CHAPTERS I FirstNations' Perspectives 209

is a delicate balance of life systems, that the fuels for our machines are limited ....'Ihe Indian now offers to the Euroamerican a mystica.I sense of the place of the

humanandotherlivingbeings.Thisisadifficultteachingforussincewelongagolost our capacity for being present to the earth and its living forms in a mutuallyenhancing manner.5

Berry's comments reveal both an opportunity and a danger. The opportunity is to learnand appreciate the ecological wisdom First Nations peoples can impart to a culture-that ofEuroamericans-inthemidstofadeepecologicalcrisis.Listeningtothismessagerequiresthevirtues of hum'ility and openness on the part of that culture's members. 'Ihe danger is that wemight,inthecourseofdoingthis,offeruponemoreidealized-andultimatelycolonial-versionofNativepeoples,yetanothershallowanddemeaninginvocationofthe"noblesavage."Inwhatfollows in this chapter, we will attempt to absorb the lesson without romanticizing the cultureit comes from. Let's begin with the crucial concept of the sacred circle as articulated by Huron

philosopher Georges Sioui.

THE SACRED CIRCLE OF LIFE

G€orges Siou±

According to the Sioux holy man Hehaka Sapa,everything done by an Indian is done in a cir-cular fashion,becausethepoweroftheuniversea.1ways acts according to circles and all thingstend to be round:

In the old days, when we were a strongand happy people, all our power camefrom the sa.cred circle of the nation andas long as the circle remained whole, the

people flourished. 'Ihe blossoming treewas the living centre of the circle and thecircle of the four quarters nourished it.The east gave peace and light, the south

gave warmth, from the west came rain,and the north, with its cold and power-ful wind, gave strength and endurance.This knowledge came to us from theexternal world (the transcending world,the universe) and with it, our religion.Everythingdonebythepoweroftheuni-verse is made in the form of a circle. 'Ihe

sky is circular and I have heard that theEarth is round as a ball and the stars tooare round. The wind whirls, at the heightof its power. The birds build their nestsin a circular way, for they have the samereligion as us .... Our teepees (tents)were circular like the nests of the birds,and were always laid in a circle-the cir-cle of the nation, a nest made of manynests, where the Great Spirit willed usto brood our children.6

'Ihe reality of the sacred circle of life, wherein

all beings, material and immaterial, are equaland interdependent, permeates the entireAmerindian vision of life and the universe.

I. 'Ihe Sacred Circle of Life

Every expression of life, material or immater-ial, demands of the Amerindian respect andthe spontaneous recognition of an order that,while incomprehensible to the human mind, is

_--=T

210 PART 11 I Challenges and New Directions

infinitely perfect. 'Ihis order is called the GreatMystery. To the traditional Amerindian, lifefind; its meaning in the implicit and admiringrecognition of the existence, role, and powerof all the forms of life that compose the circle.Amerindians, by nature, strive to respect thesacred character of the relations tha.t existamong all forms of life.

Where their human kin are concerned, theAmerindians' attitude is the same: all humanbeings are sacred because they are an expres-sion of the will of the Great Mystery. Thus, weall possess within ourselves a sacred vision,that is, a unique power that we must discoverin the course of our lives in order to actualizethe Great Spirit's vision, of which we are anexpression. Each man and woman, therefore,finds his or her personal meaning through thatunique relationship with the Great Power ofthe universe. There is no room for a system oforganized thought to which the individual issubordinate, in the wa.y that religions or polit-ical ideologies are at the service of human andmaterial interests. "The duty of a man," statesan Ojibwa medicine man with simplicity andall the depth of his respect for his tradition, "isto work for the Great Spirit."7

Human beings have an obligation to discovertheir own vision, their meaning, their religion;woman, with her special powers of self-purifi-cation, recognizes her vision much more eas-ily than man does. With their awareness of thesacred relations that they, as humans, musthelp maintain between all beings, New Worldmen and women dictate a philosophy for them-selves in which the existence and survival ofother beings, especially animals and plants,must not be endangered. They recognize andobserve the laws and do not reduce the freedomof other creatures. In this way, they ensure the

protection of their most precious possession,their own freedom. Long ago, the independ-

ence of Amerindians was directly related tothe incomparable abundance of food to whichthey had access ....

'Ihe sacred circle of life, in which the place of

humans is equal to that of the other creatures,albeit marked by a. special responsibility, isdivided into four quarters. Four is the sacrednumber in America: there a.re four sacred direc-tions, four sacred colours, four races of humans,each with its own sacred vision, as well as fourages of human life (childhood, adulthood, oldage, then childhood again), four seasons, andfour times of day, which are also sacred. Thusthe circle operates in cycles of four movementseach. When Amerindian officiants perform asacred ritual whose primary function is purifi-catory,theymentionandaddressthemselvestothose times or movements, and when they havecovered the entire circle, they speak the words"all my relations," thus acknowledging the rela-

tionship between all beings in the universe andtheir common vision of peace.

Ilo The Originality ®f AmeFindianHist®ffy

In relation to the other continents, which arecontiguous (with the exception of Australia),the American continent stands apart in theconfiguration of our world. The peoples of theOld World have always evolved in relative sym-biosis, influencing one another in almost everyway: economically, culturally, biologically, andso on. By contrast, until its definitive contactwith Europe, the New World has been almostcompletely isolated and so able to devise and

preserve ways of being and living that are spe-cifically its own. It has developed according toideological concepts diametrically opposedto those that animated and motivated theEuropeans and the other peoples who followedthem here. In 1868, the ethnologist DanielGarrison Brinton wrote:

ich aretralia),in the

s of thee Sym-

it everylly'andcontactalmost

rise and

are Spe-[ding to

pposedted the:ollowed

: Daniel

Cut off time out of mind from the restof the world, he [the American Native]never underwent those crossings ofblood and culture which so modifiedand on the whole promoted the growthof the old world na.tionalities. In his ownway he worked out his own destiny andwhat he won was his with a more thanordinary right of ownership.8

'Ihe same author also pointed out tha.t, during

the thousands of years when North Americawas free of outside influence, the continentbecame a surprisingly homogeneous linguis-tic "region„:

From the Frozen [Arctic] Ocean to theLand of Fire, without a single excep-tion, the native dialects, though vary-ing infinitely in words, are marked bya peculiarity in construction which isfound nowhere else on the globe, andwhich is so foreign to the genius of our

[English] tongue that it is no easy matterto explain it. It is called by philologiststhe polysynthetic construction .... Itseeks to unite in the most intimate man-ner all relations and modifications withthe leading idea, to merge one in theother by altering the forms of the wordsthemselves and welding them together,to express the whole in one word, and tobanish any conception except as it arisesin relation to others.9

AccordingtoUniversit6Laval1inguistPierreMartin, this striking particularity is still rec-ognized by modern linguistics. It seems toindicate the existence of a conception of theworld common to all Native American cul-tures; further, it helps to account for the fun-damentalunityof.Americanphilosophyandto

CHAPTERS I FirstNations'Perspectives 211

explain the absence from America of religiousor economic wars. For the Amerindian, life I.scircular, and the circle generates the energyof beings. Life is merely a great chain of rela-tionships among beings. Humans acquire

power only to the degree that they can chan-nel and circulate energy (material and spirit-ual possessions). Pierre Clastres, in his bookLcz soci.c'£c` corzfrc J'c'fci£, reports what Francis

