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 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 of these shadows and kept a natural balance between > hunter and prey. > > The value system absolutely excluded wanton destruction of animals. Hopis > told John Bierhorst, the author of "The Way of the Earth: Native America > and the Environment," that when they were children, they practiced shooting > at small animals and birds. But their elders warned them not to kill any > creature that they did not intend to eat. A Lushootseed man told him that > he never forgot his father's disappointment when he caught him gaffing fish > just 'for the fun of it.' He chastised him, "My son, you must respect them. > You must not kill them for the fun of it." Nora Thompson Dean, a Delaware > woman, remembers the time her brother killed a crane for sport. Their > mother told them that "we don't kill things for sport" and made them eat > the dark, tough flesh of the bird as a lesson. > > The European invaded viewed these practices as wasteful. From the very > beginning, the North American Indian innate conservationist existence was > in conflict with the goals of farmers, hunters, miners and ranchers who > sought to make money from the land and from animals. When they exhausted > the land, they simply would move elsewhere. The only way they could carry > out such predatory commercial activities was by removing the Indian. They > found a rationale for the "ethnic cleansing" of the Indian from the land > in a variety of European religious and philosophical literature. > > In 1978, Texas gubernatorial candidate asked a question that epitomized the > invader's outlook. "Is this area of Texas more productive, more fulfilling > of God's purpose--are we playing our role of destiny with this broad > expanse of Texas--than when there were five thousand Indians here eating > insects?" Clement's racist query is deeply rooted in the American colonial > past. > > The Judeo-Christian religion, unlike the Indian's, was amenable to > ecological despoliation. Genesis 1:28 says, "And God blessed them, and God > said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and > subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of > the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." The > notion of "subduing" nature was alien to the Indian tribes. > > The colonial priests worked hard to find theological justification for the > dispossession of the Indian. When Roger Williams criticized Puritan seizure > of Indian land, Reverend John Cotton rejected the idea that the tribes > could have title to the land since they had no concept of "improving" it. > He said, "We do not conceive that it a just Title to so vast a Continent, > to make no other improvements of Acres in it." > > By the time of the American Revolution, the land utilization argument had > become part of the conventional wisdom, according to William T. Hagan. > ("Justifying Dispossession of the Indian: the Land Utilization Argument," > in "American Indian Environments," edited by Christopher Vecsey and Robert > W. Venables, Syracuse Univ., 1980.) In 1774, Lord Dunmore, the governor of > Virginia, denounced the "avidity and restlessness" of the Indian. "They do > not conceive that Government has any right to forbid their taking > possession of a Vast tract of Country, either uninhabited, or which Serves > only as a Shelter for few Scattered Tribes of Indians." > > In the first quarter of the nineteenth century, the war against the Indian > intensified. As the new, secular republic sought to dispossess the Indian, > the politicians invoked religious arguments less frequently. Instead > straightforward arguments of an "economic" nature prevailed. It was a > "waste" of precious natural resources to allow a bunch of ignorant Indians > to go about hunting, fishing or picking nuts and berries. Governor William > Henry Harrison of Indiana expressed this view in a merciless fashion, "Is > one of the fairest portions of the globe to remain in a state of nature, > the haunt of a few wretched savages, when it seems destined by the Creator > to give support to a large population and to be the seat of civilization, > of science, and of true religion." > > Andrew Jackson launched the genocidal war against the Indian that came to a > culmination in 1890. He was the first American President to fully > understand the degree to which American capitalism was in conflict with > Indian rights. In 1830, he said, "Philanthropy could not wish to see this > continent restored to the condition in which it was found by our > forefathers. What good man would prefer a country covered with forests and > ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive Republic, studded with > cities, towns and prosperous farms...occupied by more than 12,000,000 happy > people." > > So what kind of country did Andrew Jackson and his successors build, once > they had finished murdering the inconvenient Indian or shunted him off to > reservations? Once they got rid of the Indian, they were free to launch two > important revolutions on the land: the mechanization of agriculture and the > adoption of high input farming. > > The shortage of labor in the USA spurred the introduction of machinery. > Mechanical reapers were more necessary here than in Europe in the 1860s, > where labor was still plentiful. The introduction of the internal > combustion engine was the breakthrough that industrial farming required. > There 250,000 tractors on US farms in 1920 and 2.3 million in 1945. Other > mechanical devices soon followed, from electric milkers to combine > harvesters. As mechanization increased, the size of the farm increased and > the number of laborers decreased. There were 7 million farms in the 1930s, > while the number dropped to below 3 million in the 1980s. > > Until the 19th century, farms relied on manure and composts produced by > organic processes. The discovery of fertilizers