Current Forums

The first Saturday of every month is the whole of organisation meeting. We discuss projects and any issues etc.

And it was the first meeting since uni that I could get away with wearing my PJ's.

MAG has an agriculture program and one of the questions raised was - 'why work with village x, y, z on agriculture when they're only going to be relocated to the lowlands anyway? We should just wait until the villages are relocated.'

Now, when a village is relocated, that is when all of the social issues become more acute.

Villages are relocated by the Thai Forestry Department, from the highlands where they have been living for over 100 years.

Part of it revolves around the hilltribe 'slash and burn' agriculture, but I can't help but be suspicious that the hilltribe people are used as scapegoats. Because they are blamed for destroying the forests, but if the Thai govt keeps making them relocate all the time, they're going to have to develop their villages all over again. Which means setting up new fields and making new huts from the very same forest.

It seems as if the bigger picture from the Thai govt is informed by racist policies of assimilation of hilltribe people into thai culture. I don't know if I'm making much sense here but I'll try and dig up more info.

But I couldn't help but wonder what is going on to prevent the village relocations?

Is it the fact that it's too dangerous to challenge the Thai govt?

Or is it that the NGO's working with hilltribes haven't a discourse on prevention?

Or does the problematization of hilltribe people make good business?

Other messages for this discussion: