Re: Ecology and the American Indian
> Date sent: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 10:26:55 -0800 > Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > From: James Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Ecology and the American Indian Devine writes: > With the development of the classical empires (Aztecs, Egyptians, Romans, > etc., etc.) a certain uniformity (or law, etc.) is imposed on the subject > populations and the same time that improved transportation and > communication (for the purpose of uniting the empire) encourages homogeneity. I wouldn't say "homogeneity", but rather differentiation. It is common knowledge in sociological theory that the direction of societal evolution is toward more differentiated and complex structures. Although, in the global sense, as empires absorb other societies, this process is accompanied by cultural de-differentiation. Devine: > With the development of the world market and capitalism as an accumulation > machine, uniformity becomes the dominant theme to an extent that is > qualitatively greater than for the classical empires. Most classical > empires, for example, instituted pre-existing tribal organizations as part > of the tributary organization, imposing collective responsibility of the > tribe as a whole for the sins of the individual members (where of course > "sin" is defined by those in power). This helped preserve the old tribes, > in a distorted way. Something like this occurred with the bantustans in S. > Africa, too. But with a fuller development of capitalism, the drive toward > uniformity strengthens. Now English is on its way to becoming the world > language (if it isn't already), while more and more of the subject states > are subject to exactly the same cookie-cutter impositions of the IMF/World > Bank, no matter what the local conditions are. Again, this is part of the story, and perhaps misleading, since it ignores that key element of modernity known as "individualism", which is that we ought to decide for ourselves - in communication with others - what is right and what is best for our lives. Individualism does not equal the market eventhough these two are tightly connected. And one connection is the market encourages a wider diversity of activities than was/would be possible in primitive- feudal, command economies. ricardo > I think that it's correct that the world is moving in the direction where a > capitalist is a capitalist, a capitalist country is a capitalist country, > etc. and we can ignore variations. Even many or most of the imperial > privileges that US workers were able to benefit from are disappearing as > the US is becoming a dependent country like all the others. > > All of this is talking about _tendencies_, of course. The real world, as we > know it right now, still involves tremendous amounts of variation that > cannot be ignored. The people in the US are still relatively privileged, > even if the privileges are fading. > > (My last post for the day -- due to a New Year's resolution.) > > in pen-l solidarity, > > > > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & > http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html > "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let > people talk.) > -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A. > >
Re: Ecology and the American Indian
Jim Devine: > In the Amazon, >there have been tribes that have been characterized as "extremely nice" by >outsiders (whites) just over a mountain or across a wide river from those >characterized as "extremely fierce." > This muddies the discussion. We are not talking about head-hunting but ecological despoliation. What does "nice" and "fierce" have to do with killing nearly all the beaver in the Northeast during the 1700s? I just heard the same crap about Indian savagery on the Spoons mail-list. I wish if people wanted to find reasons to put Indians on the same moral plane as the invaders who murdered them, that they'd at least come up with some right-wing scholarly citations. I recommend Simon Schama, for example. In his hatchet job on Kirkpatrick Sale, he did a good job documenting head-hunting, cannibalism, ritual human sacrifice, etc. All Jim can muster is a reference to "extremely fierce" tribes. Try harder next time, Jim. >With the development of the classical empires (Aztecs, Egyptians, Romans, >etc., etc.) a certain uniformity (or law, etc.) is imposed on the subject >populations and the same time that improved transportation and >communication (for the purpose of uniting the empire) encourages homogeneity. I love it how somebody can pontificate on entire civilizations in a sentence. I should take this approach in future posts. It would save trips to the library. > >With the development of the world market and capitalism as an accumulation >machine, uniformity becomes the dominant theme to an extent that is >qualitatively greater than for the classical empires. Most classical >empires, for example, instituted pre-existing tribal organizations as part >of the tributary organization, imposing collective responsibility of the >tribe as a whole for the sins of the individual members (where of course >"sin" is defined by those in power). This helped preserve the old tribes, >in a distorted way. Something like this occurred with the bantustans in S. >Africa, too. What kind of malarkey is this? What in the world do bantustans have to do with the relationship between stratified, agriculture-based societies like the Mayans, Aztecs and Incans with hunter-gatherer tribes like the Jivaro et al? Are the Incans to the Jivaro as the Boers are to the Zulus? Perhaps Jim should strive for depth rather than breadth. His post is a million miles wide and a quarter-inch deep. >But with a fuller development of capitalism, the drive toward >uniformity strengthens. Now English is on its way to becoming the world >language (if it isn't already), while more and more of the subject states >are subject to exactly the same cookie-cutter impositions of the IMF/World >Bank, no matter what the local conditions are. > This is a concession to the crude understanding of the Communist Manifesto that Wojtek expressed just yesterday. It really is pervasive on the left and forms part of our conventional wisdom. Marxism, however, must be the enemy of conventional wisdom if it is to do any good. There may be cultural uniformity insofar as people watch Arnold Schwarzenegger videos or listen to rap music. What is not on the agenda is economic uniformity. >I think that it's correct that the world is moving in the direction where a >capitalist is a capitalist, a capitalist country is a capitalist country, >etc. and we can ignore variations. Even many or most of the imperial >privileges that US workers were able to benefit from are disappearing as >the US is becoming a dependent country like all the others. > And this is just so much nonsense, since it slips from "cultural" uniformity to "economic" uniformity with no underlying analysis. A capitalist country is a capitalist country? Is that all we need to know? If Bolivia and Belgium are both capitalist countries, then the term is almost useless as a form of political and economic analysis. The notion that somehow the US is becoming "dependent" like genuinely dependent countries like Bolivia or Mali is ludicrous. >All of this is talking about _tendencies_, of course. The real world, as we >know it right now, still involves tremendous amounts of variation that >cannot be ignored. The people in the US are still relatively privileged, >even if the privileges are fading. > The only tendency I see here is cliched thought. Louis Proyect
Re: Ecology and the American Indian
Ellen Dannin writes: >Just as it's wrong to assume that an Indian is an Indian with no variations, it is also wrong to assume that all there is to the Judaeo-Christian tradition can be summed up in one sentence of Genesis.< right! both American Indian societies and biblical-era Levantine societies varied a lot between each other. When a society is organized for producing use-values rather than exchange-value and is substantially isolated from other such societies, there is a lot of room for variation. In the Amazon, there have been tribes that have been characterized as "extremely nice" by outsiders (whites) just over a mountain or across a wide river from those characterized as "extremely fierce." With the development of the classical empires (Aztecs, Egyptians, Romans, etc., etc.) a certain uniformity (or law, etc.) is imposed on the subject populations and the same time that improved transportation and communication (for the purpose of uniting the empire) encourages homogeneity. With the development of the world market and capitalism as an accumulation machine, uniformity becomes the dominant theme to an extent that is qualitatively greater than for the classical empires. Most classical empires, for example, instituted pre-existing tribal organizations as part of the tributary organization, imposing collective responsibility of the tribe as a whole for the sins of the individual members (where of course "sin" is defined by those in power). This helped preserve the old tribes, in a distorted way. Something like this occurred with the bantustans in S. Africa, too. But with a fuller development of capitalism, the drive toward uniformity strengthens. Now English is on its way to becoming the world language (if it isn't already), while more and more of the subject states are subject to exactly the same cookie-cutter impositions of the IMF/World Bank, no matter what the local conditions are. I think that it's correct that the world is moving in the direction where a capitalist is a capitalist, a capitalist country is a capitalist country, etc. and we can ignore variations. Even many or most of the imperial privileges that US workers were able to benefit from are disappearing as the US is becoming a dependent country like all the others. All of this is talking about _tendencies_, of course. The real world, as we know it right now, still involves tremendous amounts of variation that cannot be ignored. The people in the US are still relatively privileged, even if the privileges are fading. (My last post for the day -- due to a New Year's resolution.) in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
Re: Ecology and the American Indian
An anecdote: An Aymara farmer once said here to a friend of mine: "God forgives always, people sometimes, but nature never." Tom Kruse / Casilla 5812 / Cochabamba, Bolivia Tel/Fax: (591-42) 48242 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Ecology and the American Indian
>This, along with the disappearance of the saber-tooth tiger, is another one >of those "gotchas" that figures prominently in the right-wing repertory. >Hutchinson, in "Remaking of the Amerind", wrote that the Crow once drove >700 buffalo off the edge of a cliff. This anecdote has made the rounds of >the Rush Limbaugh show, the National Review and other venues. > >What he does not deal with is the question of whether the Crow *wasted* the >meat, but only projected what whites would do in capitalist society into >hunting-and-gathering society. But, even granting the possibility that >Indians left the meat to rot, are we supposed to draw general conclusions >about this one incident? It is amazing that such events are so isolated in >Indian societies. When whites killed millions of beaver and buffalo >wantonly and allowed valuable parts of the animal to go to waste, how can >we even begin to compare our society to their's? This of course is the goal >of Hutchinson and other apologists for capitalism, to legitimize the waste >that our system has institutionalized. > Yes, but i wasn't making any attempt to be relative here. The capitalist societies are rapacious in the extreme and that cannot be attenuated by saying everyone else has baggage in the cupboard too. In general i agree with the interpretation that many of the native american tribes felt as one with nature. kind regards bill ##William F. Mitchell ### Head of Economics Department # University of Newcastle New South Wales, Australia ###*E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ### Phone: +61 49 215065 # ## ### Fax: +61 49 216919 Mobile: 0419 422 410 ## WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/economics/bill/billeco.html
Re: Ecology and the American Indian
Interesting story Louis but how do you account for the practice whereby some tribes in the plains used to stampede whole herds of bison over cliffs as a quick way of killing them and then picking only bits and pieces of the bodies below. Incredible waste and lack of concern for their natural partners. kind regards bill > One famous counerexample to the view that Indians were >always "in harmony with nature" is the high probability >that the extinction of the sabre-tooth tiger and several >other large mammals in North America probably resulted from >overhunting arising from the initial invasion of the >continent by the human species, the first Native American >Indians to be precise. This does not say that many tribes >later adopted highly ecologically sound approaches. >Barkley Rosser >On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:03:20 -0500 Louis Proyect ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Indian religious beliefs are intrinsically ecological since they regard >> nature as sacred. ##William F. Mitchell ### Head of Economics Department # University of Newcastle New South Wales, Australia ###*E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ### Phone: +61 49 215065 # ## ### Fax: +61 49 216919 Mobile: 0419 422 410 ## WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/economics/bill/billeco.html
Re: Ecology and the American Indian
Jim Devine:. > >I am far from being an expert on this stuff. I would appreciate factual >evidence for and against -- plus logical criticisms of the theory above. > In a couple of weeks I plan to write extensively about Mariategui, the great Peruvian Marxist who believed that the ayllus could constitute the basis of a revolutionary state, as Marx thought the Russian zemstvos could in the 1800s. The ayllus were the communal, agrarian societies rooted in the Incan past. Within Maoist circles, there has been fierce controversy over these writings as who has the proper "Mariategui" franchise for Shining Path support. Those who tend to lose the franchise make a big stink about how beastly the Incans were and, therefore, what a knucklehead Mariategui was. I plan to cover all this in more depth than anybody is probably interested in, but my eventual purpose is to put this into some kind of book form. Louis Proyect
Re: Ecology and the American Indian
Dear Friends, But isn't it the case that in precapitalist societies, there is nothing inherent in the societies which leads to the destruction of nature. On the contrary, there appear to be many what we might call social reproductive mechanisms designed to insure some sort of ecological balance. In capitalism, on the other hand, the drive to accumulate capital is tied to the drive to turn all into commodities for the accumulation of capital. This is a system guaranteed to ravage nature, no? I mean did the Indiands produce the mining towns of Montana, or for that matter the minng town I was born in, where there were no trees and everything was covered with dust? Michael Yates Ellen Dannin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A visit to Cahokia (across the river from St. Louis) is fascinating in and > of itself and also for the evidence it provides that the large number of > residents there overused the local resources, which then led to its > decline. There may have been other factors, such as climate, but the > decline took place sufficiently recently -- i.e. just before contact -- > that climate records should be sufficiently revealing to decide whether > this was a factor. > > Just as it's wrong to assume that an Indian is an Indian with no > variations, it is also wrong to assume that all there is to the > Judaeo-Christian tradition can be summed up in one sentence of Genesis. > Other parts of the bible make it clear that parts of a field had to remain > unharvested and that every seventh year the land had to be allowed to > rest. It was forbidden to cut down fruit trees in time of war, for > example. Not paying workers on a daily basis was a crime against the > community because it could lead to poverty and anti-social behaviour. > > There were lots of rabbinic exegeses on these and other points which > expanded the protections. There is a whole line of analysis on baalei > chayot - the pain of living things - and of the demand that humans not > cause pain to animals or other living things. > > How much or how little individuals observed these is open to debate, just > as it seems likely that not all Indians, even members of a very > ecologically oriented tribe, likely behaved in a fully reverent way > towards nature. > > Ellen J. Dannin > California Western School of Law > 225 Cedar Street > San Diego, CA 92101 > Phone: 619-525-1449 > Fax:619-696-
Re: Ecology and the American Indian
At 09:03 AM 1/27/98 +1100, you wrote: >Interesting story Louis but how do you account for the practice >whereby some tribes in the plains used to stampede whole herds >of bison over cliffs as a quick way of killing them and then >picking only bits and pieces of the bodies below. Incredible >waste and lack of concern for their natural partners. > >kind regards >bill mitchell This, along with the disappearance of the saber-tooth tiger, is another one of those "gotchas" that figures prominently in the right-wing repertory. Hutchinson, in "Remaking of the Amerind", wrote that the Crow once drove 700 buffalo off the edge of a cliff. This anecdote has made the rounds of the Rush Limbaugh show, the National Review and other venues. What he does not deal with is the question of whether the Crow *wasted* the meat, but only projected what whites would do in capitalist society into hunting-and-gathering society. But, even granting the possibility that Indians left the meat to rot, are we supposed to draw general conclusions about this one incident? It is amazing that such events are so isolated in Indian societies. When whites killed millions of beaver and buffalo wantonly and allowed valuable parts of the animal to go to waste, how can we even begin to compare our society to their's? This of course is the goal of Hutchinson and other apologists for capitalism, to legitimize the waste that our system has institutionalized. Louis Proyect
Re: Ecology and the American Indian
Barkley Rosser; > One famous counerexample to the view that Indians were >always "in harmony with nature" is the high probability >that the extinction of the sabre-tooth tiger and several >other large mammals in North America probably resulted from >overhunting arising from the initial invasion of the >continent by the human species, the first Native American >Indians to be precise. This does not say that many tribes >later adopted highly ecologically sound approaches. I am not saying that Barkely is a racist, but this argument is part of the ideological repertory of those who try to apologize for the genocide of the Indian. It goes along with references to Inca human sacrifice, and other items that get passed from one right-wing scholar to another. Simon Schama is a master of this kind of bullshit. We have no knowledge of the exact circumstances surrounding the extinction of the saber-tooth tiger and other large animals during the late ice age. Despite all the data on the subject, there is no convincing evidence that Indians were the chief or even the major contributing factor in the demise of such animals. Climate and dozens of other factors could have been just as significant. These questions are dealt with in the scholarly "Pleistocene Extinctions: The Search for A Cause", edited by Paul Martin and H.E. Wright Jr. (Yale Univ., 1967). Where does Barkely get his information from? Louis Proyect
Re: Ecology and the American Indian
The last sentence of my reply to Louis P. should have said that this did not imply that later tribes did not use ecologically sound practices. Another clear counterexample is the self-destructive behavior of the Mayans. Not all Indians were or are the same. Barkley Rosser On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:36:53 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) "Rosser Jr, John Barkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am generally in sympathy with Louis Proyect's > posting on ecological attitudes/practices of American > Native Indians in contrast with the European > invaders/settlers. But I fear that he overdoes both the > unity of views among Indian tribes and the universality of > these views among them. The idea of them as "Indians" is > really a European abstraction imposed on people who viewed > themselves according to tribal identities and who had and > have very distinct languages, ethnic histories, and > cultures. > One famous counerexample to the view that Indians were > always "in harmony with nature" is the high probability > that the extinction of the sabre-tooth tiger and several > other large mammals in North America probably resulted from > overhunting arising from the initial invasion of the > continent by the human species, the first Native American > Indians to be precise. This does not say that many tribes > later adopted highly ecologically sound approaches. > Barkley Rosser > On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:03:20 -0500 Louis Proyect > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Indian religious beliefs are intrinsically ecological since they regard > > nature as sacred. The various tribes who inhabited North America before the > > European invasion had been here for tens of thousands of years, where they > > developed economically sustainable hunting-and-gathering economies that > > were respectful of the environment. They did not consider themselves ruling > > over nature, but as part of nature. Humanity was sacred, but so were the > > animals and vegetation that sustained it. Even the soil, the minerals and > > the rest of the material world were part of a great chain of being. An > > assault on a single element of this living fabric was an assault on the > > whole. They had a radical interpretation of the old labor movement slogan, > > "An injury to one was an injury to all." > > > > The Indian draws upon ritual to maintain a sustainable relationship with > > nature. These rituals functioned as a surrogate for ecological science. > > Instead of measuring soil acidity in a test-tube or attaching > > radio-transmitters to bears, they simply relied on empirical observation of > > their environment that they had mastered. For example, the Hopi Indians had > > identified 150 different plant types in their ecosphere and knew the role > > of each. There is even evidence that had learned from mistakes in their > > past. If overfishing or hunting had punished a tribe with famine, then it > > developed a myth to explain the dangers of such practices. Our modern, > > "scientific" society has no myths that function in this manner. We will > > simply exhaust all fishing stock in the oceans, because there is profit in > > it for some. > > > > The Indian thought that waste of natural resources was insane, especially > > for profit. The Paiute of Nevada tell a story of a trapper who has caught a > > coyote. When the trapper was about to shoot the animal, it told him, "My > > friend, we as people have found it necessary to warn you against trapping > > us, taking from our bodies our skins, and selling them for your happiness." > > > > In essence, the attitude Indians took toward the environment was one of > > restraint. The role of religion was to reinforce this behavior. When the > > Menominee of Wisconsin gathered wild rice, they made sure that some of the > > rice fell back into the water the next year so that there would be future > > crops. In other instances, reseeding was the subject of special prayers. > > For example, whenever a Seneca located medicinal herbs, he would build a > > small ceremonial fire. After the flames died, he would throw a pinch of > > tobacco on the ashes and pray, "I will not destroy you but plant your seeds > > that you may come again and yield fourfold more." After harvesting the > > plants, he would break off the seed stalks, drop the pods into a hole and > > cover them with leaf mold. Then he would speak these words: "The plant will > > come again, and I have not destroyed life but helped to increase it." > > > > In addition to reseeding rituals of this sort, the Indian would often take > > less when more seemed readily available. The Cahuilla tribe had an edict > > that no plants should be harvested unless there was proof that they existed > > elsewhere. Cherokee herb gatherers had to pass up the first three plants > > they found, but when they encountered a fourth, it was permissible to pluck > > it and any others. Their wisdom told them that they should preserve
Re: M-I: Ecology and the American Indian
Well, this is now the third list I am replying to Louis P. on this on. Don't disagree fundamentally, but find this generalized romanticization of "Indians" a bit much. There is and was a lot of diversity among tribes on many grounds. Many fit this idealized view that Louis presents, but not all did. An extreme example is the self-destroying Mayans, but there are plenty of other examples. This is not as simple as it seems. Note that I am not defending European technologies or approaches here. Barkley Rosser On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:03:20 -0500 Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Indian religious beliefs are intrinsically ecological since they regard > nature as sacred. The various tribes who inhabited North America before the > European invasion had been here for tens of thousands of years, where they > developed economically sustainable hunting-and-gathering economies that > were respectful of the environment. They did not consider themselves ruling > over nature, but as part of nature. Humanity was sacred, but so were the > animals and vegetation that sustained it. Even the soil, the minerals and > the rest of the material world were part of a great chain of being. An > assault on a single element of this living fabric was an assault on the > whole. They had a radical interpretation of the old labor movement slogan, > "An injury to one was an injury to all." > > The Indian draws upon ritual to maintain a sustainable relationship with > nature. These rituals functioned as a surrogate for ecological science. > Instead of measuring soil acidity in a test-tube or attaching > radio-transmitters to bears, they simply relied on empirical observation of > their environment that they had mastered. For example, the Hopi Indians had > identified 150 different plant types in their ecosphere and knew the role > of each. There is even evidence that had learned from mistakes in their > past. If overfishing or hunting had punished a tribe with famine, then it > developed a myth to explain the dangers of such practices. Our modern, > "scientific" society has no myths that function in this manner. We will > simply exhaust all fishing stock in the oceans, because there is profit in > it for some. > > The Indian thought that waste of natural resources was insane, especially > for profit. The Paiute of Nevada tell a story of a trapper who has caught a > coyote. When the trapper was about to shoot the animal, it told him, "My > friend, we as people have found it necessary to warn you against trapping > us, taking from our bodies our skins, and selling them for your happiness." > > In essence, the attitude Indians took toward the environment was one of > restraint. The role of religion was to reinforce this behavior. When the > Menominee of Wisconsin gathered wild rice, they made sure that some of the > rice fell back into the water the next year so that there would be future > crops. In other instances, reseeding was the subject of special prayers. > For example, whenever a Seneca located medicinal herbs, he would build a > small ceremonial fire. After the flames died, he would throw a pinch of > tobacco on the ashes and pray, "I will not destroy you but plant your seeds > that you may come again and yield fourfold more." After harvesting the > plants, he would break off the seed stalks, drop the pods into a hole and > cover them with leaf mold. Then he would speak these words: "The plant will > come again, and I have not destroyed life but helped to increase it." > > In addition to reseeding rituals of this sort, the Indian would often take > less when more seemed readily available. The Cahuilla tribe had an edict > that no plants should be harvested unless there was proof that they existed > elsewhere. Cherokee herb gatherers had to pass up the first three plants > they found, but when they encountered a fourth, it was permissible to pluck > it and any others. Their wisdom told them that they should preserve three > specimens for future growth. When the Navajo herbalist is out collecting > "deer-plant medicine", a member of the parsnip family, he first approaches > a large specimen and prays, "I have come for you, to take you from the > ground..." However, at this point he takes a smaller specimen since his > faith instructs him that "you never take the plant to whom you pray." > > The same kind of restraint applies to animal husbandry as well. The Hopi > have a custom of releasing one male and female mountain sheep when they had > surrounded a pack. "So as to make more sheep for the next hunting" was the > reason they gave. When a tribe failed to observe these types of > environmental measures, it could actually provoke war. Iroquois legend > states that they once made war against the Illinois and Miami tribes when > they were killing female as well as male beavers. Sparing females is a > cardinal rule of these hunters. A spirit fawn tells the Navajo, "If you are > walking on an unused
Re: M-TH: Ecology and the American Indian
Louis, This largely reasonable posting would be more accurate if "Indian" was modified by "many" or "most". This generalizing about all Native American Indians is a bit much. They identified themselves by tribes which varied substantially from one to another in language, ethnicity, and culture. Not all followed this European romantic view of them. An example is the Mayans who probably destroyed their civilization by resource overexploitation as well as exploiting each other. Barkley Rosser (back from Paris) On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:03:20 -0500 Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Indian religious beliefs are intrinsically ecological since they regard > nature as sacred. The various tribes who inhabited North America before the > European invasion had been here for tens of thousands of years, where they > developed economically sustainable hunting-and-gathering economies that > were respectful of the environment. They did not consider themselves ruling > over nature, but as part of nature. Humanity was sacred, but so were the > animals and vegetation that sustained it. Even the soil, the minerals and > the rest of the material world were part of a great chain of being. An > assault on a single element of this living fabric was an assault on the > whole. They had a radical interpretation of the old labor movement slogan, > "An injury to one was an injury to all." > > The Indian draws upon ritual to maintain a sustainable relationship with > nature. These rituals functioned as a surrogate for ecological science. > Instead of measuring soil acidity in a test-tube or attaching > radio-transmitters to bears, they simply relied on empirical observation of > their environment that they had mastered. For example, the Hopi Indians had > identified 150 different plant types in their ecosphere and knew the role > of each. There is even evidence that had learned from mistakes in their > past. If overfishing or hunting had punished a tribe with famine, then it > developed a myth to explain the dangers of such practices. Our modern, > "scientific" society has no myths that function in this manner. We will > simply exhaust all fishing stock in the oceans, because there is profit in > it for some. > > The Indian thought that waste of natural resources was insane, especially > for profit. The Paiute of Nevada tell a story of a trapper who has caught a > coyote. When the trapper was about to shoot the animal, it told him, "My > friend, we as people have found it necessary to warn you against trapping > us, taking from our bodies our skins, and selling them for your happiness." > > In essence, the attitude Indians took toward the environment was one of > restraint. The role of religion was to reinforce this behavior. When the > Menominee of Wisconsin gathered wild rice, they made sure that some of the > rice fell back into the water the next year so that there would be future > crops. In other instances, reseeding was the subject of special prayers. > For example, whenever a Seneca located medicinal herbs, he would build a > small ceremonial fire. After the flames died, he would throw a pinch of > tobacco on the ashes and pray, "I will not destroy you but plant your seeds > that you may come again and yield fourfold more." After harvesting the > plants, he would break off the seed stalks, drop the pods into a hole and > cover them with leaf mold. Then he would speak these words: "The plant will > come again, and I have not destroyed life but helped to increase it." > > In addition to reseeding rituals of this sort, the Indian would often take > less when more seemed readily available. The Cahuilla tribe had an edict > that no plants should be harvested unless there was proof that they existed > elsewhere. Cherokee herb gatherers had to pass up the first three plants > they found, but when they encountered a fourth, it was permissible to pluck > it and any others. Their wisdom told them that they should preserve three > specimens for future growth. When the Navajo herbalist is out collecting > "deer-plant medicine", a member of the parsnip family, he first approaches > a large specimen and prays, "I have come for you, to take you from the > ground..." However, at this point he takes a smaller specimen since his > faith instructs him that "you never take the plant to whom you pray." > > The same kind of restraint applies to animal husbandry as well. The Hopi > have a custom of releasing one male and female mountain sheep when they had > surrounded a pack. "So as to make more sheep for the next hunting" was the > reason they gave. When a tribe failed to observe these types of > environmental measures, it could actually provoke war. Iroquois legend > states that they once made war against the Illinois and Miami tribes when > they were killing female as well as male beavers. Sparing females is a > cardinal rule of these hunters. A spirit fawn tells the Navajo, "If you are > walking on an unused road an
Re: Ecology and the American Indian
My impression from reading various anthropological works is that the American Indians initially were far from in "harmony with nature" when they first came to what we call the "New World." Thus various species of animals became extinct, though it's quite possible that other animals (including bacteria) came over the Bering Straits that contributed to the extinctions (the extinction of almost all marsupials, for example). But the tribal-subsistence mode of production that prevailed in most of the Americas allowed a certain kind of "equilibrium" to prevail between Indians and their natural environments. I think Barkley is right, however, to point to the variation amongst tribes: the Incas, Aztecs, and Mayas instituted tributary modes of production which allowed not only abuse of the subordinated peoples but the natural environment. The view that the Mayan civilization fell because of environmental degredation is not totally off base and cannot be rejected out of hand. (Just because they destroyed the environment (if they did) is no justification for the even more destructive Conquest, which led to massive erosion in Peru, etc.) However, both the tribal-subsistence and tributary modes of production lack the "accumulate, accumulate" drive of capitalism and thus lack the latter's ability to threaten the environment on a global scale. I am far from being an expert on this stuff. I would appreciate factual evidence for and against -- plus logical criticisms of the theory above. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
