Made the switch (a few months late on the update)

I will no longer be posting to this site!
Come follow me on the WP!

https://liminalanthropology.wordpress.com/

The Captivity Narrative as a Reflection of Reality

The captivity narrative was a form of literature that was popular throughout New America, from the early seventeenth to late nineteenth centuries. These documents, journals, or rewritten oral accounts were generally written to recount the captives’ experiences under “savage” control. These stories bear strong elements of European ethnocentrism, and helped to serve as a justification for the overall conquest of Native America. This exaggerated perspective however, allows the reader to catch a glimpse into the reality and truth of how the Natives treated their captives and what can be said about their ultimate humanity.

In a compilation of narratives entitled Captured by the Indians: 15 Firsthand accounts, 1750-1870, Frederick Drimmer notes that “Occasionally there is a note of exaggeration or romanticizing in the narratives, but by and large they bear the stamp of truth” (Drimmer 11). This exaggeration can be explored through the association with a subconscious production of objectifies “others” (Ben-Vi xvii).

The Captivity Narrative

The first occurrences of captivity narratives began with the English captives of Barbary pirates in the early seventeenth century. These were early accounts of Europeans who had been brought into slavery through piracy near the North African coast. (Baepler 217). These narratives are comparable to the later Indian captivity narrative, in which the Whites identify themselves as helpless slaves under a barbarous savage captor. These were written in a different era however, when the western ideas of enlightenment had just begun to spark. Ideas of White superiority and Manifest Destiny spread as quickly as the settler population.

Ethnocentrism and Foreignness as a rationale for Conquest

The ideas of this time were what fueled the settlers’ justification for colonizing the New World. What fueled this hegemony though, was a more deeply rooted. Ben-Svi’s concept of  “false foreignness”  argues that, “through elaborate strategies of separation, captives are represented as mutually foreign,” rather than the captives being able to identify with their captors (Ben-Svi ix-x). This view of being mutually foreign, suggests that rather than noticing the similarities of humanity between their peoples, they took more notice to their differences. As stated by William B. Hesseltine, these differences were recognized by the settlers, to be sins committed by the Natives (Venebles xii).

Elements of this extreme ethnocentrism can be seen in the captivity narrative of Mary Rowlandson, a puritan woman captured by the Wampanoag in Massachusetts in the midst of King Phillips War (Venebles 225). Her narrative style is focused on seeing the Native Americans as heathenistic rather than humanistic. Upon being taken, Rowlandson deems her captors to be “Barbarous Creatures,” and that the “roaring, and singing and dancing, and yelling of those black creatures in the night… made the place a lively resemblance of hell” (Venebles 226).She attributes much of the treatment she received under captivity to the “favour of God,” rather than the actions of comparable human beings. For example, they allowed her to carry less than the entire group while she was wounded, however they would not let her rest from work on the Sabbath day (Venebles 228-229). The first shows an element of compassion, to give Rowlandson an easier load to carry while injured, but the latter shows them unwilling to break their egalitarian ideas to allow one person not to work. 

Painting depicting Rowlandson and her Captors

Compared to other captives of her time, Mary Rowlandson spent a relatively short time under captivity, eighty-three days (Venebles 233). Her narrative is primarily focused on defining her captors as the enemy, and longing for her eventual escape. There were several others who lived the duration of their lives under captivity, and their experiences give a more ample perspective into the everyday lives of captives.

                Many of those who were captured by Native Americans had another perspective, and were able to be washed of their White blood and accepted into their new family (Drimmer 12). In the case of Mary Jemison, when given the choice to leave her captivity she declined, and lived until age ninety on the Seneca Buffalo Creek Reservation (Venebles 237). The language of Jemison’s narrative differs greatly from that of Mary Rowlandson. Upon her arrival into captivity in the year 1755, her new captors gave her new clothing, and welcomed her as their sister. Regarding the Seneca Nation, Jemison states that “Their wants were few, and easily satisfied; and their cares were only for to-day…If peace ever dwelt with men, it was in former times, in the recesses from war, amongst what are now termed barbarians” (Venebles 235). Mary Jemison’s account is an important comparison to many captivity narratives, although it is the opposing extreme. Her story reflects a more romanticized story, and focuses on the kind deeds that were bestowed upon her. These kind deeds are seen as a completely different way of living than was common among the settlers at this time, and still shows the prescription of otherness, even if in a more positive light.

