|
| The Ecological Indian: Myth and History | 
| Author: Shepard Krech Iii
Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company
Category: Book
List Price: $16.95
Buy New: $9.06
You Save: $7.89 (47%)
New (31) Collectible (1) from $9.06
Avg. Customer Rating:  24 reviews
Sales Rank: 363538
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 320
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.7
Dimensions (in): 8.1 x 5.4 x 0.9
ISBN: 0393321002
Dewey Decimal Number: 909
EAN: 9780393321005
ASIN: 0393321002
Publication Date: September 2000
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
The myth that Native Americans lived in ecological harmony with nature is exposed in this book. Krech reveals that they, like all other humans, sometimes exploited nature. He argues that the image of the saintly Indian is simplistic and harmful to the Indians themselves.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 19 more reviews...
 Vague and Unbalanced View of Indians in Nature May 16, 2008
4 out of 6 found this review helpful
I was impressed with the documentation provided in this scholarly work, but disappointed by the author's failure to effectively synthesize the facts into a coherent and balanced evaluation. The author does a poor job of differentiating between Indians who lived as hunter-gatherers and those who were sedentary agriculturalists. He makes little attempt to differentiate pre-Columbian from post-contact Indian practices.
In his statements regarding the varying environmental perspecitves among contemporary Indians, he ignores the influence of the forced separation and schooling of an entire generation of Indians, which broke the continuity of ecological understanding obtained from elders. Evaluating current Indian perspectives on the environment by selecting examples requires synthesis, which is weak throughout.
The book is full of facts and heavily referenced, but some statements are suspiciously vague, considering the available documentation. For example, his glossing over the government's overt policy of exterminating buffalo as a means of controling plains Indians at the top of page 127, and his vague statement that "Some have blamed the Indians...." in the following paragraph, which is entirely unsupported by references.
The author equates "ecological" with "conservationist" (page 27) and selectively uses examples to support the position that Indians did not and do not live sustainably with nature. A more reasoned view is that Indians exist in nature as part of the ecosystems in which they live. This implies long term presence, which Indians have obviously achieved. It does not mean that they have not affected their environment. It is likely that Indians were responsible for the extinction of some large mammal species 10,000 years ago, but the Indians themselves survived and prospered. It is likely that populations of various tribes waxed and waned in response to environmental controls; that too is ecological, but not conservationist. The author does not seem to understand the difference. The overall evaluation of Indians in their environment, living "ecologically" is weak, and the conclusions are correspondingly vague.
 Somewhat disturbing portrait February 28, 2007
The author clearly put a lot of work into this book. However, I feel he
stressed the negative too much, while conveniently avoiding discussing the positive interactions many Native American tribes have had with their environment and the closeness to the natural world they lived with 24/7. Krech claims he doesn't mean to denigrate Native Americans, but I feel he manages to.
Native Americans in the 17 and 1800's were just trying to SURVIVE, and in very harsh and difficult conditions. For someone in the 21st century to start criticizing how they lived at that time is just ridiculous. There's no level playing field to make such comparisons. And you could say they were "Ecological" in that they knew and understood so much more about their natural environment than we do today. Of course they didn't have the benefit of foresight to know that it was possible to wipe out a species like the buffalo that used to "blacken the plains". They clearly thought these populations would go on forever.
I just don't think you can look at this situation retrospectively and judge Native Americans as being not "ecological". Krech writes about a tribe using wasteful practices and then finishes the chapter with a number of examples of Indian tribes who rejected such practices.
Yes, I found him contradictory at times. And I felt it was a choice he made- he could have highlighted the positive interactions of tribe to environment, but he chose to highlight the negative. When he discusses Fire, he describes how Native Americans knew how to use it judiciously, to the advantage of the local ecosystem (as well as the tribe), but then he talks about times when the fires would get out of hand, as his proof that they were not "ecological". Sorry, I just couldn't buy it.
A much-needed perspective - important and thought-provoking, if flawed. September 5, 2006
4 out of 5 found this review helpful
There is no doubt that Shepard Krech offers a much-needed volume on the subject of American Indian ecological impact, and by the end of the powerful introduction he has convinced the reader that this may well be the definitive volume on the subject. The intro is a strong and compelling case for the re-evaluation of a popular stereotype, and should itself be included in the syllabi of courses on anthropology and ecology alike. The thesis presented in The Ecological Indian is a simple one (though by no means without controversy): the traditional image of the Indian living in non-invasive harmony with the land is not only false, but in fact does a disservice to those of aboriginal heritage by perpetuating the falsehood of the primitive noble savage.
Krech's writing shines when he wears the hat of an environmental philosopher and an anthropologist, and so it is with great disappointment that I made the transition to the actual substance of the book's thesis. In some areas (particularly those more recent historically documented cases), Krech strongly underlines his case. In others, however, he falls unbelievably short where the data is almost more compelling. Most striking was the first chapter on the Pleistocene extinctions, which oddly begins the book with arguments against the human overkill hypothesis even in the face of very compelling evidence. He focuses too strongly on the mid-80's publications of Dr. Paul S. Martin, when much more recent work has come out regarding human hunting that was completely overlooked. This poor treatment weakend the impact of the powerful introduction, and was a lost opportunity for strong evidence about early human land impact.