Re: Ecology and the American Indian
I am generally in sympathy with Louis Proyect's posting on ecological attitudes/practices of American Native Indians in contrast with the European invaders/settlers. But I fear that he overdoes both the unity of views among Indian tribes and the universality of these views among them. The idea of them as "Indians" is really a European abstraction imposed on people who viewed themselves according to tribal identities and who had and have very distinct languages, ethnic histories, and cultures. One famous counerexample to the view that Indians were always "in harmony with nature" is the high probability that the extinction of the sabre-tooth tiger and several other large mammals in North America probably resulted from overhunting arising from the initial invasion of the continent by the human species, the first Native American Indians to be precise. This does not say that many tribes later adopted highly ecologically sound approaches. Barkley Rosser On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:03:20 -0500 Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Indian religious beliefs are intrinsically ecological since they regard > nature as sacred. The various tribes who inhabited North America before the > European invasion had been here for tens of thousands of years, where they > developed economically sustainable hunting-and-gathering economies that > were respectful of the environment. They did not consider themselves ruling > over nature, but as part of nature. Humanity was sacred, but so were the > animals and vegetation that sustained it. Even the soil, the minerals and > the rest of the material world were part of a great chain of being. An > assault on a single element of this living fabric was an assault on the > whole. They had a radical interpretation of the old labor movement slogan, > "An injury to one was an injury to all." > > The Indian draws upon ritual to maintain a sustainable relationship with > nature. These rituals functioned as a surrogate for ecological science. > Instead of measuring soil acidity in a test-tube or attaching > radio-transmitters to bears, they simply relied on empirical observation of > their environment that they had mastered. For example, the Hopi Indians had > identified 150 different plant types in their ecosphere and knew the role > of each. There is even evidence that had learned from mistakes in their > past. If overfishing or hunting had punished a tribe with famine, then it > developed a myth to explain the dangers of such practices. Our modern, > "scientific" society has no myths that function in this manner. We will > simply exhaust all fishing stock in the oceans, because there is profit in > it for some. > > The Indian thought that waste of natural resources was insane, especially > for profit. The Paiute of Nevada tell a story of a trapper who has caught a > coyote. When the trapper was about to shoot the animal, it told him, "My > friend, we as people have found it necessary to warn you against trapping > us, taking from our bodies our skins, and selling them for your happiness." > > In essence, the attitude Indians took toward the environment was one of > restraint. The role of religion was to reinforce this behavior. When the > Menominee of Wisconsin gathered wild rice, they made sure that some of the > rice fell back into the water the next year so that there would be future > crops. In other instances, reseeding was the subject of special prayers. > For example, whenever a Seneca located medicinal herbs, he would build a > small ceremonial fire. After the flames died, he would throw a pinch of > tobacco on the ashes and pray, "I will not destroy you but plant your seeds > that you may come again and yield fourfold more." After harvesting the > plants, he would break off the seed stalks, drop the pods into a hole and > cover them with leaf mold. Then he would speak these words: "The plant will > come again, and I have not destroyed life but helped to increase it." > > In addition to reseeding rituals of this sort, the Indian would often take > less when more seemed readily available. The Cahuilla tribe had an edict > that no plants should be harvested unless there was proof that they existed > elsewhere. Cherokee herb gatherers had to pass up the first three plants > they found, but when they encountered a fourth, it was permissible to pluck > it and any others. Their wisdom told them that they should preserve three > specimens for future growth. When the Navajo herbalist is out collecting > "deer-plant medicine", a member of the parsnip family, he first approaches > a large specimen and prays, "I have come for you, to take you from the > ground..." However, at this point he takes a smaller specimen since his > faith instructs him that "you never take the plant to whom you pray." > > The same kind of restraint applies to animal husbandry as well. The Hopi > have a custom of releasing one male and female mountain sheep when they had > surrounded
Re: Ecology and the American Indian
