The Ecological Indian: Myth and History

If American Indians were so morally righteous and deeply in tune with nature, then why do the ideologues that espouse this fiction demonize tobacco? Didn't Europeans learn the ways of tobacco-smoking from the purest race on earth? Here's what's going on. Said ideologues hate white people even though they themselves may be white. Anything non-white is pure and holy. Anything European or Christian is evil. Hence, we have a body of myths about Indians promulgated in the name of truth. This book shatters them with the tomahawk of historical fact. Read about the American Indians' penchant for destroying vast tracts of land by setting forest fires. Did you know they hunted buffalo by driving entire herds of the beasts off cliffs? This book will set you free from PC lies. Highly recommended.

I believe this book was unfarily rated since it was rated by one angry environmentalist 3 or 4 times. This book had an agenda and the purpose was to get rid of the "Noble Saint" stereotype. It seems that some believe that this book is a conservative book while they don't realize that this book is supported by environmental historians such as William Cronon. My American Indian World views teacher (Choktaw) supports the breaking down of the Noble Savage stereotype, proffessors (Native American Studies proffessors)from my University support it and lecture about the Noble Savage stereotype. Another review mentioned how the book mentioned tribes that were less in tune with nature. That is not true because the hoop of life comes from the Lakota belief that everything has connection. As Cronon said "Why in the debates about pristine natural areas are "primitive" peoples idealized, even sentimentalized, until the moment they do something unprimitive, moder, and unnatural, and thereby fall from environmental grace?" The review critiqued the book saying it focued too much on modern day Indians. I'm not sure if he even read the book because the Chapters on Fire, Buffalo, Eden, and others focused mostly on past Indians. The Lakota when the still lived in the Plains, the Anasazi or Mississipian mound builders of the 10th century, Hohokam, Cree, Cherokee, Blackfeet, Crow, and many others. Like other reviews, this book is targeted at those who believe Indians were some sort of mystical beings that were ecological saints. These stereotypes are harmfull because as soon as an Indian does otherewise, their actions are condemned (ie Makah). Even so called positive stereotypes have negative impacts such as Asians are all smart, better at math, or all know martial arts. You can take the opposite stance and say all Whites are superior, have the better religion and more successfull. Instead of romaticizing the many American Indians, we should respect as a cultural people. The person from the Sierras should try and visit Indian Canyon or the Sun Rise Ceremony at Alcatraz. Native struggles today are usually concerned with sacred lands that was their ancenstral land and not so much on saving the Grey Whale or preservation. Because preservation excludes humans from living within the environment. A good book would be Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the National Parks by Mark David Spence or William Cronon's Uncommon Ground.

Although written in an academic style still a very interesting read. Dispells the myth of the uber-conservationist Indian and replaces it with a more factual, individual, and realistic representation of Native Americans. Many of the reviewers of the book seem to apologize for the information presented and the conclusions that others might reach because of it. The facts are accurate, but truth is not in general favor these days

In this book, Krech sets out to contradict popular perceptions of Native Americans as perfect beings living in harmony with their environments. This doesn't sound like a very nice thing to do at first, but the author clearly states that he feels such images are not only inaccurate generalizations based on biased, outdated European stereotypes, but are dehumanizing in their suggestion that native people are "natural" animals rather than "cultural" humans. He goes on to present a number of case studies showing situations in which Native Americans were indeed cultural humans not living in perfect ecological balance with their surroundings. His treatment of the archaeological evidence is pretty thorough and unbiased. His historical case studies, while relying a bit heavily on potentially biased historic records by White settlers, remain fairly convincing examples of situations in which Native Americans were not perfect conservationists. Unfortunately, after this array of case studies it can be easy to forget that Krech's stated reasons for examining them were to present Native Americans as active human beings rather than passive stereotypes. Instead, readers can end up with a negative feeling about Native American land use practices in general or about Krech in particular, as the reviews below point out. In spite of these flaws, however, the book does raise interesting questions about how perceptions of Native Americans are constructed (both by native people themselves and by others) and about how we should approach environmental issues (including our definition of a "natural" environment) we grapple with today. His writing is clear and issues are presented in a fairly understandable way for a general audience, not just dusty academic types. Although you may not agree with all of the book's conclusions, the issues it raises make it very worthwhle reading material for anyone interested in environmental impact and Native Americans in the past and today.