4.0 out of 5 stars
A History of the Environmental Destruction of Native American Peoples, October 30, 2011
In this book, Native American historians Donald Grinde and Bruce Johansen have collected accounts from the past about the treatment of the Euro-Americans against the homelands of Native Americans. There are two chapters that deal with the Navajo. The first chapter deals with the government policies about their sheep and the erosion and denuding of the landscape on their reservation. The policies lead to live stalk reduction and a manipulation of the environment that left the Navajos in a worse condition than they were from the start.
The next chapter on the Navajos deals with the coal mining that began on the reservation in the mid-twentieth century. The environmentally unfriendly mining lead to the death and illness of local Navajo sheep and the stumped growth of farm goats, according to a Navajo woman that was interviewed by the authors.
The book also then talks about the infamous Akwesasne Mohawks in which General Motors would carelessly dump it's toxic waste which would ultimately effect the local Indian people. The pregnant women, as a result, were told not to eat the fish or drink the water from the St. Lawrence river. Unfortunately, there were birth defects that may have been related to this case already. There was one case in which a certain baby's fat was tested and shown to have a high level of Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB). The mother's breast milk was also tested, and it was found that she was unwittingly poisoning her own child.
Overall, the book is really informative, though I do have bone to pick with it: In chapter one, the authors attempt to make the point that the American Indians were "America's first ecologists." The evidence that is used to back up this assertion are certain quotes in which several Native leaders call the earth their "mother." They never take into consideration that this could also be interpreted in other ways: An example they give is a quote from Joseph of the Nez Perce, and therefore they will not disturb her "by hoe or plow." A little more research will imply that they did not view the WHOLE earth (the planet) as their mother. I say this for one major reason: When General Oliver Howard attempted to convince them to leave for reservations, they they would state that "the earth is their mother." Obviously, they meant that their homeland was their mother, or else they could have gone anywhere else and been with their mother.
Also, the authors cite the controversial speech that was allegedly given by Chief Seattle speaking about the sacredness of the land to his people. Most historians, however, point out that this speech first appears several decades after the death of Seattle, and that there is no evidence that the one who wrote it down was even present at the time it was probably given. Historians also argue that if he did give such a speech, it was not because his people were ecologists, but that the land was sacred to them because it was where their ancestors were buried. -- To their credit, Grinde and Johansen admit that the speech had been embellished, and that it is controversial, so I do not see any deliberate act of deception on their part.
In the chapter on the Pueblo Revolt, the authors speak about Pope's "ecological" knowledge of when he should attack the Spaniards. He observed weather patters to use as an indication for when the level of the Rio Grande river would rise to the desired level. It would make the river impossible to cross for the Spanish. I fail to see how this particular knowledge made the Pueblos "ecologists." It shows they knew weather patters, but so did Jesus Christ and the Jews (Matthew 16:2,3), but that hardly makes JC and his contemporaries ecologists.
On the other hand, please do not understand me. I am not saying that American Indians had no respect for nature; it would be incorrect to assume that they did not. I am simply saying they were not environmentalists in the sense that we usually imagine; Indian activists and environmentalists have not always seen eye-to-eye. To their credit, however, there are occasions in the book in which these authors point out some of these disagreements.
Despite it's faults, the book is definitely worth reading. Even with my disagreements with the authors, the book has a major message that even non-environmentalists (like me) can appreciate: You do not dump your trash in someone else's home.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