A visit to Cahokia (across the river from St. Louis) is fascinating in and of itself and also for the evidence it provides that the large number of residents there overused the local resources, which then led to its decline. There may have been other factors, such as climate, but the decline took place sufficiently recently -- i.e. just before contact -- that climate records should be sufficiently revealing to decide whether this was a factor. Just as it's wrong to assume that an Indian is an Indian with no variations, it is also wrong to assume that all there is to the Judaeo-Christian tradition can be summed up in one sentence of Genesis. Other parts of the bible make it clear that parts of a field had to remain unharvested and that every seventh year the land had to be allowed to rest. It was forbidden to cut down fruit trees in time of war, for example. Not paying workers on a daily basis was a crime against the community because it could lead to poverty and anti-social behaviour. There were lots of rabbinic exegeses on these and other points which expanded the protections. There is a whole line of analysis on baalei chayot - the pain of living things - and of the demand that humans not cause pain to animals or other living things. How much or how little individuals observed these is open to debate, just as it seems likely that not all Indians, even members of a very ecologically oriented tribe, likely behaved in a fully reverent way towards nature. Ellen J. Dannin California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-525-1449 Fax:619-696-
Ecology and the American Indian
Indian religious beliefs are intrinsically ecological since they regard nature as sacred. The various tribes who inhabited North America before the European invasion had been here for tens of thousands of years, where they developed economically sustainable hunting-and-gathering economies that were respectful of the environment. They did not consider themselves ruling over nature, but as part of nature. Humanity was sacred, but so were the animals and vegetation that sustained it. Even the soil, the minerals and the rest of the material world were part of a great chain of being. An assault on a single element of this living fabric was an assault on the whole. They had a radical interpretation of the old labor movement slogan, "An injury to one was an injury to all." The Indian draws upon ritual to maintain a sustainable relationship with nature. These rituals functioned as a surrogate for ecological science. Instead of measuring soil acidity in a test-tube or attaching radio-transmitters to bears, they simply relied on empirical observation of their environment that they had mastered. For example, the Hopi Indians had identified 150 different plant types in their ecosphere and knew the role of each. There is even evidence that had learned from mistakes in their past. If overfishing or hunting had punished a tribe with famine, then it developed a myth to explain the dangers of such practices. Our modern, "scientific" society has no myths that function in this manner. We will simply exhaust all fishing stock in the oceans, because there is profit in it for some. The Indian thought that waste of natural resources was insane, especially for profit. The Paiute of Nevada tell a story of a trapper who has caught a coyote. When the trapper was about to shoot the animal, it told him, "My friend, we as people have found it necessary to warn you against trapping us, taking from our bodies our skins, and selling them for your happiness." In essence, the attitude Indians took toward the environment was one of restraint. The role of religion was to reinforce this behavior. When the Menominee of Wisconsin gathered wild rice, they made sure that some of the rice fell back into the water the next year so that there would be future crops. In other instances, reseeding was the subject of special prayers. For example, whenever a Seneca located medicinal herbs, he would build a small ceremonial fire. After the flames died, he would throw a pinch of tobacco on the ashes and pray, "I will not destroy you but plant your seeds that you may come again and yield fourfold more." After harvesting the plants, he would break off the seed stalks, drop the pods into a hole and cover them with leaf mold. Then he would speak these words: "The plant will come again, and I have not destroyed life but helped to increase it." In addition to reseeding rituals of this sort, the Indian would often take less when more seemed readily available. The Cahuilla tribe had an edict that no plants should be harvested unless there was proof that they existed elsewhere. Cherokee herb gatherers had to pass up the first three plants they found, but when they encountered a fourth, it was permissible to pluck it and any others. Their wisdom told them that they should preserve three specimens for future growth. When the Navajo herbalist is out collecting "deer-plant medicine", a member of the parsnip family, he first approaches a large specimen and prays, "I have come for you, to take you from the ground..." However, at this point he takes a smaller specimen since his faith instructs him that "you never take the plant to whom you pray." The same kind of restraint applies to animal husbandry as well. The Hopi have a custom of releasing one male and female mountain sheep when they had surrounded a pack. "So as to make more sheep for the next hunting" was the reason they gave. When a tribe failed to observe these types of environmental measures, it could actually provoke war. Iroquois legend states that they once made war against the Illinois and Miami tribes when they were killing female as well as male beavers. Sparing females is a cardinal rule of these hunters. A spirit fawn tells the Navajo, "If you are walking on an unused road and see the tracks of a doe, or if a doe catches up with you from behind, that is I. And knowing this you will not bother me." Another key element of Indian ecological behavior was game "fallowing." Although this term originates in agriculture and refers to the practice of leaving portions of field to rest, the tribes followed a similar practice in hunting. The Cree and other Algonkian tribes worked only a portion of their hunting grounds in a given year and let the fallow areas recover. The Ojibwa of Parry Island in southeastern Ontario invoked their spirits to give legitimacy to this practice. The "shadows" of slain animals would cause living animals to grow wary in a certain area. Hence, they took care not to produce too many