Huxley observed among the Amerindians ofSouth America:

It is the Chief's role to be generous andto give away all that is asked of him:in some Indian tribes, the Chief canalways be recognized in that he ownsless than the others and wears the mostshabby ornaments. The remainder is

gone in gifts .... 'Ihe situation is exactlythe same among the Nambik-waradescribed by Claude Levi-Strauss ....'Ihere is no need to cite more examples,

for this relationship between Indiansand their Chief is consistent right acrossthe continent. Avarice and power arenot compatible; to be Chief, one has tobe generous.10

Amerindians have a fundamental respectfor life a.nd for the complementary nature ofbeings, who are all its forms of expression. Theyhave no desire to affirm their supremacy overany other creature. 'Ihey do not even domes-ticate animals, for animals, like humans, pos-sess a spirit and liberty. The Amerindian doesnot exploit. Daniel Garrison Brinton furtherobserved in America "the entire absence of theherdsman's life with its softening associations.Throughout the continent, there is not a singleauthentic instance of a pastoral tribe, not oneof an animal raised for its milk, and very fewfor their flesh.''11

212 PART ll I Challenges and New Directions

Ill. Ecological Constraints Pectlliarto AmericaAmerindians deserve no credit, of course, forthe experience their continent has undergone.Civilizations are but the products of a chain ofcircumstances in the destiny of Earth, our com-mon habitat; they are shaped by the constraintsofclimateandgeography(forexample,proxim-ity to others or states of isolation). Too often,when historians and social scientists try toexplain the origins of human social evolution,they describe communal living as the primor-dial form of society. Nevertheless, superficialdescriptions of this stage of evolution show thatmodern people have long since lost all notion ofthe intellectual and spiritual tools with whichthey could have preserved a dignified image oftheir past and thus of their own human nature.Moreover, they have been so blinded by a falsi-fled, learned image of their material evolutionthat they have been unable to realize that thespiritual heritage they encountered on their"discovery" of America was one they too must

have possessed at a certain period in the OldWorld-before they lost it because of the con-straints that led to the development of their

present type of civilization.AsfortheAmerindians,whentheyfoundthe

whites lost on the shores of their continent-theGreat Island on the Turtle's back-they were infull possession of the spiritual gifts referredto earlier. Possessions and wealth circulatedfreely, according to the law of the great circleof relations. This was not so much because of

greater morality among Amerindians thanamong Europeans as because of the physicalcontext-the geomorphological constraints

peculiar to America.Accordingly, all first-hand accounts state that

the starving, frightened, intolerant people whobegan landing here in 1492 were received withrespectandhumanity.Theyfoundsuchharmony,

liberty, and tolerance tha.t many began to leavetheir homelands for the new world of America.

Although seriously threatened by the warsand diseases their pale visitors brought withthem, the Indians, believing in the existenceof a plan known only to the Master of Life,neverrebelledagainsttheirfate.'Iheydefendedthemselves only when it was necessary, beca.useIndians did not know "the art of war": theyunderstood infinitely better the art of peace.Resolutely and generously, they undertookthe task of "Americizing the White Man,"[2 thatis, doing everything possible to help this newchilddiscovertheessential,primordialwisdomof the new Earth-Mother he had just found.

IV. The Amerindiaffi Idea ®f Greati®n

All Amerindians worshipped the Great Spirit,the Great Mystery, the Great Power, the Sky,the Master of Life, whom they called eitherFather or Grandfather, not so as to masculin-ize the Creator but to represent the ultimatecreative and protective force, source of all lifeand all power.

More concretely, all Amerindians refer to theEarth as their mother, composed like them ofbody, mind, and spirit. The spirit that governsthe Earth and materially produces life is fem-inine. To the Wendat, the Earth was createdby a woman named Aa-taentsic, who camefrom a celestial world. 'Ihe Great Turtle tookher onto his back and ordered the animals tospread there a small amount of earth broughtup from the bottom of the sea. The woman,together with the two sons to whom she soon

ga.ve birth, founded and arranged Earth forthe human race. 'Ihe two sons vied with oneanothertoimposetheirpersonalnotionofwhathuman life should be: one, who was too good,wanted it to be easy, while the other strewedit with obstacles and dangers. Their mothercaused balance to prevail, and so the human

:o leave

Lenca.

Ie Wars

ht withistenceDf Life,

ifended)ecauser': theyfpeace.

IertookI,"12 that

bis newwisdomund.

Eation

lt Spirit'the Sky.d eitherasculin-|ltimate)f all life

fer to theI them of

90Vems:e is fem-

5 created

ho camertle tooklimals toL broughtW0man,she soonEarth forwith onein of whattoo good,I strewed.I motherLe human

world became what it is: a place of beauty andorder but one where the ordeals that are part ofthe human condition encourage compassion, af.undamental moral dimension of life.

To an Amerindian, woman represents rea-son, the being who educa.tes man, orients hisfuture, and anticipates society's needs. Manacknowledges in woman the primordial pow-ers of life and a capacity to understand itslaws. As regards the organization and direc-tion of society, the role assigned to womanis in a sense superior to that of man. This ismost evident in "matriarchal" Amerindiansocieties, but it is equally true for those called"patriarchal," including most nomadic soci-

eties. These must follow a patrilinear orderwhen founding their institutions-because ofman's preponderant role in the material andspiritual quest for the vital necessities-butthey are not in fact patriarchal. 'Ihere is onlyan outward a.ppearance of masculine power;the sense of closeness to the Earth is reinforcedby an awareness of direct dependence on itsvital products (which, like humans, are bornof the Ea.rth). It may be advanced that the vastmajority of the nomadic peoples of America arematricentric in their ideological and spiritualconception of the world.

Unlike Wendat-Iroquois culture, which pos-sesses agriculture and the trading power thatit brings, members of nomadic societies areobliged to remain in a purer and more intim-ate harmony with the spirit of the Earth andits children: animal, plant, a.nd others. Nomadsare more closely tied to their mother, the Earth,than are the semi-sedentary. Their cultureis centred on lightness, in every sense of theterm: that is, it requires an optimal harmony.Their highly complex ideology is more alert tothe forces of the universe. 'Ihey are wise and

peaceful, like all those who are close to nature,but in a particularly exemplary way.

CHAPTERS I First Nations' Perspectives 213

V. The Matriarchy

Johann Jakob Bachofen has described the matri-archy, or "gynecocracy," as he termed it, as astage in human evolution, with any deviationfrom it representing an imbalance:

We have stated [previously] that the

gynecocracy was the poetry of history;we may add that it represents the periodof profane intuition and of religious pre-monition. It is the time of piety, of super-stition, of wise moderation, of equity. Allthese qualities, engendered by the same

principle,area.ttributedbytheAncients,with surprising unanimity, to the gyne-Cocratic peoples without distinction.13

Amerindian societies, so steeped in the greatcircle of relations, are only very rarely patri-centric. To support the thesis of widespreadmatriarchy among prehistoric Amerindian

populations, some authors have tried to estab-lish a close relationship between the processof acculturation following epidemiologicaldepopulation and the erosion of matrilinearity.As historian Shepard Krech Ill argues:

Comparative data from outside theNorthern Athapascan region suggestfairly precise connections between theintensity of acculturation pressures andthe erosion of matrilineal descent prim-ciples within two generations, and thesubstitution of neolocal for matrilocal

postmarital residence in the same timespan .... The more acculturated mem-

bersofa.societymayabandonmatrilocal

practices and matrilineal ideologies andterminologyinfavorofbilateralandgen-erational systems prior to less accultur-ated members; or the more acculturated

214 PART 11 I Challenges and New Directions

members may si`mp/y not 6e i'nteres{edin traditional pra.ctices.14

According to AmerindiaLn gynocentristthought, the patriarchal theory of evolution,no matter how refined and intellectualized, isnothing but an apology for racism, sexism, andwhat we term ``androcentrism," defined as anerroneous conception of nature that places manat the centre of creation and denies non-human

(and indeed, non-masculine) beings their par-ticularspiritualityandtheirequalityinrelationto life's balance.

