Can these two positions just described be reconciled? Both theses - that of the Ecological Indian and that of the Destructive Indian - can inform each other and impose moderating constraints. As usual, complexity clouds the clarity of each position.
The thesis that postulates the view that Indians were active exterminators of beaver during the fur trade ignores the fact that, although beaver populations declined across eastern and central Canada, not all Northern Algonquians participated in the trade. This was especially the case when it was perceived by such tribes that the activity conflicted with traditional subsistence activities and spiritual beliefs. There is also no doubt that European invasion of traditional family hunting territories, the disruption of traditional lifestyles and beliefs, and the growing menace of poverty and foreign disease undermined the very value system that might have prevented certain tribes from participating in the fur trade.
At the other extreme, the view that cannot see Native Americans as anything but natural conservationists ignores the fact that tribes engaged in a variety of environmental relationships, not all of them ecologically-sound by today's western standards. Indian populations are as fallible as populations from all historical eras and geographical regions. Apparent ecological errors such as stampeding too many buffalo over cliffs or deforesting particular regions for the purposes of subsistence did occur, and should not undermine the general fact that the wide variety of Native American philosophies espoused a reverential relationship with the natural world.
The issues are complex, but a better understanding of Native American philosophies would lay to waste both extreme theories. As far as can be discerned from the available oral and written sources, no Indian religion posits a perfect harmony with nature. Humans are both a part of and apart from other beings. There will always be a tension between living beings so long as each one has its own unique identity, needs, and relationship to the spiritual realm. This separateness and uniqueness does not preclude relationship and unity, however. Instead, it could be said that Native American philosophies envision dynamic relationships based on fusion and fission. The relation between an animal and a human, for example, is as volatile as that between two humans, but a relationship still remains, and a respectful one is advocated.
© 2002 by Bornali HalderBeginning of Article | Native American Index
Site, Page and Article © Copyright 2002 by Bornali Halder