This is great. What the Tompkins did was very controversial at the time (rich white couple from the U.S. buying up a ton of Chilean land) but I'm hopeful that over time, Chileans will come to appreciate the park and the opportunity to preserve and enjoy it.
When Denali National Park was first created, most Alaskan locals hated the idea. Today it is quite popular in the state and Alaskans are generally proud of it.
>rich white couple from the U.S. buying up a ton of Chilean land
The "white" part is unnecessary, as we don't tend to racially classify our population, or we don't use it as a hate tool as in the US, we have better ways to hate each other: Income level, political ideology, etc.
I have a passing outsider's knowledge of Chilean history and I think it's worth noting that Chile stands out among South American nations in how thoroughly it eradicated and assimilated the indigenous populations.
Once upon a time (even up to the latter part of the 20th century) that would have been considered by most in the West[1] as a laudable achievement, and in Chile it still largely is considered so, AFAIU. Not the eradication of indigenous people's per se (which is conveniently glossed over or minimized), but in the social equality wrought by the strong cultural homogenization through waves of immigration.
But the West in the 21st century has put much more value on diversity and on preserving cultural and ethnic identities, calling into question the morality of Chilean national identity. In other Andean nations skin tone is still very much a thing; not necessarily negative--i.e. being more brown isn't necessarily negative--but nonetheless something that can figure prominently in both social and friendly discourse.
Just thought I'd mention it. Not trying to cast value judgments, but it's worthwhile to note that Chile is very much in a different place than the rest of the West in how it contextualizes these issues.
[1] Chile being politically and culturally Western no less than France or the U.S.
> But the West in the 21st century has put much more value on diversity and on preserving cultural and ethnic identities...
Only minority identities, and only the approved ones. The West's "noble savage" narratives are almost as offensive as how it treats Wallonia or the Basques. And America loves you if you're Kurdish, but if you're a Yezidi woman they'll prosecute you for being a sex slave (forced concubinage to Da'esh apparently counts as material support of terrorism).
The case below isn't a prosecution, but a deportation of a Salvadoran slave. Forced to serve terrorists under threat of death = material support for terrorism. One of the experts consulted in the preparation of the article appears to have speculated that Yezidis would be treated similarly, but I can't find an actual example of that yet.
He's trying to paint the picture that Wallonia is a repressed ethnic minority. My head spins at the level of idea-twisting it would require to claim something like that. Otoh it's also interesting to find a new trope that this guy's ideological tribe is latching on to.
I hesitated to put that in, because I knew I would get responses like this. But the reality is that the Tompkins' being white was a significant part of some of the conspiracy theories about what they were doing.
> This non-absolute, generic universality must guard against the facile tendency of conflation with bloated, unmarked particulars -- namely Eurocentric universalism -- whereby the male is mistaken for the sexless, the white for raceless, the cis for the real, and so on. Absent such a universal, the abolition of class will remain a bourgeois fantasy, the abolition of race will remain a tacit white-supremacism, and the abolition of gender will remain a thinly veiled misogyny.
Torres Del Paine is the most beautiful place I have ever seen. I traveled through much of Chile, and if I could do it again I would spend more time in Patagonia.
The Argentinian side is also supposed to be spectacular, and would make a great addition to such a trail.
I volunteered for Tompkins in '94 (?) when I was in university and had a 3 month block to donate to his efforts. He had a friend and I help him survey a portion of land that he ended up purchasing. I never went back to see the land or him before he passed. I do want to go back though.
It's not a hiking trail. It's, in part, a "rebranding" of the existing Carretera Austral (a previously dirt highway built under the orders of Augusto Pinochet, now partially paved), combined with a tour ship cruise (between Tortel and Puerto Natales), and then a "rebranding" of Highway 9 down to Punta Arenas, and perhaps another cruise from there to Cabo de Hornos.
There is a Sendero de Chile (Chilean Trail) project, started by the government in 2000, which would have been a hiking trail that extends the full length of Chile. But that's a different plan, and has unfortunately been stalled...
The big Tompkins/Buckley bought-and-donated National Park, Corcovado, was established in 2005, and still has no access to the public available: there are no roads there, and no trails.
In the newer Tompkins park, Yendegaia, the Chilean government has begun to build a road through it. Access to the public is still limited.
His first park, Pumalín, was operated as a publicly-accessible private nature reserve from 1991, when Tompkins purchased the initial estate, until two years after his death, in 2017, when his widow finally turned over the reserve to the national park service.
The "Route of Parks" rebranding "es una propuesta de Tompkins Conservation" (is an initiative of the Tompkins Conservation foundation).