Modern woman longs for the day when"woman's persevering influence, rejecting the

false and the conventional which are in a senseman's trademark, will rediscover the true pathsof nature.'']5 'Ihis woman finds her most power-ful inspiration in the Amerindian woman. Itwas a Jesuit, Father Lafitau, who first revealed tothe world the essence of democratic Americanthought when he observed the matricentristmechanism that is the real basis of Iroquoissociety,sinceitrepresentsthekeytotheremark-able social equilibrium ofAmerindian societies.Speaking of Iroquois women, he said in 1724:

Nothing is more real however than thewomen's superiority. It is they who reallymaintain the tribe, the nobility of blood,the genealogical tree, the order of gener-ations and conservation of the families.In them resides all the real authority: thelands, fields and all their harvests belongto them; they are the souls of the coun-cils, the arbiters of peace and war; theyhold the taxes and the public treasure; itis to them that the slaves are entrusted;they arrange the marria.ges; the childrenare under their authority; and the orderof succession is founded on their blood.'Ihe men, on the contrary, are entirely

isolateda.rLd[irnitedtothemselves.'Iheirchildren are strangers to them.16

0n the different conceptions of feminine lawheld by Europeans and Amerindians, this mis-siona.ry to the Huron and Iroquois noted thatin those nations the man must offer a consider-able gift to the house of the woman he wantsfor his wife:

'Ihe present made by the husband to his

wife'slodgeisatruecoemptionbywhichhe buys, in some sort, this household'salliance. 'Ihere is this difference [fromthe Roman custom of coemption] thatthe husband gives the present whereas,with the Romans, the wife gave it, giv-ing three marked cents, as the symbolof this coemption. The reason for thisdifference is that, with our Indians,the wives are mistresses and do not goaway from their homes, while, with theRomans, they went into the house andunder their husband's jurisdiction, sotha.ttheyhadtobuytherighttobemoth-ers of a family.17

This deference toward the woman reflectsthe recognition, in matricentric societies, ofa human brotherhood vested 'in the Earth-Mother, source of respect for personal visionin those societies. Non-Native writers still

frequently do not perceive this fundamentalcultural difference. Instead, they tend to insiston depicting Amerindian societies, especiallyhuntingsocieties,asbeinggovernedbythenat-urally more imposing men, whereas the realityis quite different. Bachofen, again, offers histhoughts on gynocentric societies, character-ized by order and gentleness, as compared withandrocentric societies, characterized by harsh-ness and moral confusion:

'Ihe cult of reproductive maternity gave

way to that of sterile pleasure. For man,sex is for his pleasure, while for womanit is the duty of procreation sanctified bysuffering. Under her reign, perpetuatingthe species had been the dominant pre-occupa.tion, imposed by an exclusivelymoral force with chastity as a necessaryand inevitable condition. Man made self-ish debauchery the supreme good, estab-lishing his excess as natural law, using,to satisfy them, the brutal constraintimposed by his more vigorous muscles.'Ihis dual, contradictory tendency of the

sexes is indisputable; it is still apparenttodayineverythingtheysayand.do;maledomination has instilled in our civiliza-tion and our morality a profound corrup-tion that erodes and dries up the sourcesof life, lowering happiness to the basestforms of pleasure. The masculine mottocontinues to be: War and Lust, the femin-ine: Continence and Peace.18

The "high status" of Amerindian womenis not, as some authors have declared, "theresult of their control over the tribe's economicorganization." The matricentric thought inthese societies springs from the Amerindian'sacute a.wareness of the genius proper to woman,which is to instill into man, whom she educates,the social and human virtues he must know tohelp maintain the relations that are the essenceof existence and life. Women do not controlanythingthroughsome``force"theypossess,as

JudithK.Brownwouldhaveit;theyactthroughthe natural intuition that Creation communi-cates to those who are open to its laws. Man, asBachofenobserves,doesnotpossessthisgeniusfor educating: ``It is by caring for her child thatwoman, more than man, learns how to exceedthe narrow limits of selfishness, to extend her

CHAPTERS I FirstNations` Perspectives 215

solicitude to other beings, to strive to preserveand embellish the existence of others."2°

When he is in command-which itself is adeparture from nature-man can only opt formaterial wealth, for he lacks woman's intimateunderstanding of the price and value of life.He bases his power on brute force. Woman,however, naturally opts for peace and stability;her power is founded on the education of theinner strength (the quest for vision). Woman'sthoughts are long, out of concern for human-ity; man's are short, a result of personal andnational pride.

Natural man, that is, one who belongs toa matricentrist society, entrusts his seed towoman, who conceives, nourishes, and edu-Gates it. Thus filled with goodness, humanity,and gratitude, man cheerfully carries out hisrole as protector. 'Ihroughout time, a large partof the spiritual burden of gynocentric societiesis that Earth, a woman, is under the dominationof patriarchal man.

Georgina Tobac, a sage of the Dene nation,crystallizes in one sentence the anguish experi-enced by the Native when the Earth is assailedby modern man: ``Every time the white peoplecome to the North or come to our land and starttearing up the land, I feel as if they are cuttingmy own flesh; because that is the way we feelabout our land. It is our flesh.''2t

When fifteenth- and sixteenth-centuryEuropeans, products of societies in whichoppression was the norm if not the rule, cameto America, they found territories, villages,towns, and cities organized in such a way as torespect the circular chain of all orders of life,notably the four elements that correspond tothe four cosmic directions. While these Nativenations were not exempt from the dissent, con-flicts of interest, or armed confrontations thatare peculiar to human nature, none of themtried to impose the philosophical or religious

216 PART 11 I Challenges and New Directions

principle whereby man cnd nor zuorrzcz7"an The multi-millennial Amerindian experienceand must exploit the non-human beings that demonstrated the great circle's civilizing poten-are necessary for their survival until they have tial, as well as the personal strength of the indi-been exhausted. vidua.I who finds his or her place within it.

'Ihe image of the circle clearly dominates Sioui's thinking. Among First Nations thinkers

and peoples he is not alone in this. Consider, to begin, the metaphor used by First Nations todescribe the continent on which they live. Here is Mary Ellen Turpel:

First Nations peoples use the expression Turtle Island to refer to North America,whichisthoughtofasashellofaturtlesurroundedbyoceans.'Iheimagesofthepro-tectiveshelljuttingoutandthelivingcreaturewithinmakeapowerfulmetaphorforthe connection with and respect for the land that all First Nations cultures share.22

'IheimageofTurtlelslandisapowerfulone.Fundamentally,itbidsustothinkoftheland

as essentially alive and therefore as vulnerable. 'Ihe people, in turn,live on the back of theturtle, so their prosperity is tied inextricably to the health of the living land. And an island,of course, is encz.rcJecz by water. 'Ihe water and the weather it brings provide the medium inwhich the living land moves and flourishes. Everything is co7trzccfccz in the metaphor: theturtle itself-its hard outer shell and its soft insides-as well as the people on its back andthe medium in which everything is set.. 'Ihis provides a clue to the importance of the circle,emphasizing the connectedness of all things, animate (the turtle, the people, and the spiritworld) and inanimate (the water, the shell of the turtle). Another notion brought to mind bythe circle is that of cqL[clJ!.fp. All points on the circumference of a circle are equidistant fromthe centre and so are equal with respect to that point.

