on video. The videos show the students seated on the ground as a UC Davis police officer brandishes a red canister of pepper spray, showing it off for the crowd before dousing the seated students in a heavy, thick mist.

 And here's more from CNN:

The chancellor of the University of California, Davis, under calls to resign, Saturday called police use of pepper spray on seated Occupy protesters "chilling" and established a task force to look into the incident.

The video broadcast by CNN Sacramento affiliate KOVR showed an officer, in a sweeping motion, spraying protesters point blank on Friday before other officers moved in. Eleven people were treated on site for effects of the yellow spray. Two of them were sent to the hospital, university officials said.

Here's one of the videos of this incident:

Assistant professor of English Nathan Brown wrote an open letter to the UC Davis Chancellor.  Here's a selection:

I am a junior faculty member at UC Davis. I am an Assistant Professor in the Department of English, and I teach in the Program in Critical Theory and in Science & Technology Studies. I have a strong record of research, teaching, and service. I am currently a Board Member of the Davis Faculty Association. I have also taken an active role in supporting the student movement to defend public education on our campus and throughout the UC system. In a word: I am the sort of young faculty member, like many of my colleagues, this campus needs. I am an asset to the University of California at Davis.

Read the rest.  Here's my question: Now what?  I find it pretty shocking and disturbing that the police reacted to this protest in this way.  Yes, I can understand the fact that the police had a job to do, and I can understand the fact that UC Davis felt it needed to "do something" about the protests.  Fine.  But this?  Since when is it necessary to resort to these kinds of actions when dealing with non-violent protesters?  Why are these student encampments so threatening that they necessitate pepper spray and violence?  What were these police thinking?  What do they really think they accomplished with this?  Do we really want to sit back and watch as the government (and university officials) respond to dissent and protests like this?  At what point is enough enough?

Quote of the week: John Hawks

From John Hawks' latest post about publishing and open access:

"Seems to me that integrating online discussion into the academic literature would be done most simply by exploiting the system most widely used for citation tracking in the literature itself -- and that many blogs (including mine) already track. However, adding DOI to content turns out to involve an expensive membership to a cartel run by publishers."

 Read the rest, here.

Victor Davis Hanson puts "multiculturalism" through the partisan blender

This one's going to be short and sweet. I stumbled across Victor Davis Hanson's post earlier today, found his "discussion" about multiculturalism to be, well, interesting. Have a look:

Where did multiculturalism come from? It is a bastard child of Marxism, of course, inasmuch as it is anti-capitalist and judges left-wing or pseudo-left-wing totalitarians far less harshly than right-wing authoritarians...

I am still unclear why or how Hanson attaches multiculturalism specifically to Marxism, of all things. Does anyone remember when or where Marx put forth his support of this concept? Talk about being anachronistic. The other interesting thing here is that Hanson seems to assume that all purported multiculturalists act and think alike: they are all sympathetic to leftist dictators, and they are all anti-capitalist. He is actually conflating the broad concept of multiculturalism (which has a wide application in many contemporary nation states) with specific political views and positions. Interesting tactic. Last time I checked, multiculturalism basically refers to the idea that cultural diversity should be respected and accepted in contemporary nation states (as opposed to assimilationist models).

Here's more from Hanson:

Finally, multiculturalism is a form of political and historical ignorance. The multiculturalist is an ahistorical fool, who confuses the cultural periphery with the core. Thus the United States is enriched by “multicultural” music, food, fashion, art, and literature from a Mexico or Kenya or Egypt. Fine, wonderful, all the better. But one, in the spirit of “diversity,” does not wish to embrace the Mexican judiciary, the Kenyan economic system, or the Arab attitude to women.

How is it ahistorical to pay attention to the diverse peoples who actually took part in history? How is it in any way "ignorant" to realize that history is rarely as simple as grade school texts make it out to be? I don't see the logic in his point, at all. And, when Hanson argues that multiculturalists confuse the cultural periphery with the core, what exactly is he talking about? Is he saying that only powerful groups should be considered legitimate members of society? Are only some histories worth paying attention to? I'd be interested to see how Hanson defines the cultural core and periphery of the United States. Also, notice how he conflates policies of particular nation states with culture.

Hanson throws lots of words around. But I think he basically conflates many issues more than he actually explains anything. It's more of a partisan political piece than any sort of historical analysis--and the word on the (digital) street is that Hanson is a historian. Anyway, I need to get back to work.