Reflections of Reality

                The famous case of John Tanner allows the reader to see the complete polar opposites of some other narratives in one man’s story. Tanner’s family had become abusive to him after the death of his mother, and he often longed to “live among the Indians” (Drimmer144). When he was ten years old, he was taken by the Shawnee. In his first family, he had been taken to replace a woman’s deceased son, however  his new father abused him and refused to accept him as his son, while his new mother “would throw her arms about me and he would beat us both together” (Drimmer 151). This is an important occurrence as it shows immediately the parallels between the two cultures, and reiterates the strong idea of mother as refuge. Also important to note is that after leaving this first family to live with an Ojibway family, Tanner was no longer abused. His new father was “always indulgent and kind to me, treating me like an equal. When speaking to me, he always called me son” (Drimmer 153). This shows that regardless of race, ethnicity, or family groups, violence is perpetuated by individuals and not by these groups as a whole.

Discussion

                It is important to note some of the reasons for taking Whites captive. The most prominent being to replace a deceased member of their family, which is what was stated to have happened in the cases of Mary Jemison and John Tanner. Replacement could be for a multitude of reasons; in an egalitarian society, a loss of a person could impact the resources for the whole group. Adopting a new “child” would also help the family psychologically to pass the grieving process more quickly. These captives generally became a legitimate part of the family they had joined, and when they left, their Native families would grieve just as they would for any other loss (Drimmer 14).

These were also times of war between Nations, and part of the capture could be seen as ransom for land. The settlers originally claimed land for themselves and eventually spread their populations over Indigenous hunting grounds and resource areas. Treaties were written and broken, and the Native Americans were treated as second class beings (Drimmer 15). Taking captives can be seen as retaliation or ransom for the land which was unlawfully taken from them.

Drimmer points out an important fact, that although many narratives focus on the positive treatment from Native Americans, all mention others who were killed either in the process of capturing, or whilst under captivity. They also tell of Native Americans who were killed by settlers. This is important because although some accounts speak of the other side as killing in horrible methods, such as scalping, these methods were used on both sides. The difference is, that while both were fighting for the land, it only rightfully belonged to one group. Something else that is mentioned by Drimmer and Venebles is that no women were ever sexually abused while in captivity. Compare this to incidents of the early European conquistadors and later African slavery in the United States, and it shows an incredible difference in humanity.

In conclusion, it is important to read captivity narratives from a phenomenological perspective. These stories show through their exaggerated romanticism and ethnocentrism the undoubted truths of Indigenous civilization. Although they tried to show the savagery of Natives, the result was the opposite. They show immense logical fallacies and projections of foreignness that occur in all nations. In the end, it is individuals making decisions and not entire Nations as a whole.

Baepler, Paul Michel. "The Barbary Captivity Narrative in American Culture." Early American Literature 39.2 (2004): 217-46.

Ben-zvi, Yael. "Ethnography and the Production of Foreignness in Indian Captivity Narratives."  The American Indian Quarterly 32.1 (2008). 

Drimmer, Frederick. Captured by the Indians: 15 Firsthand Accounts. New York: Dover, 1985(Reprint from1961). 

Venables, Robert W. American Indian History: Five Centuries of Conflict & Coexistence. Vol. 1.   Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light, 2003. 

Breaking Barriers: Integrating Native Scientific Perspectives into Resource Management Frameworks

Many cultures have worldviews which are similar in process to science but have been designated to be myth or magic for not being disseminated in a standardized manner. This paper examines the social and historical development of indigenous stewardship models. There has been a lack of integration between the native science perspective and the scientific community. The epistemological and institutional barriers which have attributed to this lack of integration will be examined, along with examples of how both worldviews can collaborate on new stewardship management models.