Theimagealsoinvolvestheindispensabilityofcontinuousc[.rczt/flfi.on.'IhisshowsupintheradicalsocialequalitythatgovernstherelationsofmostFirstNationssocieties.'Ihisequalitymanifests itself, as Sioui reports, in the circulation of goods and possessions among membersof a tribe. The chief is not distinguished from others in virtue of the material wealth he orshe is able to accumulate and display. On the contrary, the chief is distinguished precisely bybeing the most willing to relinquish these things to others. He or she can thus be thought ofas the one who keeps the movement of goods and possessions forever in continuity. Or thinkof the ubiquity of "talking circles" in First Nations cultures. To resolve an issue, everyone sitsin a circle and exchanges points of view in an effort to achieve consensus. No single perspec-tive is taken to be I.nfrl.ns!.cczJJy privileged, unlike with more hierarchically organized social

structures. Rather, the emphasis is on the circulation of points of view among the group.The idea of continual circulation should also remind us of a theme explored in Chapter 3:

the way that energy moves through ecosystems. Recall the quote from I. Baird Callicott:

Adescriptionoftheecosystembeginswiththesun....Solarenergyflowsthrougha circuit called the biota. It enters the biota through the leaves of green plants and

CHAPTER 8 I First Nations' Perspectives

coursesthroughplant-eatinganimalsandthenontoomnivoresandcarnivores.Atlastthetinyfractionofsolarenergyconvertedtobiomassbygreenplantsremain-inginthecorpseofapredator,animal feces,plantdetritus,orotherdeadorganicmaterial is garnered by decomposers-worms, fungi, and bacteria.23

We will have much more to say later in the chapter about the possibilities for convergenceandreciprocitybetweenFirstNationsandWesternapproachestonature.Here,itisimportantto notice how well Callicott's comments fit the image of the circle. There is no single thingor type of thing that has a privileged place in the circulation of energy that gives life to thebiosphere. There is instead radical cqucz/z.fry coupled with a profound I.nferdcperzdcJzcc.

® Confronting Myths of the EcologicalAmerindian

Whatarewetomakeofsioui'sinvocationoftheEarth-Mother,the"sourceofrespectforper-sonal vision" in matriarchal societies? Reference to a figure like this draws attention to thestrikingresemblancebetweentheprinciplesofAmerindianecologyandGaia'Iheory,theviewthat the biosphere is a self-regulating super-organism (see Chapter 3, section E, for more onGaia Theory). At least as articulated by Sioui, it seems that Amerindians mz.gbf be willing toaccept this picture, suitably filled out. But let's leave this question to one side (Bruce Moritoreturns to it briefly, below). 'Ihe more pressing problem concerns the seemingly essentialistandromanticizedviewofAmerindiansbeingpresentedbySioui.Sioui'spreferenceforEarth-Mother imagery is clearly related to the positive role he assigns to women in First Nations'culture. Here again is what he says about this:

'Ihe matricent.ric thought in these societies springs from the Amerindian's acute

awareness of the genius proper to woman, which is to instill into man, whom sheeducates, the social and human virtues he must know to help maintain the rela-tions that are the essence of existence and life. Women do not control anythingthrough some "force" they possess, as Judith K. Brown would have it; they actthrough the natural intuition which Creation communica.tes to those who areopen to its laws.

In spite of his dismissal of Judith K. Brown's views, an uncareful reading of Sioui mightsuggestthathestillsupportstheideathattheAmerindianwomanisessentiallyornaturallyecologically attuned in a way or to a degree that non-Amerindia.ns and Amerindian menare not. Amerindian women are, after all, said to be more "open" to the laws of Creationthan others. This way of thinking might then invite a dangerous-because distorting-mythologizing of Amerindians. Although, as Bruce Morito argues, Sioui himself cczrz7zofbe saddled with this sort of essentialist claim, it has been and remains a tempting one formany people writing about Amerindian ,cultures. To help sort out the complexities here,let's turn to Morito's analysis.

217

218 PART Il I Challengesand New Directions

THE "ECOLOGICAL INDIAN" AND ENVIRONMENTALISM

Brttce REorito

The idea of the ecological Indian has beenand continues to be employed for bothenvironmental and political purposes.Environmentalists used the idea in the "KeepAmerica Beautiful" campaign of 1971, captur-ing it in the image of the "Crying Indian" (IronEyes Cody) to advance a critique of the dom-inant sector's environmental record.24 At thetime of this writing, the movie Auczfc[r has beenreleased. It advances the same theme (and isenjoying record attendance). 'Ihe theme is a cri-tique of western European-based destructiveattitudes toward the environment and towardindigenous cultures. The image of the indigen-ous person as an environmentally benign pres-ence has become an icon of a counterculturemovement intent on criticizing Western valuesand practices by identifying them as the causesof environmental and social degradation.

This movement, represented by the likes ofMontaigne, Lahontan, Thoreau, Muir, ErnestThompson Seton, Archie Belaney (Grey Owl),has used "the ecological Indian" to advancecultural critique to the point where the con-cept has become a widespread counterculturalicon, representing ecologically better times, averitable prime of human/environment rela-tions. In the field of environmental ethics a.nd

philosophy, this icon represents an alternativeto Western European, anthropocentric, andcapitalist perspectives, the root causes of ourenvironmental crisis.25 Baird Callicott was oneof the earlier environmental ethicists to citeAboriginal thought and practice as an alterna-tive to Western forms.26 Donald Hughes takesAboriginal world views as a model of an eco-logically benign lifestyle, one that recognizesand protects the interconnectedness and inter-

dependency of all things, such that people'sbehaviour leaves the environment unspoi|ed.27He describes Aboriginal people as living in"perfectharmony"withtheland.Whendescrib-

ing elders' knowledge of plants, he says thatthey were able to "tell the use of every plant inthe ecosystem," indicating a.n intimate connec-tion with Mother Earth.28

Does this "ecological Indian" and MotherEarth imagery in fact represent Aboriginalworld views?