Zizek on events in Egypt

Slavoj Zizek on revolution, the west, Egypt, and fear:

What cannot but strike the eye in the revolts in Tunisia and Egypt is the conspicuous absence of Muslim fundamentalism. In the best secular democratic tradition, people simply revolted against an oppressive regime, its corruption and poverty, and demanded freedom and economic hope. The cynical wisdom of western liberals, according to which, in Arab countries, genuine democratic sense is limited to narrow liberal elites while the vast majority can only be mobilised through religious fundamentalism or nationalism, has been proven wrong. The big question is what will happen next? Who will emerge as the political winner?

Read the rest here.

Power, realpolitik, and freedom: Egypt and US Ideals about Freedom

What absolutely blows me away is how quickly some folks drop their supposed ideals about freedom and democracy when the people under consideration are far away (like in Egypt, for example). It's shocking, actually, to hear some folks out there calling for the support of Mubarak as a close ally (check the comments section). I don't get it. Democracy, it seems, only applies here at home. When it comes to a distant population like the people of Egypt, it seems that many people are willing to sidestep all of the rhetoric about political freedom and openly advocate supporting a repressive policy state, all in the name of "our interests." Horribly ironic, no? Granted, the situation in Egypt is far from clear, but I definitely do not think that going back to the "support the nearest dictator who will toe the line" model is the way to go. Absolutely not. Anyway, here are some quotes that are apt for folks on all sides of the political spectrum here in the US:

Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.

-Ronald Reagan

Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.

-Ronald Reagan

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

-Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), Letter to Josiah Quincy, Sept. 11, 1773.

A little rebellion now and then is a good thing.

-President Thomas Jefferson.

Those who expect to reap the blessing of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.

-Thomas Paine.

Autocrats, democracy, and pragmatism

Over on a political blog that I check every now and again, one of the respondents to this post argues that the US should keep supporting Mubarak (despite that fact that he's a SOB), and that they would be perfectly content if the conditions of the last 30 years continued unabated. This is one strain of realpolitik that has been pretty common in certain circles the last few days, one that is akin to a long-running foreign policy philosophy that has reigned in the US for decades.

I completely disagree with this sort of thinking, for numerous reasons. Mubarak is a crucial part of the problem, and is helping to create conditions that will only make things worse in the long run. Brutal repression doesn't lead anywhere good, and there are plenty of historical examples that bear this out. Seems pretty self explanatory, really. Repressive regimes are rampant throughout the region, and Egypt is just another case in point. These governments only fuel inequality, repression, poverty, and violence. Why is it that we think that supporting an autocratic regime--which represses the rights of its citizens--is in any way an acceptable solution?

In the long run, supporting anti-democratic regimes only undermines US legitimacy and credibility, especially considering all of our talk about freedom, democracy, and liberty. History has PLENTY of examples that bear this out (Somoza was "our bastard" in Central America, and that worked out just wonderfully, didn't it?). But then, maybe all of that talk about freedom and democracy is just a bunch of rhetoric and political theater. That's the pessimistic version of this particular trend.

Eventually, these types of alliances always come back to haunt us--and Egypt could be yet another case. Considering the fact that we have tacitly supported Mubarak for three decades, there is no reason to assume that a new government will necessarily look upon the US with favor. This is a real problem...but nobody should really be shocked, all things considered. Thirty years is a long time.

I definitely agree with anyone who is skeptical about where events in Egypt are heading. Definitely. It's difficult to tell at this point what will happen, and anyone who claims otherwise is being way too naive. This can go many ways, so it makes sense to step back and avoid making unsubstantiated proclamations. Maybe it's a good time for guarded optimism--maybe this will result in democratic change in Egypt. That said, it also makes sense to revisit some of our basic foreign policy philosophies of the past 50 years, and maybe rethink some of the short-term political compromises that the US has been willing to make--instead of falling back on the same old "let's keep the autocrat in place" thinking. What this means to me is that maybe, just maybe, it's best NOT to side with the dictator. A crazy idea, I know.

It's ironic, considering the foundations of this nation, that today so many politicians (and citizens) are willing to aid and support dictators in the name of our supposed "interests." To me, that's just short-term thinking at its finest (and it also flies completely in the face of our supposed ideals and basic beliefs--not that humans aren't always full of contradictions). Seems like we would have learned our lesson by now. Maybe we need to reassess what we mean when we talk about "our interests," all things considered. I am especially surprised when hardcore self-identified proponents of liberty and democracy so quickly backtrack from their ideals when the population under question exists outside certain political and social boundaries. Apparently, it's "democracy for me and not for thee," all in the name of political pragmatism.

