Tomaselli - Meg

In his article Psychospiritual ecoscience: The Ju/'hoansi and cultural tourism" by Keyan Tomaselli, he discusses that 1950s policy of South West African Administration dilemma of balancing preservation of the Bushman with the objective to "make them useful and contented people". It not this insulting to the Bushman because who is to say they were not useful and contented before?
Since animal preserves are so popular with tourists, the question is asked if people can be preserved in the same way. They would "pretend to be wild" to satisfy a tourist's romanticized belief of what constitutes "the other". This idea is not that different from the world fair and Wild West shows popular during the late 1890s and early 1900s.
Tomaselli makes that point that anthropology is one of the methods that have lead to destruction of societies. He writes that once societies become know they are doomed. He cites an example of the Kayapo of using video cameras to document their own authenticity which they use to appeal for international justice. Because the films are made and produced by indigenous peoples, do they hold more weight and thus are considered more legitimate than films made by outsiders? But if the film is edited to project a certain viewpoint, does it matter who makes it?
It is ironic that the Ju/'hoansi lump anthropologists, filmmakers and tourists into one group which is really their "other". They did not seem to care that each group has a different objective. The Ju/'hoansi are more attracted by money and goods so they continue to portray themselves as the poor Bushman. Yet they do not always feel comfortable with the way they are portrayed as commented by N!ai (e.g. drunkenness, decaying social relationships and accusations of prostitution). But the decaying society is a result of the idea of producing culture and society as a commodity. In a sense Tomaselli blames subjects themselves for the images that are projected to outsiders. But is this really a fair assessment? If it were no buyers (filmmakers and tourists), there would be no commodity to sell. On the other hand, maybe Tomaselli is right when he says the last laugh is on the observer and the subjects are really savvier than they are given credit for.