Growing up in Colorado, I am no stranger to talk about the importance of conservation. The green movement is hip today in many areas in response to rising concerns about climate change and a shift towards healthier living. There is a popular urban myth I heard growing up depicting Native Americans as “the original conservationists”. This depiction over simplifies the situation, as not all Native American groups treat the environment the same way. In addition, this rhetoric encourages a depiction of Native Americans as “noble savages,” or as a people more connected with earth and nature. When people are seen as being close to nature, there is a risk of not seeing them as fully human. Yet there is more to the situation. Many Native Americans acknowledge and encourage the idea that their cultures treat nature with more respect than does Euroamerican culture. I would be remiss in my analysis if I disregard this aspect of the discussion.
Postmodernists would define conservation as when a group of people has the ability to over-utilize the environment, but chooses not to in order to ensure that the resources will be available to future generations. Some argue that Native American societies have never been large enough to risk over-utilizing the environment, but this idea is uninformed. A quick review of Native American history shows that there were a number of groups with populations in the tens of thousands. Cahokia, for example, had an estimated population size between 10,000 and 40,000. Therefore we can say that certainly, this group could eat enough food to over-utilize the environment. Hunn et. al. demonstrate through the example of the gathering of gull eggs that in the case of the Huna Tlingit, they could easily collect too many gull eggs for the population to support, but intentionally do not to avoid depleting the gull population. These examples indicate that there is at least some truth to the idea that Native Americans are conservationists. However, to assume that all Native Americans practice conservation seems presumptuous to me, given the wide variety of cultural values I have learned about thus far this semester. I do not have a specific counter example of a group depleting the environment, but I do know that the Chipewyan people believed they were entitled to hunt as much as they could, even to the point of excess. This calls into question the Sioui’s claim that all Native Americans have superior environmental ethics.
The depiction of Native Americans as “the original conservationist” is problematic not only because of the questionable validity of this statement, but also because of the social implications of it. If the statement were made solely out of respect for and acknowledgement of cultural differences, I would not have a moral concern about this depictions. However, in the larger context of Euroamerican culture, there is a frequently criticized rhetoric of exoticizing anyone who is not white, placing them closer to nature and their animalistic urges, thereby viewing them as less civilized and less human. While we might view conservationism as a positive attribute- the “noble” part of the “noble savage”- it nonetheless places them closer to nature while whites are placed closer to culture. In addition, activists of the green movement often point to traditional practices and people of the past, saying we should go back to that way of living. In this way, they are perpetuating the myth of the vanishing Indian, failing to acknowledge Native Americans as a fully modern people who are still alive today. When we see a people as extinct or nearing extinction, we think it is acceptable to use their cultures as mascots like this:
When Native American culture is viewed as extinct or near extinct, it’s perfectly fine that our children don’t learn about them in history class because they don’t really matter; they were just the people who were here before us, but they disappeared from smallpox or assimilated to our culture, and it had nothing to do with Euroamericans forcing them onto reservations and into boarding schools. But I digress.
Many Native Americans believe that their cultures are superior to Euroamericans’ culture in their treatment of the earth. I don’t disagree with the sentiment. With regards to Sioui’s argument, this sentiment appears to be an attempt to distinguish Native American culture from Euroamerican culture. I argue that this does not detract from its validity. It is not unusual for a group to define itself in contrast to other cultures; perhaps we naturally see differences more easily than similarities. My studies in anthropology indicate to me that without the contrast to another culture, people are likely to assume that their cultural worldview is the best or only world view. Native Americans have seen how Euroamericans treat the environment, which has called attention to their own values surrounding conservation. Perhaps I am giving too much credit to the influence of interaction between Native Americans and Euroamericans, but that is not my intent. Rather, I would like to present one possibility of how Native Americans came to align with conservationist ideals. My point is that the reason behind this distinction from the dominant culture is irrelevant, because it should not detract from the Native Americans’ presentation of their own values and beliefs.
Emily Guy 