I® History and "the EcologicalEndiaEL"

Sam Gill argues that prior to the 1800s, it is dif-ficult to find evidence of conceptions of MotherEarth imagery, a key image associated withthe idea. of the ecological Indian in indigen-ous peoples' cosmologies. Early "anthropo-logical" accounts or the stories of Aboriginal

people were devoid of this conception.29 Gillidentifies 1855 as the date for the "first indica-tion of the ea.rth as a major religious concep-tion" in Aborigina.I .cultures.30 In 1877, it had

become a popular notion used by Wanapumchief Smoholla and was fostered in Americanscholarship by the likes of J.W. Ma.cMurrayand James Mooney in 1890 and 1896, respect-

ively. According to Gill, the best explanationfor the emergence of the conception of theEa.rth as mother in Aboriginal cultures is thatit served a. political end; it served as a basis to

criticize American expansion by establishingan unassaila.ble moral authority for the Native

position. It grounded Aboriginal peoples'right to land by reference to divine author-ity, thereby undermining US justifications forwestward expansion. It became a means of

distinguishing Aboriginal forms of ground-ing land rights from Western European forms.An alleged statement by Tecumseh to GeneralW.H. Harrison of the US army in 1810 during atreaty negotiation is often used emphasize thisdistinction. Tecumseh is said to have refusedto a.ccept Harrison's invitation to sit on a cha.ir,stating, ``The sun is my father and the earth ismy mother; she gives me nourishment a.nd Irepose upon her bosom."3L

Western European culture has long beenfascinated with Aboriginal people, conceiv-ing them as "noble savages,"32 or "truly natural

philosophers,''33 whose manners and customsare engendered by the pure light of nature.'Ihis fa.scination has also long been exploited

(since at least the 1600s), as indicated by theuseoftheJcsztz.fRe/czfz.oris.34Theseweredescrip-

tions of Aboriginal peoples' lives and cultureswritten by priests who lived with Aboriginal

people. 'Ihey were edited and published dur-ing the seventeenth and eighteenth centuriesto raise financial support for the Jesuit move-ment. 'Ihomas Hobbes, John Locke, and othersalsousedvariousconceptionsoftheAboriginal

personality to model what they considered a"state of nature," which described the human

condition before it was shaped by social, polit-ical, and legal orders. When British interests inNorth America turned from mining and tradeto colonization and plantations, the concep-tion of Aboriginal people shifted to that of "theignoble savage," especially as conflicts withAboriginal people grew.35

Characterizations of Aboriginal peoplethat have shaped much of the dominant soci-ety's views, then, were typically formulatedto advance some social, political, or religiousagenda. European colonizers justified theiractions partly on the grounds that becausethey were ignorant savages, Indians had to beconverted to Christianity and adopt European

CHAPTER8 I FirstNations'Perspectives 219

ways. As ignorant but noble savages, they

vyere seen as earlier versions of Europeanswho had long since been Christianized andmade civil.

One effect of this polarized characteriza-tion is illustrated in the attitudes of DuncanCampbell Scott during the early to mid-1900s.Scott was deputy superintendent of IndianAffairs and became the chief instrument ofIndianassimilationpoliciesforCanada'slndianDepartment. He held the historical Indian

(the noble savage) in highest esteem, even ashe exercised some of the most culturally and

psychologically destructive assimilation poli-cies, designed tb eradicate "Indian culture," oncontemporary Aboriginal people. His concep-tion of the true Indian was heavily romanti-cized in his poetry (e.g., "Powassan's Drum"),which lamented the loss of the historical wildIndia.n, and this seemed to be his justificationfor implementing era.dication and assimilation

policiesonlivingAboriginalpeople.Actualliv-ing Indians were not "real" Indians, in his view,so assimilation and eradication of cultural rein-nants were the only policies that made sense.

A number of questions can be raised.Does "the ecological Indian" accurately rep-resent Aboriginal culture? What impacts onAboriginal people has the use of the concepthad? A number of historical, ethnological,anthropological, and political thinkers (OlivePatricia Dickason; William Cronon; ShepardKrech Ill; Da.niel Francis) have attempted toshow that it is a serious distortion. But beforedescribing how the conception is a distortion,it is worth dwelling on its historical develop-ment. Bruce Trigger and Wilcomb Washburnexplain that a nineteenth-century ideologicalbelief in evolutionary progress contributed tothe entrenchment of the idea that Aboriginal

people lived in a primitive state. Accordingly,Aboriginal societies were seen as backward

220 PART 11 I Challenges and New Directions

predecessors of Europeans, who had long sinceevolved (progressed) from that state.36

CastingtheAboriginalpersonalityasuncor-rupted but primitive has long been associatedwith seeing them as politically and legallynaive and lacking genuine reasoning capacity.As European and North American social criticshave attempted to find means to effect socialand environmental change, they have com-

pared their societies' values, beliefs, and prac-tices against those of an idealized Aboriginalsociety. During the 1700s, Rousseau proposedthe idea of a Golden Age of humanity, a timebefore civilization when there was a balance``between the indolence of the primitive state

and the petul`ant activity of our vanity."37 '|hesavagewas,forRousseau,evidencethatthepur-

pose of human life is to remain in this state,the ``veritable prime of the world." His idea wasthat Aboriginal people living in a primitivestate were "free, good and happy . . . accordingto their nature" without knowledge of good orevil.38 'Ihey had no use for law or morality andinfacthadnoconceptionofeither.'Iheylivedina kind of blissful ignorance of evil while enjoy-ing the embrace of Mother Earth.

As "veritable primes of the world," Aboriginal

people were used as models of what is good inhuman nature. One of the more influential con-temporary papers advancing a similar critiqueof western culture is Annie Booth and Harvey

Jacobs's "Ties That Bind: Native AmericanBeliefs as a Foundation for EnvironmentalConsciousness."39 It is much more nuanced thanRousseau's version, but it has a.1so been used to

praiseAboriginalcultureasaparadigmofgoodenvironmental stewardship in much the samewaythatRousseauromanticizesitforpurposesof social critique.

What do Aboriginal people themselves sayabout their relationship tg the Earth? GeorgesS±owi,1nhisFOTanAmeTindianAutobistory,sta:tes..

Every expression of life, materialor immaterial, demands of theAmerindian respect and the spon-taneous recognition of an orderthat, while incomprehensible tothe human mind, is infinitely

perfect. This order is called theGreat Mystery. To the traditionalAmerindian, life finds its meaningin the implicit and admiring rec-ognition of the existence, role, and

power of the forms of life that com-pose the circle. Amerindians, bynature, strive to respect the sacredcharacter of the relations that existamong all forms of life.4o

ThispassagesuggeststhatAboriginalpeoplesee themselves as resembling Rousseau'sdescription. A careful reading of Sioui, how-ever, indicates that caution is called for whendescribing Aboriginal environmental per-spectives. First, his account, while focusingon sacredness, does not imply that Aborigina.1

people are politically and mora.1ly naive orinnocent. Furthermore, Sioui does not arguethat the Aboriginal world view produces per-fect harmony with nature. Rather, it implies aresponsibility to strive to respect all beings.As will soon become evident, the reason forhaving to strive to act respectfully, as opposedto simply being respectful by nature, is a com-

plex matter.Similarly, Gill argues that finer distinctions

are needed to describe Native environmental

perspectives. For instance, when criticizingascriptions of Mother Earth cosmogonies toZuni and Luisefio cultures, he points out thatthe grammar of Moth'er Earth language doesindeed attribute female characteristics to theEarth but not divine characteristics. WhenMother Earth is recognized as creator, she plays

arelativelyminorrolecomparedtothatofasunfather or Earth doctor (male figure).41 Thesedetails and subtleties of Aboriginal thought,Gill suggests, have been occluded by the use of"Mother Earth" imagery.

Even in the colonial records of the European

powers,evidenceofacomplexAboriginalworldview is plentiful. During a council meetingbetweentheSixNa.tionsandthegovernmentofPennsylvania,forinstance,Canassategospeaksfor the Six Nations. He says it makes no sensefor the British to assume that they possess thelands in Maryland, because it is the Six Nationswho come out of the ground, while the Britishcome from beyond the sea. For this reason, theBritish ought to accept the Six Nations as elderbrethren(havingprincipalauthority).'Iheideasof authority and creation associated with "com-ing out of the ground" (coming from MotherEarth) are also closely connected to land rights.They are associated with jurisdictional author-ity whereby being born of a land entitles one toassert authority over foreigners.