changed all this. At first, > the farmers used relatively harmless substances like guano, bat dung. Later > industrial companies began to mine phosphates around the world, from North > Africa to some Pacific Islands. But the real breakthrough occurred when > chemists were able to develop artificial fertilizers in the 1840s, the > superphosphates. When scientists developed nitrogenenous fertilizers in the > 1920s, the tendency to regard agriculture as a business increased. "Input" > and "output" were key factors, just as they were in a Ford automobile > plant. The relationship between soil, water, animal and human being began > to fade into the background. The soil was no longer a living organism, as > the American Indian had considered it, but a platform to hold crops while a > variety of chemicals were poured on them. > > Since 1945 there has been more and more of an emphasis on single crop > production. Larger and larger farms are devoted to corn, wheat, alfalfa, > sorghum or other commercial grains, especially those that can be used as > livestock feed. Monocrops are more susceptible to disease. Hence, chemical > herbicides and pesticides become more important. The amount of such > substances sprayed on crops in the USA since 1953 has risen fifteen-fold. > The new book "Living Downstream" by Sandra Steingraber includes maps that > show increased cancer rates near counties with increased use of such > substances. Ms. Steingraber has a doctorate in biology and grew up in one > such county in Michigan. She is also a breast cancer survivor. > > Livestock production changed dramatically in the nineteenth century as > well, once the "wasteful" Indians were removed from grazing land. At first, > sheep and cattle were allowed free range on the grasslands where the > buffalo had lived. As herds of such animals left the soil exhausted, the > rancher simply moved elsewhere since he thought that land was limitless. > The damage left by the sheep led John Muir, the 19th century > conservationist and founder of the Sierra Club, led him to describe the > animals as "hoofed locusts." > > In the 20th century, dwindling grazing lands forced the livestock industry > to move indoors, where it raises animals in small compartments and > artificial feed. Such conditions are the cause of a variety of endemic ills > such as Mad Cow Disease, e-coli bacteria and the recent appearance of > poultry flu in Hong Kong. Clive Ponting's "A Green History of the World" > (Penguin, 1991) contains a stark picture of the conditions of livestock > animals. "Chickens are kept in over-crowded battery cages, cattle in small > stalls and pigs are chained to walls in sties small enough to ensure that > they can not move. Animals, which are herbivores, are fed on a diet which > may include a high percentage of dead animals, recycled manure, growth > hormones and also antibiotics to control the diseases that would otherwise > be rife in such conditions." Those of us who do not get cancer from > pesticides risk infection from the livestock fed by the grain such > processes require. If this is what Andrew Jackson had in mind when he spoke > of 12 million "happy people," he had no idea of what the fate of such > people would be. > > Industrial farming eventually influenced the form in which foodstuffs came > to the table. The goal was to make food available, while sacrificing the > quality. Wonder Bread was a paradigm for this dubious new plenitude. Soon > canning and refrigeration made it possible to supply fruit and vegetables > out of their natural season. While the Indian harvested nuts and berries > and hunted deer, modern society can put slices of Wonder Bread, canned > green beans and beef on the table twelve months a year. Raw meat, however, > must be kept away from dinner plates, however, or else one of us "happy > people" risk severe illness, including bloody diarrhea, that might lead to > death. A solution to bacterial meat has been proposed. Irradiation will > kill all such bacteria, but care must be taken that the nuclear plants that > produce such radiation do not spill their poisons into the water and soil > and give us leukemia. > > The ecological crisis of today is intimately linked to the genocide of the > American Indian. By removing the custodian of the land who had lived here > for tens of thousands of years and making it possible for capitalist > ranching and farming to "subdue" the land, American society has become its > own worst enemy. Resolution of the ecological crisis will force us to > revisit the beliefs of the people who preceded us on this continent, whose > attitude toward nature was inherently more respectful. The respect given > nature was ultimately respect that humanity gave itself, since we are part > of nature ourselves. > > In my next post, I will review Jerry Mander's "In the Absence of the > Sacred: the Failure of Technology and the Survival of the Indian" This book > is an examination of American Indian beliefs and a critique of the insanity > of our current industrial system, based as it is on private profit. Mander > concludes that the problem is technology and industrialization, rather than > ownership of land and factories by the business class. His co-thinker > Kirkpatrick Sale agrees with him and was a supporter of Ted Kaszynski. He > begins each lecture by smashing a personal computer. I will offer my own > ideas on how Indian ecological and religious beliefs can be reconciled with > modern society. It does not include smashing computers, otherwise I would > not have a way to be communicating my ideas with you good people out there. > I will propose that the First Nation, the American Indians, can also > benefit from the use of such technology. > > Louis Proyect > > > > > --- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: M-I: Ecology and the American Indian
Rosser Jr, John Barkley Mon, 26 Jan 1998 16:15:39 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)