Similarly, the chapter on fire made almost no mention of the paleoecological record of fossil charcoal or other pre-settlement fire histories. The chapter on the Hohokam was compelling, but would have been made stronger by the inclusion of other examples from the Southwest or even the Midwest. Krech's weakness with regards to the ancient record were obvious to someone in the field, but may not be so to those without a background in anthropology or North American paleoecology, and so readers could get an incomplete picture based on certain omissions. This could be easily corrected with future editions.
Krech's background is obviously stronger in the historical period, and the section on the colonial impressions of the North American "Eden" was perhaps the strongest in the book. Here the author makes the important point that, coming from the intensely modified landscape of Europe, even a moderately-modified North America would seem like a wilderness, particularly when those doing the reporting have commercial interests. The section on buffalo is likewise very strong, including striking descriptions of buffalo jumps and other clearly excessive tactics. Here Krech makes the case about an Indian ecology most strongly, reminding the reader that the Indian ecological theory included mythological elements that are simply not compatible with Western ecological theory, such as a never-ending source of buffalo from sacred lakes or caves. With an eternally replenished supply, why would there be a need for sustainable harvesting? Similar chapters on deer and beaver emphasize the influence of European markets on overhunting for trade goods. While these are quite compelling, the book drags here at times with repetitive lists of animals killed in different regions.
Critics have lambasted Krech for making an unfair comparison between colonial and industrial human impact and those of less technologically complex cultures, one that the author himself predicts and addresses in the book. His response is to point out that just because modern humans are more manipulative doesn't mean that the Indians didn't manipulate at all. An inherent aspect of his argument is the notion of what constitutes "ecological" behavior, and Krech makes an excellent (and much-welcome) distinction between the actual science of ecology and the popular notion of ecology as environmental stewardship.
Scholarly faults aside, readers accustomed to popular science may find the writing to be dry and at times bordering on tedious. However, the book is excellently referenced, particularly with regards to primary sources, and in spite of its tone the content is very accessible to non-scholars. Ultimately, The Ecological Indian is an important contribution to the field, if occasionally disappointing in its incomplete scholarship.
~ Jacquelyn Gill
 A great read, after all June 24, 2006
6 out of 7 found this review helpful
You might want to skip the first chapters on prehistory; they are outside the author's own expertise, fuzzy and incomplete in both arguments and conclusions. The great extinctions, in particular (where the author all but excludes human participation, a mea culpa for what is to follow?), is myopically rendered and should not be accepted at face value.
I forgave all this when I reached the main part; about North American natives' interactions with nature, documented by Europeans from the 16th century and on. The author clears his voice as we are taken from one stunning observation to the next, many illustrated with well chosen excerpts from the sources. There are detailed accounts of the impact of European diseases, of native forest fire practice, of hunting of bison, deer, beaver and caribou. The image that emerges is one of exploitation (often wasteful) by demand, not by sustainability. It's harrowing and brilliant. It could well be that this picture is incomplete, but the evidence is collaborated by literally hundreds of sources. And certain facts leave no room for argument: If you for instance believe (this really got to me) that your prey multiply by reincarnation in ever greater numbers as you kill them, you are not - by any definition - ecologically conscious.
The deeper lessons of this book are not so much about native Americans as about humans, and how humans exploit their surroundings. It is particularily recommended to anybody who has an interest in evironmental protection. The author clearly lacks the thorough biological understanding to bring the point across, but as a historian he's near flawless.
Good review of complicated issues -- don't be misled by simplifications February 19, 2006
6 out of 9 found this review helpful
If you think that Indians used every part of the buffalo, or that they never wasted deer or beaver meat, this book will come as a shock to you. If you are more familiar with a wide range of human cultures and practices, this review of Native American/First Nation practices will not surprise you. Some tribes managed wildlife in a conservationist way, while others were wasteful. The extent of their conservationist or ecological practices varied from tribe to tribe, from one species to another, and over time.
It's easy to misread this book, and some of the other reviewers have clearly done this. Krech is trying to debunk a myth, not just because it's false but because it stereotypes many people who belong to many peoples. Some people misread this as attacking Indians, but obviously reasserting their diversity and individuality is seeking to do the reverse.
The real issues are complicated. Many Native Americans set fires because this tended to favor species of plants, trees, and game that they wanted. Yosemite Valley is a good example. This fire is "destructive" and anti-ecological in some ways, but nature also evolved around this Native practice. If we want to restore national parks to some "pristine" condition, do we set fires in Yosemite Valley? If yes, then we view Natives as part of the "environment," which dehumanizes them in a way. If no, then we ignore the way that nature evolved around humans.
This book discusses such issues in a serious way, with reference to the diversity of Native practices. Specific topics include irrigation in the arid southwest, the Pleistocene extinctions, fire, and chapters on several important species (deer, bison, and beaver). Krech discusses both pre-contact and post-contact Native practices. For example, First Nations obviously hunted beaver before the Hudson's Bay Company arrived in Canada, but they hunted a *lot* more afterwards. The book provides enough information about such cases, and with sufficient attention to both sides of every issue, that you can make up your own mind.
Isn't making up your own mind why we read such books in the first place?
|
|
|
Wildlife, nature and the Environment
Sponsored Links
Learn how to get your own Amazon Book shop | |
