At the end of this article, instructions are given for retrieving this and
other articles from the LISTSERV archive which has been accumulating Native-
Net articles for the past several months.
--Gary ]
Hello,
I've followed the arguement here with some interest, and
thought I'd make some comments based on my experiences. I'll
state at the outset, that although I have some native American
blood, it is very minor. I've lived in northern New Mexico for
several years, and worked with environmental/Native American
groups like the Mt. Taylor Alliance, Women of Redrock, Black
Hills Alliance, so I know something about the subject, although
I'm far from an expert :-). I live in Australia now, and my
child is part Bardi, and I've lived with the Bardi people quite
a bit. Many of the issues seem to be the same for native people
everywhere.
I'd like to say that I think it is a mistake to divide the
ecological from the traditional. Without being romantic, most
traditional cultures were based on a keen appreciation of the
environment, and its limitations. This doesn't mean that there
wasn't greed and stupidity in people everywhere. We're inclined
to stupidity and greed. But traditions are based on givens,
like human birth and death rates, and animal population size,
and extensivness of "natural" environment. (Note that the
Australian Aboriginals extensively modified their own
environment through the use of fire over >30,000 years. Plant
and animal populations, and even evolutionary adaptations here
are attributed to the Aboriginal's use of fire as a general
ecological tool. Note, this isn't camp-fires, but landscape-
fires I'm referring to.) When the conditions in which culture
has developed change, traditions often become inappropriate or
unworkable. The Lakota *could not* support their people through
traditional use of buffalo now, because the buffalo herds were
devestated by the Europeans. Attempts at hunter/gatherer
lifestyles in Australia would, in many areas, lead to collapse
of the highly stressed ecosystems, and starvation of the
people.
So, most native peoples have adapted. But in doing so, they may
lose touch with their traditions. Reservation natives may spend
a lot of time watching videos at home, rather than being
familiar with the *basis* of their culture. I've seen this in
the Bardi, where the old people know all the plants and animals
and their habits intimately, but the young ones know only some
things, those which work with a very modified way of life. Many
of these modifications do not constitute improvements, and
health and diet are often worse than they used to be (even if
the "survival rate" is better). Songs, dances, and stories that
assume an intimate knowledge of the ecology, the life and habit
of plants and animals, do not have the same impact or meaning
on people who *rarely* spend much time in the bush, and go out
in a four-wheel drive with a rifle, instead of living there,
tracking and reading sign.
In such a case, the basis for claims of a special knowledge
become weaker. Where, as in the Californian case Danny cites,
the issue is whether to accept an industry based in an entirely
other culture, there is some case for including the safeguards
from that other culture. Modern rubbish dumps are not a part of
traditional culture. As Gary indicated, groups other than
environmentalists, notably government and business, have
*their* own agendas, and don't necessarily respect the rights
of native people, and native government is not always
representative of native people's wishes, and certainly not of
native people's culture. (It's the same here. :-< )
At the same time, native people need to have the right to
decide about their own future, as much as anyone else. Recently
(1984), in our state, there was a "land rights" commission. One
argument the government put, was that land rights should only
be granted to groups living a "traditional" life. What exactly
this was became an issue. Does "traditional" mean "like it was
in 1700"? Is the use of a metal fishing-spear point on one type
of wood (formerly used only for animal hunting spears) instead
of all-wood fishing spears from a different species of tree
"traditional"? Is the use of a moterboat, or rifle and four-
wheel drive to hunt traditional food "traditional"? Can you do
a fish-trap and spear hunt, and catch far more fish than you
ever would have in the past, and put them in the freezer and
call that "traditional"? If you demand "tradition", are you
demanding a people become a living museum? Doesn't tradition
include the ability to change and adapt?
So, it seems that there's a pretty vexatious issue here.
Economic poverty and reservations are not traditional, neither
is the incredible devestation of environments. Even where a
local environment is "all right" (and in Australia, many areas
*can* still support tribes *living* by hunting/gathering),
there is an impact from the general environmental devestation
to wider systems, which effects animals with greater range, and
migratory species. There is also the impact of introduction of
non-native species.