The scientific community places a high regard on the knowledge developed by specialists, which has been acquired through a systematic set of repeatable experimentation. Results are generally compartmentalized and shared conservatively (Ross et al. 2011,  97-98). Indigenous communities favor a community based, holistic approach, which has been founded on empirical observation over an extended length of time (Ross et al. 2011, 98). The differences in these practices are a manifestation reflecting how each group understands the natural world. Science sees nature as a separate entity, which must be conquered and controlled or it would do the same to humankind. This fuels the inherent need to overcome a wild and untamed wilderness. Rather than seeking control over nature, the native scientific perspective is a “science of the subtle,” honing in on the small intricacies of the natural world by forming a deep personal relationship with it (Cajete 2000, 17). The Native perspective does not distinguish between the natural world and humankind.  Humans are seen as an inseparable component of the natural world. Rather than adhering to defined laws and theoretical frameworks, the native scientific perspective attempts to understand the nature or essence of things, as nature is constantly in flux (Cajete 2000, 72). The methods reflect direct experience, interconnectedness and holism and are integrated into a whole lifestyle, which aids in creating a basic schema for action in the mind (Cajete 2000, 66). The basic philosophies of the native scientific perspective reflect the spirit and energy of all things, which is integrated into its methodologies, dissemination of knowledge and the development of new technologies (Cajete 2000, 64-65).

Many methods are similar to those used in contemporary notions of scientific methodology, however basis and intent differ. Observation of plants, animals, weather, healing events, ecologies of nature all occur in the native scientific methodology, however they occur over a long period of time (Cajete 2000, 67). There is no real deliberate attempt to alter natural events, as is often the goal of the scientific community however experiments for practical purposes do occur (Cajete 2000, 67). The native scientific perspective considers meaning and understanding of nature to be of a higher priority than the prediction and control sought by other sciences. While the scientific community maintains a strong sense of objectivity, the native perspective asserts that objectivity is found in subjectivity, and stresses direct personal experiences, and a relationship to nature that will reveal more subtlety and understanding. (Cajete 2000, 67-68).

There is a scheme of order and harmony in the world which is acknowledged by the native perspective; however there is also an inherent diversity and chaos which can disrupt any scheme. This possibility of unpredictable chance is an underlying concept for multiple indigenous cultures (Cajete 2000, 68). Causality can be derived from both the physical and non-physical as all entities are considered to have energy and will (Cajete 2000, 69). Teaching native models is subtly communicated through ceremony and ritual, with symbols, songs and stories deeply coded beyond simple archetypes, to develop a worldview. Ceremonial structures and art typically reflect the universe and natural world. (Cajete 2000, 68-69). The mind, body and spirit are considered to be a finely tuned scientific instrument to receive knowledge. This knowledge is received through means of altered stated of consciousness, dreams, and meditation (Cajete 2000, 69). Dreams and Visions are considered to be a natural means for accessing knowledge which are to be encouraged and facilitated (Cajete 2000, 71). This is possible because there is no distinction between science and spirituality. Every act, element, plant, animal, and natural process has a spirit with which humans continually communicate (Cajete 2000, 69). There is a life force and natural energy in everything, which must be understood and respected in light of itself (Cajete 2000, 71), and not from categorically imposed criteria.

The methods of technological development differ from that of contemporary science, as the adoption of technology is conservative and based on intrinsic needs only. There is no need to develop any technologies for the sake of knowledge itself (Cajete 2000, 69). Explanation in the native scientific perspective uses multiple metaphoric platforms such as storytelling, symbolgy and images rather than a peer-reviewed scientific journal approach (Cajete 2000, 69). Written records have been kept, through birch bark, hides, structures, and petroglyphs and pictographs (Cajete 2000, 70). Authority and credibility are established not from an institutional designation or degree program, but are gained through an individual’s experience and accomplishments (Cajete 2000,69). Elders are considered respected carriers of knowledge, wisdom, and experience. They receive the highest regard as teachers and guides for native science (Cajete 2000, 71). The native perspective views humankind as having an  integral responsibility to the natural world, and to further cultural knowledge of this responsibility. The ultimate focus is on sustainable stewardship and ecology (Cajete 2000, 70).

When settlers first entered the Americas, they assumed the pristine conditions had existed prior to Native American stewardship, ans failed to realize these conditions had been carefully tended for long term (Diekmann et al, 2007). Native Americans have practiced their responsibility as stewards of the natural world through variable plant harvesting techniques. The frequency and intensity of harvesting was meticulously considered, to provide the best conditions for humankind along with plant and animals .The idea of leaving potions of plants behind for future generations has been integral to the native scientific perspective (Anderson 2005, 127-130). Native American groups also had methods or irrigation, weeding, and transplanting (Anderson 2005, 142-144).