The use of totems, or dodaem, further illus-trates the complexity of the Aboriginal/Earthrelationship. The Jcsuz.£ Rc/czf I.o7zs indicate'flow people identified as beaver, otter, and so

®n. Treaties, up to the late mid-1800s, weresigned with dodaem, and the Commission®f Indian Affairs in Albany even identifiedsome Aboriginal visitors as members of the•olf, turtle, and other clans, although usuallyriey would use other designators (e.g., Five!thons, River Indians, Mississauga). WarriorsE=Stooed dodaem on their bodies to enableEEil opponents to identify who was killing

Dodaems could represent the clansin ulich people belonged (in both Iroquoianred Aflishnaabeg societies). 'Ihe clan systemd±ined the order of social relations (e.g.,

couldmarrywhom;howresponsibilitiesinhues, communities, nations, and confeder-

CHAPTER 8 I First Nations' Perspectives

acies were assigned). As such, they were deeplyconnected to systems of social order and func-tioning. In this way, dodaems, however muchthey signified a close connection to the Earth,were also highly important to systems of gov-ernance and legal process. Dodaemic systemsdidnotrepresentstraightforwardintimateandharmonious relationships with the Earth.

Indeed, many representations of dodaemhad turtles, wolves, bears, and so on carryingweaponsofwar(e.g.,warclubs,muskets,knives).War among tribes and natibns was constant, asituation into which Europeans entered as trad-ingpartners;theydidnotcreatewarfareamongAboriginalpeoples.Conflictamongthemselves,therefore, was not unusual. Moreover, conflictcould also occur between human nations andother member nations of the Earth community

(as the story about the rose and the rabbits inthe next section will indicate). If, therefore, therelationship between the Earth and Aborig.inal

people is a mother-human relationship, it isone that sometimes involves deep conf.1ict.'Ihus, the political/legal significance of dodaem

and Mother Earth cosmologies, as Georges Siouistates,isthatpeopleareresponsibleforstrivingto respect the sacredness of others; it is not thatAboriginal people are by their very nature inharmony with Mother Earth.

11. Anishnaabeg andHaudenosaunee Descriptions of theAboriginal PersonalityThe picture of the Aboriginal culture we

gain from oral tradition takes us further intothe complexities of Aboriginal culture. JohnBorrows, an Anishnaabe legal scholar, helps todescribe traditional environmental knowledgeand responsibility in this light:

The once numerous and beautifulroses had suffered a massive decline to

221

222 PART U I Challenges and New Directions

the point where none could be found.A council of animals (including theAnishnaabeg) convened to discussthe matter and determined to searchthe world for any remaining roses.Meanwhile, the rabbits had been grow-ing fatter and more numerous. After along search, hummingbird found oneremaining frail rose, which he carriedback to the council. The rose explained `that the rabbits had eaten all the roses,at which point all the animals bega.n

grabbingtherabbitsbytheears(whichis why they have long ears today) andbuffetingthem.Buttherosecriedoutforthem to stop, because the ra.bbits werenotentirelytoblame.Theothers(includ-ing the Anishnaa.beg) had not beenmindfuloftherabbitsover-eatingandsohadtoacceptpartoftheresponsibi|ity.42

otherapurelyphysicalbeing.Thesetwobeingswarred with one another. After Sky Womanagain conceived, the Anishnaabeg were cre-ated along with Nanabush, the great super-natural teacher and hero. Nanabush came to

possess the pipe and the law of peace after abattlewithhisfather,Epingishmook,whohadearlier killed Nanabush's mother. Nana.bushfoughttorevengehismotherbutwasunabletodefeathisfather.Thepipeofpeacewassmokedinrecognitionofthisstalemate.Strifeandwarwerenotdefeatedtobereplacedbyaharmoni-

Borrows's analysis of this story describes

a duty to be environmentally responsible inthe sense of exercising stewardship respon-sibilities. Ecological balances can go seriouslywrong if stewardship responsibilities areignored,asitappearswasoftenthecase,judg-ingbythenumberofstoriesthathavetodowithstewardship.In"TheRosea.ndtheRa.bbits,"theAnishnaabeg are responsible for controllingthe rabbits' behaviour and possibly numbers.Whentheyfa.il,seriousimbalancesarise,andeveryonesuffers.Suchstories,then,areaboutafa.ilureoftheAnishnaabegintheirresponsibil-itytoactastheCreatorexpectedthemtoact.

At a more fundamental level, creation stor-ies articulate a relationship between good andevil. The Anishnaabeg creation story placesthe creation of human beings amidst disasterand ruin (a flood).43 Kitche Ma.nitou decidedtogiveSkyWomanamate,throughwhomsheconceivedtwobeings-onepurespiritandthe

ous peace. We also find the four directions

(guardian beings who have special powers)doingbattle,attimes,withtheAnishnaabeg.There are battles between Zeegwun (summer)andBebon(winter)overawoman.44Hence,therelationshipswithinnatureareconstitutedasmuchbystrifeasbyharmony;indeed,thetwomust be thought of together in Anishnaa.begcosmology,becauseonedoesnottriumphoverthe other. In fact, the emergence of humancharacteristics is explained by reference tothe twins, one being evil and the other good.Responsibilityforestablishingsocialandpol-iticalorderamidstthecha.oscreatedbyconflictandstrifeforAnishnaabeg,then,becomescen-tral to their world view.

EvildeedsmotivatedtheCreatortoestablishasystemofpunishments~forexample,gameanimals would abandon the Anishnaabegwhen they failed to exercise stewardship.Storiesaboutevilimpulsescausinggreedyanddestructivebehaviour(e.g.,storiesofNanabushandthetrickster)tellofthearisingofcouncilsthatestablishsocialandlegalnormstocontrolsuch impulses. In the struggle between goodand evil, unity and disintegration, harmonyanddiscord,theAnishnaabegfindthemselveshaving to institute normative systems of lawand morality to establish balances betweenthese opposing forces.

Taiaiake Alfred, a Mohawk (Kanien'kehaka),describes the fundamental Haudenosaunee

(Iroquoian) |jel§ona]jty ill a §jmjJal IIlaJII]el, J[f±a6a/aflceofopposi'tes;6a(ance,consequently,is the fundamental principle of good govern-ance.45 The Haudenosaunee tradition explains

(in the Deganawidah epic) how the GreatLeague of peace, itself based on the Great Lawof Peace, was given by the Creator throughthe Peacemaker and Hiawatha.46 Sendingthe Great Law was the Creator's response tothe constant wars between members of theIroquoian nations. The Great Law of peace andIts associated League of peace (constituted of 50sachemsrepresentingeachoftheFiveNations)wasformedinthewakeofthecruelandviciousruleofanOnondagachief,Tadoda:ho\whowas

eventually transformed by the Great Law tobecomeoneofthefoundersoftheconfederacy.Thestoryisaboutcontrollingandtransformingevil by moral and political principles of good

governance. Insofar as this law is designed toovercome the arbitrary anc! capricious rule byterror or might, it resonates with the rule of lawin Western traditions. Indeed, it became themodel on which the i ntercultura] re]atfonshipbetween First Nations east of the MississippiandtheBritishwasorganized.Thissystemwasknown as the Covenant Chain.

