In response to Jeffrey Gettleman’s NYTimes article “Future Kenya Port Could Mar Pristine Land“:
I lived in a traditional house in Lamu for a bit and also did a home-stay with a Muslim man’s “second wife” and I think gettleman is romanticising this ‘culturally pristine’ site where socially sanctioned (informal) slavery still exists, Muslim women hardly even step outside of their homes (homes have been altered to created bridges for women to walk from from to home without stepping outside), children just don’t go to non-religious school because tourists give out candy and pens, and did I mention the largest tourist interest there is in the sex industry? The place smells horrible because there is no sewage system.The natural landscape definitely beautiful (and the islands in the Indian Ocean surrounding Lamu are the most pristine I’ve ever seen)–but development brings social change which may liberate some from religious and patriarchal shackles.
Just because a place has earned UNESCO status does not mean that the social structure within it is pristine and would not benefit from development. I mean he went for opinions to the village “elders”–meaning a bunch of old men who have benefited from that social structure more than anyone and whose authority would be compromised. Seems like they are watching their own backs. On the other hand, African “development” is so messy and will probably ruin the natural environment. One of the conditions of the UNESCO sites is that the local architecture cannot be altered, but if corridors connecting homes above streets are not changed, women will have no excuse not to use them (if they go outside for no real purpose, they risk being called a prostitute and face real public shame).
Post a Comment