Charles writes: >So, if we were a jury deciding whether the Mayas were an example of indignenous Americans who were bad ecologists. we would have to say we don't have enough evidence to find them guilty, no ? < To my mind, the key question is not whether or not one or another group of indigenous Americans were bad ecologists. Rather, it is whether or not we should assume that _all_ indigenous Americans had a harmonious and organic link with Nature that meant that a prudent concern with ecology was a somehow "in their blood." Even if the Mayas were channeling Barry Commoner before his birth and putting his rules into practice, it's hard to see all of indigenous population as being that way, given the extinction of several species of large mammals that occurred at the time of their move from Siberia. I am willing to accept the proposition that hunter/gatherer tribes adapted to the environment and _became_ more ecological in orientation through experience. I am also willing to accept the proposition that the indigenous modes of production were much less aggressive toward the environment than capitalism is, because aggression is inherent in the way that a commodity-producing and accumulating mode of production works. But I see no reason to embrace "Dances with Wolves" romanticism about the Indians. BTW, until a year or so ago, my wife worked with Indians (who like to be called that, thinking of "Native American" as hopelessly academic). (She worked as a peer and health educator, by the way.) She said one of the things that really irritated them was the way many white folks were totally romantic about them (especially the New Age types). They liked it from kids (like my son), but with adults, they wanted respect not adoration. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html Bombing DESTROYS human rights. Ground troops make things worse. US/NATO out of Serbia!
