Forest Guardians, Forest Destroyers: The Politics of Environmental Knowledge in Northern Thailand

3. Upland People

3 Upland People For years, people have been encouraged to see the uplands of Thailand as inhabited by “hill tribes”—the Akha, Hmong, Karen, Lahu, Lisu, and Mien—each with distinctive clothing, traditions, agricultural practices, and dance.1 The focus on hill tribes is fed by the literature issued by tourism companies, government statements about the supposed problems of dealing with minorities, the persistent focus of many anthropologists on the exotic, and an increasing tendency for environmental activists to resort to the language of ethnicity (Vandergeest 2003). Visitors to the region are typically advised that “the North is characterized by densely forested mountainous regions, inhabited by Thailand’s many colourful hill tribe people. Adventurous exploration of this beautiful area is possible by trekking, river rafting, mountain biking, and even elephant safaris” (Kaysfeld International 2004). An official government report on the demography of the uplands reinforces this hilltribe aesthetic (Social Welfare Department 1995). It features images in all of the sections dealing with the minority hill tribes—all but two of the pictures feature women in ethnically stereotypical dress—but the sections on the ethnic Thai populations pass without illustration. Describing the largest group of them as “Thai of the lowlands” compounds the upland invisibility of these Thai groups.TheThai expression for hill tribe—chao khao—has a double meaning that underlines this “othering” of the uplands. Khao means both “mountain ” and “they,” so the chao khao are both “mountain people” and “they people”—the problems of their upland homes symbolically set apart from the concerns of “we” Thai (Pinkaew 2001:43–44). Popular representations of “hill tribes” intersect with, and reinforce, 59 environmental narratives of the uplands. Explanations of environmental change cannot be isolated from the representation and participation of different social actors in political debates. This chapter focuses on the two largest hilltribe groups—the Karen and the Hmong—because they occupy very different positions in recent debates about the management of northern Thailand’s forested zones. The Karen are often portrayed as sound environmental managers, while the Hmong are equally regularly condemned as destroyers of upland forest. The Karen feature prominently in the campaigns waged by academics and ngos to increase the role of local communities in upland resource management, while negative images of Hmong agriculture are often drawn upon in justifying the strict state regulation of land use. These are certainly diverse positions, often reflecting the diverse socioeconomic positions and political interests of their proponents. But these differing accounts of upland hill tribes have important commonalities and often share key assumptions about the appropriateness, or otherwise, of different types of upland livelihood. However, it is important to go further than simply exploring environmental narratives about the hill tribes. It is necessary to interrogate the category itself and its role in creating a selective narrative of environmental crisis. Simplified narratives in Thailand persist partly because they conveniently attribute environmental blame to a group of “others” who reside in the physically and culturally remote uplands (Vandergeest 2003). These narratives contain various simplifications about the livelihoods and environmental impacts of these “other” groups. But they are also highly selective in their focus on hill tribes. In fact, the “lowland” Thai are probably the majority population in the uplands. The people of the muang have settled in large numbers in the upland pa and, despite their official invisibility , they have a significant effect on the upland environment. And even when they reside in the large lowland valleys they exert a very strong influence on upland policy given their common portrayals as victims of upland degradation. For these reasons it is essential that the narratives about the hill tribes be considered alongside popular representations of the lowland Thai (khon muang). Broadening the social focus is an important step in achieving more open consideration of environmental narratives. the upland population What is the size of Thailand’s hilltribe population? Official statistics give some indication, though it is likely that these figures are too low on account 60 Upland People of the difficulty of surveying remote upland villages, widespread crossborder movement, and the fact that significant numbers of upland residents are not recognized as Thai citizens. Yet these statistics are a starting point. In 1995, the Social Welfare Department (1995) estimated that there were about 746,000 hilltribe members.2 This is much higher than the figure of 551,000 reported by...