In my opinion, although it's wonderful what the end result of the Tompkins/Buckley efforts to conserve this land has been — let's not ignore the ugliness of how it happened. Wealthy American businessmen buying large swaths of the most spectacular parts of a South American country, using them as a private retreat during their lifetimes, and then turning them over posthumously, is not really a model to be idealized.
To flip the scenario: How would you feel if Jack Ma had bought Yosemite in 1991, set up the valley as a private retreat, lived down in the Ahwahnee until his death, and had his widow donate it to the federal government?
Edit:
For more context, two of the best-written, most balanced, English-language pieces on the Tompkins legacy and controversies are both from the Atlantic:
> To flip the scenario: How would you feel if Jack Ma had bought Yosemite in 1991, set up the valley as a private retreat, lived down in the Ahwahnee until his death, and had his widow donate it to the federal government?
"The park system benefited from private contributions even before Congress created the National Park Service on August 25, 1916. In 1907 Mr. and Mrs. William Kent donated what became Muir Woods National Monument, California; and in June 1916 a group formed by George B. Dorr, Charles W. Eliot, and others gave the land for Sieur de Monts National Monument in Maine, the forerunner of Acadia National Park. These were the first of many parks created or enlarged by philanthropy." https://www.nps.gov/articles/philanthropy-and-the-national-p...
The heirs of a forest of old growth Red Woods in California--preserved for generations by a family who refused to clear cut, instead judicially harvesting timber--recently executed a land swap with a conservation organization. The forest is one of the most pristine in the state, with trees rivaling those of famous Muir Woods. https://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Family-s-legenda...
I presume Chile has a concept of eminent domain? Perhaps the issue isn't with the people who bought up that land, it's with the government (and the people who supported it) who failed to acquire it. Or perhaps there was no issue at all, exclusion being the price a single generation paid so countless subsequent generations could enjoy that environment.
To flip the scenario: How would you feel if Jack Ma had bought Yosemite in 1991, set up the valley as a private retreat, lived down in the Ahwahnee until his death, and had his widow donate it to the federal government?
"""
If the government had never set aside Yosemite as a park, and it had been private land that Jack Ma bought, I would be thankful for him to donate it.
It would be terrible conservation policy to rely on private individuals to donate land. But if people do, I would be thankful.
The fact that Jack Ma is a Chinese national feels like an irrelevant distraction. Why would that affect my gratitude?
Jack Ma's Chinese nationality speaks to his alienation from the needs, desires, traditions, and sovereignty from the local flora, fauna, and peoples indigenous to (or settled in) the region.
This is how quite a few State parks in California came to pass. I'd rather that enduring preservation is the long-term result even if it is some rich person's oversized backyard for a while.
"Wealthy American buys large swaths of land and donates them for preservation" is a model that happens in the United States even today, actually! And... it can be controversial, as you suggest. One recent example I can think of in the United States is Katahdin Woods in Maine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katahdin_Woods_and_Waters_Nati...) which was created using land bought by one of the founders of Burt's Bees.
Usually the controversy is some combination of access, employment opportunities, and fear of "outsiders" meddling.
From my perspective, at least regarding American land and access issues, this sort of situation is quite a bit better than "wealthy person buys large swaths of land and uses it as a private playground for himself or herself", which also happens a fair bit. The United States in general does not have a "freedom to roam" concept so even simply hiking on private land can be problematic. Let alone other recreational activities. The best way of ensuring people have access to outdoor recreational activities is exactly through the establishment of these sort of places.
The employment / business aspect is another story and can be trickier to balance sometimes.
In ideal world, where governments would properly care and protect nature, your arguments would be valid.
In real world, thank god for people like these. End result is all that matters - there are massive protected parks. They are mostly inaccessible? Good, it means tourism will not do much damage soon.
Think in decades and centuries, not only what-is-it-for-me-right-now. That's not a good perspective on environmental protection.
On the topic of parks, "American History Tellers" (https://wondery.com/shows/american-history-tellers/) has an excellent series on the history of parkland in the USA. I highly recommend it, and the rest of their series.
It's really sad that some of the most beautiful places in the U.S. are among the hardest hit for climate change. Montana and California are burning, annually. The National Parks are not what they once were and seem to be disappearing at an alarming rate. I wonder how climate change is affecting southern South America?
It's often said that improved access by the public to the wilderness helps promote the need for conservation and protection of wildlife.
I'm not sure there's documented evidence for this, but as an anecdote, I can tell you that my visits to natural reserves and parks since childhood have influenced both my personal activities and my political decisions.
Regarding the Southern parts of Patagonia, I've found the Who Will Remember the People... book by Jean Raspail to be a haunting account of the area and the people living there, before their disapearance.
When Denali National Park was first created, most Alaskan locals hated the idea. Today it is quite popular in the state and Alaskans are generally proud of it.