Native Americans used controlled burning techniques, which had benefits of decreasing accumulated plant matter, and recycling nutrients into the soil (Anderson 2005, 144). It was also helpful in the influence of insects and pathogens which may have been detrimental to the forests (Anderson 2005, 145). The enhanced conditioned help local plant and wildlife to thrive, and could also be used to detour wildlife to specific areas for hunting (Anderson 2005, 148-149).

A history of conquest and conflicting ideals has inhibited Native involvement in resource management programs from contact to the present. Settlers have impacted not only the culture (by removal, reservations, and down-right genocide), but the landscape which they had been so quick to call pristine. This is especially evident in the large scars left behind in California from massive hydraulic mining projects (Anderson 2005, 91).

There are deeply rooted epistemological barriers which have made it difficult for a native science perspective to be recognized as a legitimate science. They are a result of misunderstanding and bias, and a general lack of recognition that Indigenous Knowledge has a place in natural resource management (Ross et al. 2011, 98). There are also very narrow definitions in the scientific field, and words such as spirit, tradition, and custom often translate to a description of persons who are incapable of any form of scientific worldview (Ross et al. 2011, 99). The expression of knowledge as spiritual or social is a concept which science has difficulty accepting (Ross et al. 2011, 101). Native science knowledge is typically not proven using the same methodology used by scientists, and is therefore assumed to be invalid (Ross et al. 2011,  100). There are also issues in the translation of knowledge, as scientific frameworks require Indigenous groups to translate knowledge into a form which may alter its meaning and understanding. This carries to the codification of knowledge, as the need to write down information is not inherent to all cultures, and often requires boundaries to be drawn where there weren’t any(Ross et al. 2011, 101-103). This is especially noticeable when physical boundaries are to be delineated as with mapping. The idea that there is an ownership of knowledge does not exist in the native perspective. The scientific community thrives on individualism, creating a competition to patent knowledge, rather than a community process (Ross et al. 2011, 101-103).

These epistemological barriers, along with an abrasive history extend into institutional management, where bureaucratic systems have many requirements and the involvement of outsiders is difficult (Ross et al. 2011, 107). A primary issue is that native perspectives often do not fit into the management framework that has already been developed (Ross et al. 2011, 107). State power often impedes the native perspective, and this power is inherently assumed to be of the best interests to all. Tribes however, must legally prove state actions have been detrimental to the health and well-being of their people and so another barrier is in place.

                Joint management strategies present a legal sharing of power between a government agency and a community or organization (Ross et al. 2011, 198). This is not the ideal for integration, as it places the government agency in a higher position than Tribes. Co-management strategies allow for a formal agreement, but are typically not legally binding  (Ross et al. 2011, 207). Finally, many governments have developed concepts of Indigenous Protected Areas, land set aside for resource management and Indigenous use (Ross et al. 2011, 211). In the United States, the National Register for Historic Places had added the designation of Tribal Cultural Properties; however this still requires that physical boundaries be placed where they previously may not have occurred (Parker and King 1998).

In order to better integrate the native science perspective into contemporary science, an epistemological shift must occur. There are systems and institutions in place which must be revamped and employed to cater to all modes of scientific thought. A balance can exist between the rigorous record keeping and repetitive experimentation with the subtle intimate relationship to the natural world. There is room for all perspectives if they are let in.

Anderson, Kat. Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of  California's Natural Resources. Berkeley: University of California, 2005.

Cajete, Gregory. Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light, 2000.

Diekmann, Lucy, Lee Panich, and Chuck Striplen. "Native American Management and the Legacy of Working Landscapes in California: Western Landscapes Were Working Long before Europeans Arrived." Rangelands 29.3 (2007): 46-50.

Parker, Patricia and Thomas King. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. Department of the Interior National Register Bulletin, 1998.

Ross, Anne and Kathleen Pickering Sherman, Jeffrey G. Snodgrass, Henry D. Delacore, Richard     Sherman.  Indigenous Peoples and the Collaborative Stewardship of Nature: Knowledge     Binds and Institutional Conflicts. Walnut Creek (Calif.): Left Coast, 2011.