Even a cursory glance at the records of IndianAffairs relevant to the Chain shows that com-missioners and governors were quite awareof Aboriginal law, territorial rights, and theinportanceofusingproperprotocol(e.g.,wam-

pum, the pipe) during council meetings and atwhatwerecalled"meetingsatthewood'sedge."TheBritishutilizedexisting"covenant"systems

£;n;:r::£tbhae[,:;£]]avt:::So;°e::i::°hra:n#:::c::Jennings has written a three-volume work onthisrelatibnship,aimedatcorrectingmisrepre-s€ntations of Aboriginal people's political and

CHAPTERS I First Nations' Perspectives 223

military contributions to the history of NorthAmerica.47 The Covena.nt Chain has principally

[O.dowi[fi[ficffilfdpmfifffliibmlmwi/d

Algonquiannations(e.g.,Delaware,Mahikan,Ottawa, Shawnee).

Wampumprotocol,acomplexsystemofcom-munication,agreementrecording,1egitimation,and condolence, was adopted by both BritishandFrench.Itboundsignatorieseconomically,legally, and politically. Territory, usufructoryrights, legal suits, complaints over land trans-actions, and council protocols were governedaccording to the agreements made under theCovenantChain.Theprotocolwas,forthemost

part, defined in accordance with Aboriginaltraditions and accepted by colonial officers

uttov`Thusa`W`\\}S`e\\\et§Thdtiaders.It was not imposed by Europeans. Indeed, thecolonial government (and in many respectstheBoardofTradeandgovernmentinBritain)respectedthisprotocolandtriedtoensurethatagents (e.g., Edmond Andros, Peter Schuyjer,W:11iam|ohnson)whounderstoodthesep;oto-cols and could argue in accordance with themwere assigned to negotiate treaties, alliances,and tracle agreements. British and French cog-nizance of Aboriginal protocol, then, was ineffect a recognition of the rule of law. For thisreason, Europea.ns in North America. had tointeract with Aboriginal people as full moral,

political, and legal agents; they could not treatthem as primitive savages.

IIE. ImplicatioH§ for EflvironmentalThought arid EthicsMuch of the environmental movement's use of"the ecological Indian" in advancing the cause

of environmental protection has been based onadistortion.Now,oneresponsemightbe,"Whatis the harm in using such a distortion, whenthere is so much at stake?" To begin answeringthis question, it should be noted that this use

2Z4 PART 11 I Challenges and New Directions

of a misconception belongs to a pattern. 'Iheuse of "Gaia" in James Lovelock's Gaia hypoth-esis is part of this pattern.48 The notion of Gaiacaptured the imagination of environmental-ists in the 1990s. Gaia is a conceptual devicethat represents the cybernetic capacity of theEarth, which characterizes the Earth as a feed-backmechanism.Lovelockusedthecyberneticmodel to argue that life on Earth cannot beexplained by analyzing its component partsalone; rather, the configuration and balance ofcomponent parts (chemical distributions) canbe explained only by presupposing that theEarth is alive.

Granted, in his epilogue Lovelock waxes

poetical, drawing on the association betweenGaia (as Mother Earth) and familial ties, butthisassociationisnotcontainedinhisanalysis.Environmentalists have done the same in anattempt to develop a Gaian ethic that connectsan ethic of care and nurturing with ecology.'Ihis is not to criticize ethics of care as such;

it is to criticize the exploitation of an ideathat has nothing to do with caring and withforcing an association to be made. Gaia, as aself-balancingcyberneticsystem,doesnotcarefor people and does not care whether peoplecare. The way in which the Gaia hypothesis isexploited, then, is of a piece with the way "theecological Indian" has been exploited to serveenvironmentalist ends.

To expand on the previous point, examiningSteve Sapontzis's argument can serve to showhowusingdistortedconceptscanbeself-defeat-ing.49 Sapontzis would have us suppress preda-toractivitybysupplyingpredatorswithneeded

proteinsothattheyneednothunt.'Ihegeneralprincipleistosuppressdestructivebehaviourinan attempt to make the world a harmonious and

peaceful place. Sapontzis, to his credit, is con-sistent with his principle of living in harmony

by taking it to its logical conclusion. However,if ecosystems are constituted of both construct-ive and destructive forces,5° as Aboriginal cos-mologies recognize, then Sapontzis's principleactually commits us to undermining naturalrelations (constructive-destructive, predator-

prey, parasitic-symbiotic, harmonious-dis-cordant). If an environmental ethic is to aimat protecting ecological processes, it cannotaim at creating harmony between all beingswhereby all beings can flourish. Indeed, it isonly because of the tension created by the playofopposingforcesthatthereisanecosysteminthe first place. To try to eliminate the destruc-tive forces, then, is to try to eliminate the verything we want to protect.

IV. Consequences for AboriginalPeople

Just as applying the principle of harmony canundermine ecosystems, so too can applyingthe idea of the ecological Indian undermineAboriginal people's culture and way of life.Sandy Grande explains how the very intentof protecting the ecological Indian harms her

people.51 Using conceptualizations of ecologic-allynobleAboriginalpersonalities,sheargues,has been a factor in making Aboriginal peopleinvisible. 'Ihis invisibility is effected throughobjectifying Aboriginal people as represen-tations of what it means to live in a simpler,bygone era, free of the encumbrances of mod-ern technology and civilization.52

This conceptualization contributes to thefurther domination of Aboriginal peoplethrough acts of controlling "language, meta-

phors an`d epistemic frames.''53 By so control-ling language, the dominant society controlsthevoiceofAboriginalpeopleandthepurposesto which giving voice is directed. Such controldetermines how Aboriginal people's identities

are allowed expression and how they will berecognized in the dominant society. As such,Aboriginal people cannot present who they are

(how they self-identify) to others, what theirvalues are, or what their actual environmentalcommitments are but are expected to userepresentations that accord with the ends setby those in a dominant position. Rather than

protecting and alleviating the harmful effectsof colonization, the controlling of languageactually contributes to further colonization.

Like ecological relations, the human/naturerelationship for Aboriginal people is consti-tuted of opposing forces that need to be bal-anced rather than harmonized (where thereis no destruction). The one-sided concep-tualizations used by environmentalists stemfrom a failure to rigorously exercise epistemicresponsibility to examine evidence, knowledgeclaims, and the implications of those claims.'Ihe result of this lack of rigour is to harm and,

in the case of Aboriginal people, to perpetuatehistorical harms.

Were we to recognize the responsibility tobalance opposites, the aim of ethics would notbe to produce harmonious dwelling, if suchdwelling requires suppressing deep-seatedconflict and destruction. Neither would theaim of environmental ethics be to achievea particular state of the Earth, as if we couldestablish a relationship with the Earth at itsveritable prime, which would last forever. Thiswould be to promote a static conception of whatthe Earth should be. If balancing oppositionalforces is core to environmental responsibility,with balancing a dynamic act that takes placecontinually in an evolutionary context, thenenvironmental responsibility needs to be con-ceived more as a continuing fluid process ratherthan as achieving an end-state.

