Read the first part
Read the third part

Centuries went by and finally we had to draw the conclusion that policies leading to destruction of the Other, of was the couple Indian/Forest would at the end be counter productive for the destructors. The world supposedly unique and civilized felt trapped, committed in a process of self destruction and asphyxia when was disappearing step by step not only one of the main thermal regulator of the planet but also the possibility of a free communitarian life experienced by Indians. Survival of the planet and above all the symbolic and human intuition of preservation of diversity creates a fear that became the basis of all warnings and ecological, economic and humanitarian pressures where Indian forest was suddenly surrounded. But this fear mainly changed the way history of the conquest of the Other was read but not its very reason. Forest and Indians became equals, untouchables, one being the guarantor of the other. Indian culture before denied tended to become frozen by our perception and with it, it is the forest we wanted to paralyze like a sanctuary.

Such a behavior can be qualified colonialist.
The idea remains the denial of the tandem Indian/Forest not anymore as salvages to be educated the western way but as a relationship to be frozen. Europe in the XVII century acted the same way by conserving in museum piece of far away artifacts. Museums, often cemeteries of culture can have some interests but it does not foster the Indian way of life.

The Forest never was for Indians a frozen sanctuary. They have shaped it to match their own rhythm and needs through constant respect of the living, guarantor of their own survival. The body Indian/Forest is made of multiple unity of the living and has never been entrenched but open. Facts have shown that encapsulating defensively a society does not foster peace and complementarities between people but divisions. The reasons to defend the Indian way of life from the Western colonial world have not disappeared, but they shall be considered peacefully by both sides.

If the war waged by Ban pursued the prime goal of protection against invasion, it managed to create as well exchanges. Indians collected machetes and other objects when they attacked settlers. The same results can be organized through a discreet but firm order as illustrated by the relationship in the sixties between Indians Wayana and the Western world. A Gendarme was based in Maripasoula, deep in the Forest in French Guyana along the river Maroni. Indians bartered bows and arrows for outboard engines. Wayana used and skillfully repaired them despite remaining foreigners to the industrial world. It enabled to bridge a gap in a healthy way between two societies.

Other ways to start a dialogue are possible. For instance cattle and logging are to be understood as mere tools serving a way of life. Beyond quotas and other quantitative values, quality is what matters most when a cultural society thinks about its relationships with its environment in an economic way. Even though examples are scarce, some like Guajira in Brazil managed to integrate economics in their way of life. Far from becoming dependant from the Western World, they managed to set free that way. Naturally we do not aim at considering this example as the desired model. The body with its multiple facets made by the couple Indians/Forest can only be envisioned and assumed in openness with the rest of the World. It can not be entrenched and isolated. It is important to note that reserve and other conservancy initiative can only be temporary steps to protect against robbery and denial local communities and can not be considered as a sanctuary separating the Indian society and its environment, the forest with the rest of the World. Discreet and efficient alliances have to be set, doors narrowly opened.

Read next

Un don pour sauver la forêt et ses habitants

Zéro Déforestation is an action made by