Victor Turner:Isoma

Victor Turner’s Planes of Classification in a Ritual of Life and Death is an analysis of his field work among the Ndembu (Northwestern Zambia).  He provides a definition and description of Isoma, a ritual performed around the occurrence of female reproductive issues, for example Turner says Isoma is a “manifestation of a shade that causes a woman to bear a dead child or brings death on a series of infants” (Turner 17). These issues are believed by the Ndembu to be caused by the sufferer forgetting their matrilineal lineage, as Turner explains the aims if Isoma rites are “to remove the effects of…misfortune or illness due to the displeasure of ancestral shades or a breach of taboo” (Turner 19).

                When Turner speaks of a “union of ecology and intellect” (Turner 27), it is in reference to the musoli tree, which “makes animals appear” due to its fallen fruit. This tree is used in Isoma ritual to “make children appear” (27). My understanding of what Turner is saying is that Knowledge is influenced by and intertwined with environment, the result being a materialized idea. Both human intellect and environment and ecology influence the result of a materialized idea (Turner 27).  Musoli, as a symbol, represents the union of ecology and intellect, because it shows the Ndembu have interpreted a medicine for their environment as making something appear and intellectually use it with that knowledge as a base.

                As for whether this union of ecology and intellect has any effect on the effectiveness of the ritual, I believe it does. I see the ritual system of the Ndembu to be extremely complex (I had to reread several times, and still unsure I fully comprehend the meaning). I illustrate this complexity with a quote from Turner, where it is illustrated the interconnectedness and complexity, of the ritual process:

Liminality, Marginality, and structural inferiority are conditions in which are frequently generated myths, symbols, rituals, philosophical systems, and works of art.  These cultural forms provide men with a set of templates or models which are, at one level, periodical reclassifications of reality and man’s relationship to society, nature, and culture (Bowie 156).

The meaning of the ritual symbols used by the Ndembu would be significantly different if they were in a different environment. I envision a change in the ritual system as traveling down a fuse; affecting every part of the ecosystem.

                Fiona Bowie provides an interesting distinction I would like to comment on, between intellectualists, and symbolists. Intellectualists subscribe to Turners ideas, and view religions primary function as a way to explain the universe. Symbolists follow Durkheim, who heralds that religion reflects society (Bowie 143). To put both views together (an intellectual symbolist) would say that religion is an intermix of both ideas, which can be shown explicitly in the Isoma ritual. For example, Isoma reflects the importance of matrilineal descent to the Ndembu, although they are politically patriarchal.

                The Isoma ritual is symbolically complex, I have not been able to grasp it’s full meaning from this article alone (something to keep in mind for future research, when I am not taking a full unit load). The symbols of a society can provide insight into not only their explanations of the universe, but their reflections on their own society.

A History of Gold Mining Technology in California and Subsequent Impacts on Natural Resources

This post explores the evolution of gold mining technology in California, and the negative repercussions for indigenous uses of natural resources. First, I have provided an exploration of the different techniques used by California placer miners, and their subsequent effects on the environment. My discussion looks at the difference in worldview between Indigenous people and gold miners, and applies concepts from coursework to this study.

Placers are deposits of gravels that contain small amounts of various minerals, in this case, gold (Yeend, et al, 1998). In the first few years of the gold rush, surface placer deposits were abundant (Limbaugh, 1998) but as gold dwindled from the surface and into the miners’ pockets, created the need to develop more invasive mining technology. As placer mining technology transformed, the changes were developed with the goal being an increase of production, rather than an interest in preserving natural resources.

Because of the original abundance of gold, technology was that of reuse. Prospectors arrived with whatever may help, including shovels, picks, butcher knives, frying pans. Many of the tools and techniques adopted by miners were used by other cultures for years. For example, the batea from Spain, a bowl carved from a single block of wood. Miners were also known to use the intricate watertight baskets woven by the indigenous peoples of the Northwest Coast (Limbaugh 1998).

Although the panning process was not the most destructive mode of mining technology to the environment (these techniques had been used by Indigenous Peoples for long prior to the Gold Rush), the miners themselves were destructive. Chatterjee accounts that the, “settlers arrived and set about tearing up the river beds and hillsides for mining and chopping down forests for firewood to keep themselves warm and to cook, devastating the traditional food supply” (Chatterjee, 1998, 3). He provides the example of the Tahoe basin region, whose forests were devastated for a reach of one hundred miles at least (Chatterjee 1998).

