Ah. I see what you mean.
We do, these days, try to restrict private owners from at least certain types of destructing natural resources. I don’t think we’ve been trying to insist on access, though, even in those (in my opinion, too limited) cases in which we try to prevent destruction.
The Navajo Nation does not have the resources of the National Park Service
And a lot of these sites don’t have hordes of people. If there are hordes of people, you put up a gate and charge admission. But if its more like five or six groups a day, and at least one group a day leaves litter, and one group a month vandalizes something, that’s too much. The place will be trashed in a year. Utterly trashed. But it’s not enough people to justify paying a guard.
I really don’t think you do have a say in how the Navajo protect their land. There’s a long history of Americans thinking they do, and that history hasn’t been awesome. It’s time for us to back off. If you want to exercise yourself over protection of natural wonders, there are plenty of natural wonders under the US government that you can write your congressfolk about.
I’m talking about natural wonders, which I think belong to all of us and transcend political boundaries.
In this specific case, that’s certainly true. I just had a problem with you seeming to state a general principle that anyone can do anything with land that they legally own, and everyone else should shut up about it.
Right now, the Navajo are almost certainly doing the right thing in restricting access completely until they have worked out a long term management plan. If they decide to prohibit access for everyone forever, then that is worthy of discussion by all of us unless there is a good reason for it.
And if next week the Navajo are signing a contract with a devloper to build an amusement park there, I will be loudly expressing my opinion that they are doing something wrong.
Do that and jack up the prices as well. That’ll cut out a LOT of people, and those who either can afford it, or can save up for it will have an incentive to keep it clean/nice.
Nobody’s entitled to go see some national park for a pittance, but that’s what we charge for most of them.
I also don’t think the “them” and “us” distinction here is appropriate.
There are Navajo and non-Navajo who care deeply about our natural resources and seek to preserve the beauty of natural wonders and respect traditions such as sacred sites. The are Navajo and non-Navajo who are money-grubbing assholes. With respect to natural wonders, I am an ally of the former, not of the Navajo as a monolithic entity.
Sad to say, for some people - not most people, but some - that will simply increase their feelings of entitlement to do whatever they want with the place. “Hey, they’re charging me an arm and a leg, the least they can do is clean up the trash I’m leaving in this streambed!”
I agree with that.
I think the best model is small fees for permits, sufficient to create a process whereby people get the idea that it’s a valued resource, something that matters, and whereby rules can be explained to them. At many National Parks and at other Navajo sites that I’ve visited that require permits, the permit doesn’t cost much but you must pick it up ahead of time in person at a backcountry office. This requires some degree of commitment to visiting because you care about the place and not just because you decided you want to get drunk this afternoon, and it involves a conversation with a ranger.
Where the big money should come into play is with heavy fines for violations. This can help defray the cost of ranger patrols.
Ticketing violations is effective in National Parks, because any offense is federal. I guess enforcement might be a problem on Navajo land because people might just skip on tickets for things like littering where they are not actually arrested.
And if their reason for it is that they don’t want people gawking at their sacred places, and feel it would only screw up the proper attitude to such places more by accepting money to allow them to do so (as stated by the people concerned in more than one of the articles I read): that is a perfectly good reason. And while we’re certainly entitled to yak about it all that we want, the Diné aren’t required to take part in the conversation.
Except that’s not what I said: I said that they have a right to not allow pleasure-seeking visitors onto the land they legally own. That’s a huge difference.
Perhaps, but you are still talking about this as though the Navajo are a monolithic entity. There is wide variation in opinion about what is sacred and what is not, as you can see from the link I posted above about the proposal for building a fucking tramway down the side of the gorge to the confluence between the Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers, despite the fact that this has always been an important sacred site for both the Navajo and the Zuni.
The idea that this is a battle between evil White people who desecrate nature and heroic Navajo who all respect nature is nonsense. Of course the Navajo government manages the natural wonders on their land, but the idea that nobody else should have any voice is stupid. With natural wonders in any location, there is common cause in these matters between people (Navajo or non-Navajo) who respect nature and sacred traditions against people (Navajo or non-Navajo) who don’t.
As is thinking that you have any legal say in the matter, no matter which side you agree with. It is a family matter, and neither you nor I are part of the family. Their land, their decision.
You are welcome to your view that I cannot support and ally with those Navajo who advocate responsible stewardship and respect for nature against those who don’t.
You can ally with whomever you want-you still don’t get a vote.
Any more infantile straw men?
By this reasoning, it’s completely pointless to be an ally or supporter of LGBT people in the U.S. (I can’t vote here), or Russians who oppose Putin, or Australians who oppose the murder of kittens. Do you think it’s worthless to be a supporter or ally of any people or cause when you don’t have any legal say in their rights and you don’t get to vote on the matter, or do you have a specific patronizing view of the Navajo people?
This time, read the whole sentence.
You can support whatever cause you want, but the Navajo Nation gets to make its own decisions.
How about you try the same? Where did I claim to have any legal rights in the matter, or a vote?
No. I’m talking about the specific statements made by the particular Diné who closed off this land. I’m sure there’s disagreement among them.
I didn’t say anything remotely like that.
A voice in preventing destruction, yes. A voice in insisting on access, no.
I don’t know what you mean by “insisting” on access, but we all have the moral right to express our views on the merits of policy and thus on which Navajo we support and ally with, just as with the policy of any government.
I support restrictions that are justified by responsible stewardship and respect for sacred sites, I don’t support extreme restrictions that are based on religious extremism or xenophobia. From my experience visiting their lands, most Navajo (at least those who actually spend time in the wilderness) share this perspective, but there are minorities on both sides of the matter - those who want to keep everyone out regardless, and those whose only concern is financial exploitation.
I apologize, I should not have implied that you were saying this. It was a rant against a common narrative.