No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Abstract
Large parts of Suriname's interior have been sold to multinationals to the detriment of the Surinamese population and, more particularly, Surinamese maroons. This sale has not generated sustainable growth but rather enforced cycles of boom and bust. Consequently, even though Surinamese natural resources generate very important benefits in the mining sector and in forestry, two-thirds of the population still lives in poverty. The situation is far more catastrophic for the interior where Suriname's maroons (and indigenous peoples) have lost their legal territories and suffered a terrible degradation of their living conditions.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
This study examines why mining booms occur and why some people participate in them while others, living in comparable conditions, do not. Ethnographic data were collected among the Ndjuka Maroons, forest peoples in the Suriname Amazon. The occupational justifications of 41 gold miners and 34 nonminers generated a decision-tree model with a 95.5% prediction rate. The results suggest that decisions about mining are rational given the present economic conditions of both Ndjuka households and of Suriname as a whole. The author argues that environmental awareness campaigns and stricter law enforcement are not likely to encourage more sustainable resource use in Suriname, and probably not in other parts of the Amazon rainforest. Rather, more effective conservation policy would be to promote people-centered development in rural regions through improved public education and health care, while stabilizing national economies.
Discusses the ethnic composition of Suriname and the political and economic background to the country in order to understand the cause of the bloody civil war between the Maroon ethnic group and the national army, which is mostly composed of other ethnic groups. -after Author
This article proposes a new approach to urban geographies of fear, focusing on the connection between fear and cultural understandings and representations of difference. Much of the existing work on the relationship between fear, urban space, and social difference tends to take social difference as more or less given. In this article, we argue that how differences (such as ethnic, political or class differences) are framed has strong implications for geographies of fear. The article suggests that dualistic and nondualistic framings of difference influence levels of fear and that this becomes visible in the use and perceptions of urban space, and in the built environment through the erection of physical barriers. These spatial factors, as they limit mobility and interaction, tend to reproduce the specific framing of difference. Two discursive modes of representing difference are discussed. The first, ‘bipolar antagonism’, is based on a dualist rhetoric of irreconcilable opposites. This is contrasted with ‘multipolar co-existence’, in which social categories are understood as multiple or hybrid, with flexible or fluid boundaries, and as not necessarily antagonistic. This argument is elaborated through a comparative analysis of social–cultural and spatial processes in two Caribbean cities: Kingston, Jamaica, and Paramaribo, Suriname.