Now here, the mining companies are out in force, backed by the
government, trying to convince Aboriginal people what a
wonderful thing it would be to have mines on their traditional
land. If *any* group within the community wants it, the mining
companies and government will often work to establish this
group as the "spokesepeople" for the tribe. Money that does go
to tribal people often results in a few rich fat-cats, and
general hardship and dependency, something that frequently
erodes culture and traditional relationships between people in
the tribe. It also takes its toll of the enviroment which has
always supported the *whole* tribe in a much more equal manner,
since it did not require the money system.
Now, I'm not for anyone imposing things on tribal people
against their will, but I think shit has been done in the name
of "sovreignity" just like it has been done in the name of "the
environment", and I think we need to watch ourselves, and not
back ourselves into ideological corners. There is rarely
anything incompatible between native rights and the
environment, and where there is, I would say that the earth
comes first, for native people the same as for immigrant
cultures (like the anglo-saxons). I say this, because you
*can't* have a healthy people if the earth under your feet is
sick. I still defend the right of native peoples to come up
with their *own* solutions.
HOWEVER - I think there is a *lot* to be said for regulating
activities by large foreign (to tribal culture) institutions,
such as mining companies, even when they do things on native
land. I think it is not good enough for them to use their power
among poorer people in order to eliminate safeguards. I've seen
what was done with the uranium tailings around the Navaho
reservation, and they would *never* get away with that in a
middle-class white town. I think it's piss-poor to say that the
Navaho have sovreignity, and so its OK to do it to them. It
ignores the fact that the miners say, "If you don't agree, it
will cost too much, and we'll have to do this somewhere else,
and you'll lose all this revenue and these jobs." Business does
it around the world, and needs to be challanged. Dumping one
city's rubbish in another is a business. Eco-tourism is not
part of the environment movement, it is part of the tourist
industry. It's the same money-business that is raping the third
world generally, under the guise of "free-trade".
Maybe the California case IS an example of unwarrented
interference. The case of dumping US waste in the Mauritius
*isn't*, although the Mauritian government might see it that
way. (There has been a plan to dump about 10% of all US
domestic waste in the Lagoons of the Mauritias, for a fee
greater than the entire current GNP of the Mauritias. The
government would gain income, and it would set up a good
balance of trade, but it would kill the lagoons, the
traditional source of food (free, doesn't add to GDP) and other
wealth of the island peoples). There is also evidence that
similar plans are problematic in US reservations. (see:
> Topic 66 Dumping on the Sioux
> igc:sonomapp gen.nativeam 8:37 pm Aug 27, 1991
in gen.nativeam, outlining plans for dumping of waste on the
Lakota and other reservations.
[ See instructions at end of this article for retrieving the
article mentioned here from the NATIVE-L LISTSERV archive. --Gary ]
It seems that now the US euro/techno/consumer culture has
realised that waste is a problem, the solution is to export
it, either overseas, or to traditional people in the USA, who,
being less wealthy, are not expected to object. I think we
need to look at the whole issue a bit less simplistically,
and avoid sharp either/or distinctions between "environmental"
and "tribal", where they mainly don't exist.
I also think that characterising all environmentalists, or
environmentalists generally, as Bambi-lovers is both inaccurate
and demeaning, and as someone who loves deer as beings, as
spirits, and has been thankful for them as food, I think the
implication that anyone who isn't naive and childish wouldn't
care about them is equivalent to the arrogance of the nuclear
advocates in pushing the idea that any "practical" person
should support nuclear power.
This started as a simple response, and has blown out. Sorry
about that.
Dhanu River
Western Australia
----
Here are instructions for retrieving "Dumping on the Sioux" article
referred to above, for those who have not received that article already.
Send a message to the address "listserv@tamvm1.bitnet" containing the text:
// job echo=no
database search dd=rules
//rules dd *
select * in native-l
print 439
/*
I hope to have a document available before too long which will describe
other functions available by means of the listserv archive maintained at
Texas A & M University. For now, I might suggest that you try such things
as:
select * in native-l since august
index
to display a list of recent articles.
You can also do things like:
select 'lubicon' in native-l since july
index
or
select 'crazy horse'
print all