More than that, we completely transformed the native ecology of places such that they’re nearly unrecognizable from what they once were. Native plants only occupy a tiny, tiny slice of the ecology that they used to, thanks to invasive introductions that came either accidentally or deliberately with livestock and agricultural imports. I know that in California, many of the plants the native people depended on are difficult to find anymore, and are almost never deliberately cultivated. We also took deliberate, calculated steps over decades to eradicate their cultures, and since very little was ever written down, it was largely successful.
In spite of all that, AFAIK there IS at least a Dine restaurant that they’re using to try and teach their own people and others about their traditional culinary and food-ecology practices.
So I almost stopped reading at “native ecology”. You do have a good point about deliberate destruction of what was there, but the American continent wasn’t in some kind of pristine natural state before Columbus arrived. The native peoples altered their environment to suit them. What we call corn today came from maize, but maize isn’t natural, either. Its closest genetic relation to a natural plant is one with tiny, inedible cobs. It’s not clear how they manged to go from that to maize.
Humans alter the environment around them to better suit humans. That doesn’t mean we have to be relentlessly destructive, but we always do it in some way. Narratives that native peoples were in some kind of perfect state of nature feeds into noble savage myths, and take away from their humanity.
But focusing on cultural eradication is a very good point.
Hey, yeah, you’re completely right. I definitely didn’t mean to imply that they lived in some unspoiled wilderness or that they didn’t believe in touching the wilderness like a lot of the colonial narratives suggest. I’ve been reading Tending the Wild by Kat Anderson, and it does a lot of work dispelling those myths. What I mean is that they had relationships with the ecology here; California native tribes knew where edible corms grew and how to cultivate them to ensure a good bounty, they knew when to expect and hunt migratory birds, how to sustainably harvest roots and leaves for basketry, how to harvest and use acorns from the various oak species here, and how to get food and shelter from incense cedar and sugar pine without killing the trees. They also knew how to tend these local ecologies to ensure that these plants and animals continued to exist as long-term and renewable resources. In fact, another book I’m reading, Braiding Sweetgrass makes the case that the plants that native people used fare worse without human intervention. While the tribes, at least as early European settlers knew them, were semi-nomadic (they would move between the valleys and the mountains depending on the season) rather than agrarian, they still cultivated and shaped the lands they lived on. They helped to shape and were also shaped by the ecology.
European and American settlers blew almost all of that away without even realizing it in many cases. In California, all it took was introducing grazing animals and declaring land private property.
To be fair, “native ecology” doesn’t necessarily mean “natural ecology.” A change from the native cultivated landscape to one left fallow and overgrown is still the kind of radically destructive change @[email protected] was talking about.
On a related note, it reminds me of this video about suppression of indigenous fire management practices and their consequences.
The indigenous people used to move giant rocks and make rock walls to corral giant herds of buffalo, right off the side of a cliff. Kill thousands at a time.
Yeah. There’s also post contact/reservation foods and less accessible are traditional foods of people whose land was less actively stolen like the Alaskan Natives. I’ve had a bit of traditional Yupik food and it isn’t bad
More than that, we completely transformed the native ecology of places such that they’re nearly unrecognizable from what they once were. Native plants only occupy a tiny, tiny slice of the ecology that they used to, thanks to invasive introductions that came either accidentally or deliberately with livestock and agricultural imports. I know that in California, many of the plants the native people depended on are difficult to find anymore, and are almost never deliberately cultivated. We also took deliberate, calculated steps over decades to eradicate their cultures, and since very little was ever written down, it was largely successful.
In spite of all that, AFAIK there IS at least a Dine restaurant that they’re using to try and teach their own people and others about their traditional culinary and food-ecology practices.
So I almost stopped reading at “native ecology”. You do have a good point about deliberate destruction of what was there, but the American continent wasn’t in some kind of pristine natural state before Columbus arrived. The native peoples altered their environment to suit them. What we call corn today came from maize, but maize isn’t natural, either. Its closest genetic relation to a natural plant is one with tiny, inedible cobs. It’s not clear how they manged to go from that to maize.
Humans alter the environment around them to better suit humans. That doesn’t mean we have to be relentlessly destructive, but we always do it in some way. Narratives that native peoples were in some kind of perfect state of nature feeds into noble savage myths, and take away from their humanity.
But focusing on cultural eradication is a very good point.
Hey, yeah, you’re completely right. I definitely didn’t mean to imply that they lived in some unspoiled wilderness or that they didn’t believe in touching the wilderness like a lot of the colonial narratives suggest. I’ve been reading Tending the Wild by Kat Anderson, and it does a lot of work dispelling those myths. What I mean is that they had relationships with the ecology here; California native tribes knew where edible corms grew and how to cultivate them to ensure a good bounty, they knew when to expect and hunt migratory birds, how to sustainably harvest roots and leaves for basketry, how to harvest and use acorns from the various oak species here, and how to get food and shelter from incense cedar and sugar pine without killing the trees. They also knew how to tend these local ecologies to ensure that these plants and animals continued to exist as long-term and renewable resources. In fact, another book I’m reading, Braiding Sweetgrass makes the case that the plants that native people used fare worse without human intervention. While the tribes, at least as early European settlers knew them, were semi-nomadic (they would move between the valleys and the mountains depending on the season) rather than agrarian, they still cultivated and shaped the lands they lived on. They helped to shape and were also shaped by the ecology.
European and American settlers blew almost all of that away without even realizing it in many cases. In California, all it took was introducing grazing animals and declaring land private property.
To be fair, “native ecology” doesn’t necessarily mean “natural ecology.” A change from the native cultivated landscape to one left fallow and overgrown is still the kind of radically destructive change @[email protected] was talking about.
On a related note, it reminds me of this video about suppression of indigenous fire management practices and their consequences.
The indigenous people used to move giant rocks and make rock walls to corral giant herds of buffalo, right off the side of a cliff. Kill thousands at a time.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_jump
Some humans suck so much. Like this whole thread is a painful read, even as a random European.
Yeah. There’s also post contact/reservation foods and less accessible are traditional foods of people whose land was less actively stolen like the Alaskan Natives. I’ve had a bit of traditional Yupik food and it isn’t bad