I wrote this on another thread, but I'll repeat it here: there is no way that any US citizen in their right mind would argue that we need to support an autocratic regime in the name of political pragmatism HERE, so why is this an acceptable solution over THERE? Short answer: it's not.

/political rant for the day.

Anthropology MINUS science?

You know, I really like the whole history of science. I mean the kind that looks at scientific practice as yet another human social and cultural system. Fascinating stuff. And when it comes to those wonderful discussions about truth, the limits of objectivity, and the fallibility of science...I think it's all very relevant, fascinating, and important to think about.

At the same time, I am by no means against science. Everything has its shortcomings and faults. But then, we don't simply abandon each and every endeavor or term or idea simply because it has some drawbacks. While there are certainly plenty of drawbacks to science, there are also more than enough strengths. I mean, do we really need to talk about germ theory and cell biology and DNA studies and, well, everything that IS science? Doesn't everyone know about the value of science? Don't all anthropologists agree that science matters? Why am I even talking about this?

Because the American Anthropological Association decided to remove any and all references to science in their mission statement:

Is anthropology a science? Don’t ask the American Anthropological Association (AAA), which recently voted to strike the word “science” from its long-term mission statement.

At the society’s annual meeting in New Orleans two weeks ago, the AAA’s executive board voted to change its long term goal statement from: “The purposes of the Association shall be to advance anthropology as the science that studies humankind in all its aspects” to: “The purposes of the Association shall be to advance public understanding of humankind in all its aspects.”

Three other mentions of science were removed from the three-paragraph statement, while teaching and promoting public understanding were emphasized.

This makes no sense to me. Sure, I am a cultural anthropologist--you know, the type that is usually blamed for this sort of thing because of an overly opaque interest in postmodernist intellectual ping pong (or something like that). But while I read my fair share of Foucault and James Clifford and Donna Haraway and Latour and all of that good stuff, I am also a devout fan of science. I mean, I credit Stephen Jay Gould for my current intellectual path just as much as anyone else. I understand the clashes and disagreements between the so-called hard sciences and the so-called soft sciences. But overall I think these divisions are pretty silly, if not outright stupid. There is a reason why anthropology is, at least in some places, a four field approach. The basic idea being that each perspective can inform the other. This means that more biologically inclined anthropologists can gain something from the "cultural" folks, and vice versa. Archaeologists can get something from linguists. It's all about cross-fertilization. And to me, it's a good way of going about things, instead of constantly closing ourselves off into little disciplinary corners.

Overall, I think this is a bad call. I understand why the AAA made some new references in the statement, and why they wanted to emphasize particular foci, but I completely disagree with the decision to remove all references to science. What were they thinking? And what do the more scientifically inclined anthropologists think about this? For the record, I vote NO on this decision, "cultural" anthropologist or not.

UPDATE 12/3: Here are a couple more posts that discuss this issue:

1. Savage Minds-Alex Golub provides one response to the issue.
2. BANDIT: Another good discussion of the issue from Julienne Rutherford writing for the Biological Anthropology Developing Investigators Troop (BANDIT).
3. Daniel Lende over at Neuroanthropology has the ROUNDUP of ALL ROUNDUPS for this issue--and he provides a valuable (and calm) lens through which to look at this issue.

UPDATE 12/8:

Check out Colleen Morgan's response to this issue over at Middle Savagery.

Plovers and ATVs in Hatteras

So, I just came across this post about the ongoing conflict over environmental conservation and off-road recreational vehicle use out on Hatteras Island. Since I grew up in a place where these kinds of issues are critical, and since my current research focuses on very similar issues, I am of course very interested in what is happening over in North Carolina. It's about a battle over endangered plovers, coastal resources, tourism, and local residents. It's also turned into an ideological battle between environmentalists, the National Park Service, and some of the local community members on Hatteras Island. Rick, the author of the post, recounts the fact that he recently visited the island and was confused about signs that declared areas closed for environmental reasons. But, he explains, once he saw this video, he understood the "driving forces" behind the issue and became enraged about what he calls "environmental tyranny." He encourages readers to watch the same video, get equally enraged, and make this issue "go viral".

Ya, that'll solve the problem.

First of all, I can understand why people are upset and angry about this issue. Clearly, people's livelihoods are being affected by this environmental conflict. And it is critical to seriously consider how conservation efforts affect local communities and economies. People matter. Blindly enclosing environmental spaces without taking account of the effects upon local communities is shortsighted and unjust. That's how I see it. I have had my fair share of experience with these sorts of issues, and it's definitely true that communities can be pushed aside when it comes to the management of cultural and natural resources. It definitely happens.