By the 1850’s the surface placer gold deposits had been severely depleted, and prospectors began to develop heavier technology: the sluice, long tom, and rocker. These new devices used water and gravity to separate the heavier gold pieces from light gravel and sand (Limbaugh 1998). Water consumption increased, as well as the amount of placer deposits removed. Along with sluice boxes, miners used amalgamation, in which the riffle bars of sluice boxes were coated with mercury, to “capture” the pure gold. They then cleaned the gold by burning off the mercury (Limbaugh 1998). These chemicals have since found their way into towns and affect fish and wildlife in the communities (Chatterjee, 1996, 11).

The process of hydraulic mining is one of the most destructive forms of mining technology. Limbaugh refers to this “breakthrough” as a “revolutionary process using the destructive power of high-pressure water to exploit thick, deeply buried placer deposits at the lowest possible cost (Limbaugh, 1998, 33) Hydraulic mining was capable of speeding up the process of gold mining by weeks (Chatterjee, 1996, 16).The effects of hydraulic mining were that it causes an immense amount of debris. Approximately 40,000 acres of farmland and orchards were destroyed when buried by the washed down sediment (Chatterjee, 1996, 15). According to Anderson, the most affected rivers were the Feather, Yuba, Bear, and American rivers in California (Anderson, 2005, 99). Hydraulic technology was replaced by use of chemicals such as mercury and cyanide leach technology later in the 1960s (Chatterjee, 1996, 22). Mercury had been used prior in the sluice box, but was now on a much larger scale.

Although the focus of this post is the effects on natural resources, it is important to reiterate that at this time there was also widespread explicit genocide on Native Americans in California. Native Americans had mining claims as well, but were in many cases forced off by miners. Shopkeepers developed the “digger ounce” as a way to swindle the gold the Native Americans were able to mine at this time. The violence expanded into a widespread militia and several massacres, the cultural damage of which is still prominent in many Native American societies (Chatterjee 1996).

One of the primary concepts we have been examining in this Native Perspective on Natural Resources course, is the difference in worldview between indigenous people and settlers. Although the presence of gold had been known prior to its “discovery” at Sutter’s mill in 1848 (Sawin 1949), this event is an example of the revival of the American Dream myth that has been blindly followed by Americans.

                Gregory Cajete offers two concepts which I believe represent the underlying difference in native and non-native worldview perception. These terms are biophilia, which is described as an innate instinct of human beings to facilitate themselves around living things, and biophobia, a basic instinct of human beings to fear nature (Cajete, 2000). The difference is a feeling of community and relationship with nature, versus the constant fear of death that creates a mistrust of nature. I find this biophobia to be the underlying influence for non-native science. I also relate this to the social/spiritual expression barrier from Indigenous Peoples and the Collaborative Stewardship of Nature, because non-native thinkers[1] have a mistrusting relationship with nature, and the universe in general, which leads to the constant questioning and proof-seeking epistemology.

                The California Gold Rush is an event that occurred as part of new Americans attempting to fulfill the myth of the American Dream. This is the era of the industrial revolution, which had resulted in idea that science, innovation, and technology could lead to success and material wealth (Limbaugh 1996). The need to fulfill this myth provided enough rationalization for the miners to ignore the consequences of their actions, and eliminate any competition to their success.

                This myth has protruded into the present era, as shown by the elevated status Americans give the story and the absence of Indigenous perspectives from the literature. In my research for example, many sources tended to leave out the fact that Sutter’s mill was on Maidu land, and Maidu workers helped greatly in the “discovery” of the gold (Chatterjee 1996).

                Mining practices have persisted into the present as well, however there are also those dedicated to the study of the process of sediment disruption from the Gold Rush (Allan, 1989). The continued degradation of natural resources has continued, hidden away in the depths of our culture and we are unaware the myth even exists and continue to follow it blindly. However, as more Americans become aware of our civil religion creation myth, perhaps we can begin to end the cycle of violence that is so inherent in our country.

Bibliography

Anderson, Kat. 2005. Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California's Natural Resources. Berkeley: University of California.

