oloo

I agree that safaris are a strong representation of neo-colonialism as they reproduce colonialist representations and notions of African land. Additionally, safaris and surrounding practices provide space for Westerners to continue to control African land and resources while largely erasing and deprioritising the needs of African peoples.

To begin with, the main allure of Safaris, as represented by advertisements and the hospitality industry at large, is the notion that Safaris are untouched , wild stretches of land waiting to be enjoyed by Western tourists. Such representations erase the rich histories and cultures that exist on these lands and consequently reproduce the colonial notion that Africa remains untouched, undeveloped and ripe for exploration by Western tourists thus playing into the Western gaze.

Furthermore, safaris prioritise animals, landscapes, horizons as the main allure and draw of Africa while simultaneously erasing the African peoples that live within these environments. Indeed, when we consider the online outrage raised over the 'Cecil the Lion' poaching scandal and the relative silence about the wellbeing of the Zimbabweans living on these wildlife reserves this is clear to see. This is neo-colonialist as it once more allows Westerns to focus on the African resources while caring little for the African people who live on these lands.

Additionally, the continued prevalence of poaching across the African continent underscores the fact that safaris continue to a means by which Westerners dominate and exploit African resources thus aligning with Kwame Nkrumah's definition of neo-colonialism. Similarly, the contestation of land rights, the armed protection of African land reserves by Western actors or through Western funding for instance in Kruger National Park again feeds into neo-colonial practices.