CHAPTER8 I First Nations' Perspectives 225

There may still be much to learn fromAboriginal approaches to the Earth-humanrelationship, but to do so we must abandonthe idea that we are responsible for returningthe Earth to some pristine state. Returning to aformer relationship may, in the end, be impliedby following Aboriginal ways, but returning toa particular state cannot be the goal of environ-mental ethics. If we take Georges Sioui's ideaof striving to respect the sa.credness of otherbeings and the tension of opposites, we wouldframe our moral responsibility more in termsof maintaining relationships in various states.And if relationship, giving and taking, andacknowledging positive and negative forcesare accepted as fundamental to ethics, thenreciprocity, rather than responsibility to returnto a particular state, may be the core princi-

ple on which we base environmental ethics.However, the principle of reciprocity may notseem to amount to much because there is nodefined end to which we should strive. Sincethis essay can only provide a sketch of whata more adequate ethic would look like, it isnot possible to fully articulate an ethic of reci-

procity here.More problems with the idea of the ecological

Indian have been articulated than solutions toenvironmental problems. What has been pre-sented is a mere sketch of a direction that eth-ics needs to take if Aboriginal and ecologica.Iapproaches are to be acknowledged moreadequately. When the need for action becomesmore pressing, this largely negative conclusionmay seem inappropriate. But in the final analy-sis, if the understanding upon which we act isfaulty and self-defeating, then we are ensuringthat the ethic that guides our actions will, inthe end, cause as much as or more harm thanit prevents.

226 PART 11 I Challenges and New Directions

In this chapter's case study, we will return to Morito's crucial notion of how colonizers seekto control language to their benefit. For now, it is important to underline and expand ontwo of his paper's most important contributions to.our understanding of the issues we areinvestigating:(1)thatwecantalkab;utFirstNationsenvironmentalethicswithoutromanti-cizing or essentializing First Nations; and (2) that First Nations cultures cZo have a sound andsustainable environmental ethic, painstakingly worked out over the course of thousands of

years occupying this land.Let's begin with (1). Morito argues that First Nations history should not be characterized as

though there was ever some state of blissful harmony among tribes or between First Nations

generally and nature. At the core of First Nations identity is a normative claim: that we ougbtto recognize the fact of conflict and work so as to achieve a balance of forces in the face of it.For example, Morito asserts that

War among tribes and nations was constant, a situation into which Europeansentered as trading partners; they did not create warfare among Aboriginal

peoples .... Moreover, conflict could also occur between human nations and othermember nations of the Earth community .... If, therefore, the relationship betweenthe Earth and Aboriginal people is a mother-human relationship, it is one thatsometimes involves deep conflict.

'Ihis thought nicely defuses the idealized and highly sentimental version of the human-

mother relationship according to which the two parties are bonded in a harmonious, nurtur-ing, and caring whole. And this insight also takes care of the problem of essentializing thatwe seemed to find in Sioui. Morito rightly notes that Sioui is rzof making a descriptive claimabout First Nations' relationship to the natural world (and to each other) but a normativeone: he is laying out the structure of moral responsibilities for First Nations cultures, notdescribing how First Nations timelessly are. In fact, it appears as though the urge to foiston First Nations cultures the notion that there was-and/or will be-some historical time inwhich perfect harmony is achieved is itself a colonial imposition. It is to take a central tenet ofEuroamericanmythology-thatofthefallfromthedivineembracecoupledwiththehoped-forreturn to it-and project it into a culturally alien context.

One way to avoid such sterile forms of thought is to remember what should be obvious:that we are all-Euroamericans and members of Aboriginal cultures everywhere-of the samespecies. A trivial point no doubt, but as E.O. Wilson has argued, one of the key features ofthis species is that it has historically been a killer of biodiversity on a huge scale wherever ithas gone. To take just one example, when the Polynesians first arrived in New Zealand in thelate thirteenth century, they encountered what Wilson calls a "vast biological wonderland."Most impressive were the moas, large flightless birds that looked a bit like ostriches and were,as it happens, quite delicious. The Maoris wiped out this species within a few decades and

probably also the giant New Zealand eagle that preyed on it. The newly arrived humans alsobrought rats with them, which wiped out many species of birds, reptiles, and amphibians. In

Nor was 1`

Americas win north As:time, Northof bears,gia

years of thespecies wertfleet-of-foot !

Today's Fi]

ponderthesjfrom all of t]as ecologicallength in the

® Tra,Ecologists b€

EfolqgicalKsystem proce{andacrossge]Kwakwaka'w€

practices for sharvested on]so as to protetbin this is do]sad is careful]

E± only frae burned orrfee, or hadr growing s{in rfu rngel

ers seek

pand ons we are:oma.nti-

und andsands of

e human-ls, nurtur-lizing thatttive claimnormativeltures, notrge to foistcal time inral tenet ofehoped-for

)e obvious:of the samefeatures ofwherever italand in theonderland."=s and were,lecades andiumans also

phibians. In

CHAPTER 8 I First Nations' Perspectives

total, more than 20 bird species were eliminated during the first 100 years or so of humanhabitation on the islands. And in case we were inclined to dismiss this as an isolated case,Wilson goes on:

The New Zealand event was only the final chapter in mass extinctions that beganon islands to the north. What we celebrate in the colonization of polynesia as a

grandhistoricalepicforhumanitywasfortherestoflifearollingwaveofdestruc-tion. The vast triangle of archipelagoes that embrace the Pacific are a naturallaboratory for the study of extinction.54

Nor was North America spared the depredations of the "serial killer of the biosphere."55 TheAmericas were colonized in successive waves beginning roughly 14,000 years ago by peoplein north Asia who crossed what was then a.land bridge linking Siberia and Alaska. At thetime, North America was populated by a truly fantastic array of megafauna.: beavers the sizeof bears, giant armadillos, massive camels, woolly mammoths, and more. Within a thousand

years of the arrival of humans-equipped as they were with bow and arrow and fire-thesespecies were nearly all gone, eventually to be replaced by the smaller and generally morefleet-of-foot species we encounter now.

Today'sFirstNationsarethedistantdescendantsofthesepeople,afactthatshouldmakeus

ponder the significance of the myth of the rose and the rabbits, analyzed by Morito. However,from all of this it would be incorrect to draw the conclusion that First Nations cultures areas ecologically unsound as Euroamerican culture is. This brings us to point (2), explored atlength in the next section.

® Traditional Ecological KnowledgeEcologists have been focusing increasingly on the nature and potential of TraditionalEcologicalKnowledge(TEK).TEKcontainsmuchinsightonhowtomonitorandmanageeco-system processes, harvest sustainably, and acquire and transfer ecological knowledge withinand across generations. For example, in British Columbia the Shuswap Interior Salish and theKwakwaka'waka and Nuu-Chah-Nulth peoples of the northwest coast have evolved complex

practices for sustainably harvesting many plant and fungus species. Edible mushrooms areharvested only when mature, and they are cut at the base and the soil is carefully replacedso as to protect the remaining individuals. Many species of root vegetables are harvested,but this is done selectively by size, while smaller roots and propagules are replanted. Thesoil is carefully tilled, and selective burning is also used. Edible berries, fruits, and nuts are

picked only from branches shooting off the bush's main branch, and sometimes the bushesare burned or pruned to encourage future regeneration. Fibrous stems are used for mats,cordage, or baskets, but the stems and leaves are cut only from perennial plants at the end ofthe growing season. Medicinal plants like mountain valerian are selectively harvested a.ndare often regenerated from fragments left in the ground.56

227