Cajete, Gregory. 2000. Native Science: Natural Laws of Interdependence. Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light.

Chatterjee, Pratap. 1996. Gold, Greed and Genocide: Unmasking the Myth of the '49ers. Berkeley, CA: Project Underground.

James, L. Allan. "Sustained Storage and Transport of Hydraulic Gold Mining Sediment in the Bear River, California." Annals of the Association of American Geographers 79.4 (1989):570-92.

Limbaugh, Ronald H. “Making Old Tools Work Better: Pragmatic Adaptation and Innovation in Gold-Rush Technology." California History 77.4 (1998) 24-51.

Ross, Anne, Kathleen Pickering Sherman, Jeffrey G. Snodgrass, Henry D. Delacore, and Richard Sherman. Indigenous Peoples and the Collaborative Stewardship of Nature: Knowledge Binds and Institutional Conflicts. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast, 2011.

Yeend, Warren, Peter H. Stauffer, and James W. Hendley II. 1998. Supporting Sound Management of Our Mineral Resources: Rivers of Gold--placer Mining in Alaska.   Reston, Va.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey.

---

[1] When I say non-native, I refer to the general characteristics that have been ascribed to “Western” thinking in general

Past and Present Collide: Maintaining Natural Resources along the Klamath River

I am focusing on the perspective of the tribes who are local to the area. My original research questions were: what are the causes of environmental damage to the river area? How does this damage affect the tribes who rely on the river’s natural resources? What can be done to attempt to reverse the negative effects?  I began with background research into the history of issues, getting the majority of my information from internet resources. The Tribal perspectives I gained from various writings, stories and presentations from Native Peoples.

The Klamath River runs from the Upper Klamath Lake in southwest Oregon, through northern California (Friends of the River). There are four Tribes living in the vicinity of the River: the Klamath, Yurok, Karuk, and Hupa. These groups rely on the natural resources of the river for their subsistence and cultural practices, therefore the degradation of the environment has a direct impact on their ability to maintain their way of life in the present (Klamath Riverkeeper).

The main cause of damage to the Klamath environment can be attributed to PacifiCorp’s hydropower project. This project consists of six dams total; however the removal efforts have been focused around four in particular: the Copco 1 and 2, J.C. Boyle, and Iron Gate developments. The first dam (Copco 1) was completed in 1918, and is a 126 foot high powerhouse dam, with no ladder allowing upstream fish travel, in fact, all but the JC Boyle Dam are lacking upstream passage for fish runs. The final and tallest dam to be installed (Iron Gate) was completed in 1962 and stands 173 feet high. The generating capacity for the four problem dams combined is 145 megawatts (American Rivers). This amounts to 1% of PacifiCorp’s energy demands (Friends of the River).

One of the most prominent effects stemming from the dams is the occurrence of a toxic blue-green species of algae, Microcystis aeruginosa. This algae is native to the Klamath River, however it is not known to flourish in flowing water. The stagnant waters created by the imposing dams create an ideal breeding ground. Microcystis aeruginosa produces a compound that has been known to cause liver failure, and the levels in the Klamath have been measured up to four thousand times what the World Health Organization would consider a moderate risk to human health (Klamath Riverkeeper).

The effects of the algae are not only seen in water quality, but on fish populations as well. There has been a significant decrease in the numbers of Coho Salmon, Chinook Salmon, Bull Trout, and Steelhead just to name a few. Above the Iron Gate Dam, all anadromous salmon and steelhead are extinct (Friends of the River).This affects the culture and subsistence to Native tribes, who in the past exercised great legal control over the way they caught fish, in order to preserve their population numbers and ensure subsistence for all who lived in the river vicinity. Lucy Thompson, a Yurok author documented her story, relaying the use of small, traditional fish dams. She says the downriver people would only take as much salmon as they needed, then remove the dams so that the tribes upriver could catch some as well. The dam laws were highly enforced, so that all people and animal kind could benefit, and they always left enough salmon to spawn the next year (Margolin 52-53). Indigenous cultures share a worldview that is very different from the western perspective. Instead of seeing resources as something that is quickly running out, they understand the earth’s capacity to renew itself. These ideas were once understood by Europeans (for example, the word resource is derived from a French word meaning “to rise again”), but have since been forgotten (Anderson 9).