That said, I don't really think that getting "enraged" and passing around a 20 minute video about the issue is really the way to go. I'd rather see people get informed about this before they leap to any conclusions and start jumping on the nearest political bandwagon. I think there is more to the issue than this 20 minute video suggests.

I think it's time for the quote of the day. Michel Foucault once said this: "Never engage in polemics." I think that's good advice...in this case and in many others.

Anyway, back to the birds and off-road vehicles. The video definitely shows an important component of this issue, and illustrates the fact that some people are being severely affected by what is happening. I think a lot of the people make a good case, and that they have some solid points to consider. These are voices that should be heard. There are real, serious, long-term effects with these sorts of problems. But what else is going on in this case?

The most recent Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and ORV Management Plan, which is available online, clearly outlines the conflict and the fact that the National Park Service has to find a way to allow ORV use while still protecting/managing the coastal environment that draws the tourists in the first place. The EIS clearly illustrates the fact that NPS realizes that people need to use ORVs to get out to the beaches. The whole problem is that finding a way to allow access and still preserve the environment isn't exactly a quick, let alone easy, process. Add to that the fact that EIR processes can be slow-going, and it becomes even more clear why the situation can get more and more heated. While the process drags along, people's economic livelihoods hang in the balance.

See, that's the whole thing. When it comes to resource conservation/management, the difficulty lies in striking a reasonable balance between use and protection in order to avoid the absolute destruction of the place that everyone wants to see. If the place gets overrun with tourists and ORVs, the locals who make a living off those pretty beaches are out of luck on that count as well. And that's why situations like this aren't always as cut and dry as they might seem at first. The local people lose if there is TOO MUCH protection, yet they also lose if there isn't enough. Go look at places like Hawaii and see why it's important to balance tourism demands and environmental concerns.

So yes, people matter. But so does finding a way to avoid the absolute destruction of environmental resources--that's the whole reason why national parks were established in the first place. As I see it, more information and cooler heads can lead to better chances for conflict resolution. Especially in cases like this where there are multiple users and agendas involved.

Ultimately, it should come of no surprise that this issue has become incredibly political. Anybody who thinks that environmental issues can be apolitical haven't been paying attention for the last century. Read about the politics that surround Yosemite Valley. Or about environmental issues all through Mexico. In the case of Hatteras Island and the conservation of the National Seashore, the issues are politicized on various fronts. The issue of use vs. protection for this small strip of land has some serious economic implications for people who have deep historical and social roots in the area. At the same time, while it is imperative to deal with economic and social ramifications in a just manner, it is also critical to preserve the very things that we all want to enjoy--it's not just about today, but about having these kinds of places around for future generations.

Ya, I know. We've all heard that one before. But to me it makes perfect sense to weigh future costs with current needs. I'm certainly not someone who goes around pretending that there is such a thing as an ideal, pristine natural world that needs to be shielded from any and all human actions and behaviors. For me, it makes sense to avoid looking at this as simply another issue of humans versus nature. It might help to realize that humans are--and have been--a part of this environment for generations. Humanity isn't just some recent aberration; it have been around these kinds of places for thousands of years, shaping landscapes all the while. Now, by no means does that mean that NPS or anyone else should just allow the place to get trashed by ORV use. and tourism That's the last argument I am making.

What I am saying is that ALL of these issues have to be accounted for, and unfortunately there isn't just one big answer that can solve every case like this. Each one requires attention to local specifics and details. Maybe getting enraged will in fact garner some attention, who knows? But in this case my vote goes for more background, more information, and slightly cooler heads. From what I have seen, going the "enraged" route only leads to prolonged conflict, misunderstandings, high emotions, and endless political gridlock.

Jon Stewart + Fox News + Ground Zero

I have been a little buried this past week with starting school and getting ready for everything. You know how it goes. Something that I have been wanting to write about is all of the uproar over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque. The political discourse about this issue has reached an incredibly polemic level--not like that's really a surprise these days. And news media sources, among them Fox News, certainly play their part. On that note, have a look at this recent clip from the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Sometimes, when it comes to important social and political issues, the comedians just nail it.

A summer in Baja California Sur

I spent a good portion of this summer in Baja California Sur, doing some preliminary fieldwork in preparation for my upcoming dissertation fieldwork. This was the second summer in a row that I was able to travel to BCS to get a head start on my research, which is about some of the politics of tourism, land ownership, and development in the southern part of the peninsula. It's a place that has many of the elements that appeal to large scale tourism developments--Cabo San Lucas is a case in point.

Development of the region is rapidly expanding as hoteliers, tourism companies, and investors seek new places to create resorts, golf courses, and hotels to appeal to tourists from all over the world (although BCS is primarily visited by US citizens at this point). While many of these development projects certainly have their supporters (the Mexican government sees exclusive, high-end tourism zones like Cabo San Lucas as the perfect model for future development), there has also been plenty of social and political resistance. One recent example includes members of the small coastal community of Cabo Pulmo, which is caught up in a fight against a very large development project that many see as a threat to the local marine environment, as well as resources like water. Read more about some of the issues at Pulmo here, and check out a video posted by COSTASALVAjE, here .

During this trip I met three people who are involved in projects that take a close look at some of the politics and histories that Baja California Sur faces at present. One was the documentary filmmaker Carmina Valiente, who made the film "Baja All-Exclusive," which explores many of the conflicts and social inequalities that surround some of the development projects along the southern tip of the peninsula. Carmina's work treads some very similar ground to the research that I will be starting in the same region, and I was fortunate to meet her and get the chance to talk with her about some of her ideas and projects. Here's the trailer:

I also met the talented photographer Elizabeth Moreno while I was attending a conference on environmental history at the Universidad Autonoma de Baja California Sur (UABCS). Moreno's photography--which is really well conceived and executed--was displayed in one of the main conference rooms, and I was immediately impressed. The photographs on display were from a series about human imprints on environments, called "Traces: Landscape Transfiguration." A description of this series from her site:

This work is a visual compilation of traces that our civilization leaves in the continuous transformation of the world that surrounds us. It is an attempt to set aside the kind of landscape photography that is just a visual placebo for the eye and create a purposive work. Through this images that make obvious the contrast between what is a human trace and the natural landscape I invite you to thoroughly observe our environment, to reflect on how we are altering the planet we will inherit to future generations, and if you consider it valuable I also invite you to do something about its preservation.

Take the time to look through Elizabeth's photography on her website, here. Here are a few of the photographs from the "Traces" series that I found particularly poignant, especially considering the current political and environmental climate in Baja California:

Finally, I was lucky to meet Sandino Gamez, the editor of a local magazine called Alternativa de BCS. These publications, which focus cultural, political, environmental, and social issues in Baja California, are available online here. Sandino is heavily involved in many local issues, and his active involvement and creativity definitely gave me some ideas about how I can write about some of my work in a public sphere. Communication of experiences, histories, and ideas is a main priority. That's what impressed me most about some of the people that I met over the summer--the fact that they are working hard to explore and investigate difficult issues...while also working just as hard on exposing those issues to wider audiences.

The issues that I am just starting to look at in BCS are certainly complex and difficult to understand in many regards. There are many different perspectives and understandings about the importance of development, and the very direction in which people want to see BCS head. Some people that I talk with are excited about the possibility of new jobs that tourism development promises. Others are weary--to say the least--about the long term effects and sustainability of some developments plans and goals. There is definitely money to be made in tourism development, but the real question is about benefts--and costs. Yes, tourism development generates revenue, but where do those gains go? And what kinds of communities are created in the long run? Who is really behind these development projects, and who is against them? More importantly, the question might be why?

Baja California Sur is often sold as a wild, pure, pristine place where tourists can travel to experience romantic, idealistic, and adventurous environmental landscapes. But, as the work of Carmina Valiente, Elizabeth Moreno, and Sandino Gamez shows, there is a lot more to the picture than the promotional videos that the Los Cabos Convention and Visitors Bureau promulgates. While many powerful institutions, such as the United Nations World Tourism Organization, see tourism development as a clear solution for socio-economic development, there are many reasons to remain cautiously skeptical. This doesn't mean that tourism development automatically results in social inequality, environmental degradation, and local political conflicts. It means that there is no reason to assume ANYTHING about this kind of development without taking a closer look at the specific historical, political, environmental, and social experiences of the people who deal with the results of tourism for a lot longer than the typical tourist vacation ever lasts. Tourists come and go, while the altered social and environmental landscapes that result from tourism development tend to become a reality for the individuals and communities who call places like Baja California Sur home. While the macroeconomic possibilities of tourism can be quite alluring, it is critical to pay close attention to the kinds of communities that result from large-scale tourism development projects.