                There are many other issues other than the PacifiCorp hydropower project that affect the local Tribes. Industrial pollution and agricultural practices introduce chemicals to public lands. Many tribes rely on clean water and non-toxic plants for cultural subsistence, and these natural resources have become tainted (Klamath Riverkeeper). Pesticide spraying is especially threatening to cultures who utilize the plants, as many basket weavers harvest and prepare resources using their mouth (Anderson 319). Placer (hydraulic mining) which began in the gold rush era but is still occurring sporadically disrupts sediment in the river, and washes it downstream. Another big issue has been the suppression of tribal burning. This is the practice of controlled burning in specific, carefully monitored areas, which clears brush and helps to prevent more uncontrollable wildfire (Klamath Riverkeeper). Because this practice has been ended, the forests surrounding Klamath are more subject to wildfire, which bears the risk of a decrease in forest. Less forest means a decline in the availability of traditional foods.

It is not only subsistence for the Tribes that is negatively affected; there are many repercussions to their culture as well. Many Tribes have close ties with their environment, and use many natural resources for traditional clothing, baskets, and housing. Theodora Kroeber’s book The Inland Whale depicts a story as told by Robert Spott, a member of the Yurok Tribe. This story tells of a woman and her would-be daughter-in-law who make use of the natural resources around them. They used salmon and acorns as food, and used grasses to make baskets to hold their excess. They also used bark from trees to make skirts and aprons (Kroeber 21). When access to these resources is threatened, it diminishes the ability to maintain cultural practices, which causes stress on the mind and physique of Native Peoples. They are thrown into a culture of confusion, one that is off balance.

This world out of balance became manifested at the beginning of the fall semester, in an incident where a gray whale found its way upriver and became trapped. This was seen by many natives as an omen, one that had been described in the same Inland Whale story that was recounted by Robert Spott:

To a world in balance, the flat earth’s rise and fall, as it floats on Underneath Ocean, is almost imperceptible, and nothing is disturbed by it. Doctors know that to keep this balance, the people must dance the World Renewal Dances, bringing their feet down strong and hard on the earth. If they are careless about this, it tips up and if it tips more than a very little, there are strange and terrible misplacements. One of the worst of these occurred before Nenem’s grandparents’ time…This was the time when the earth tipped so far that Downriver Ocean came over the bar and flowed up the river, filling and overflowing the canyon, carrying its waters and its fish and other sea life far inland, past even the Center of the World-farther than it had ever penetrated before. With prayers and dancing, balance was eventually restored and the ocean flowed back down the canyon and outside the bar, carrying the fish and other sea life with it, except for a young female whale [Ninawa] who had been washed all the way into Fish Lake and was left stranded there (Kroeber 25).

Although no specific cause of death could be determined, the omen surrounding the death of the gray whale in the Klamath brought the environment to front and center attention.

What can be done to help the Klamath? There are several activist organizations dedicated to reversing the damage, for example the Klamath Riverkeeper, who focus on restoring water quality and fisheries along the river. There has also been a huge movement to undam the Klamath, which thanks to the efforts of such activists and Tribal opposition has been scheduled to occur by the year 2020 (American Rivers). This process however, has a big price tag; 90 million dollars (Friends of the River).

There are also efforts to educate the youth and public about the native perspective of the environment. Ron Reed has been working with department of interior to put together Klamath Basin Youth Employment Education Initiative- traditional knowledge courses taught in western style, based on holistic ecosystem perspective (which is basically If one part of system fails, it affects others); will help spread knowledge on how to sustain these natural resources of the Klamath.

American Rivers: http://www.americanrivers.org/our-work/restoring-rivers/dams/projects/restoring-klamath-river.html

Anderson, Kat. Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and the Management of California's Natural Resources. Berkeley: University of California, 2005.

Friends of the River: http://www.friendsoftheriver.org/site/PageServer?pagename=KlamathBackground

Klamath Riverkeeper: http://klamathriver.org/

Kroeber, Theodora. The Inland Whale. Indiana U.P.; M. Paterson, 1959.

Margolin, Malcolm. The Way We Lived: California Indian Stories, Songs & Reminiscences. Berkeley, Ca. Heyday, 1993. Print.

Native Times: http://nativetimes.com/news/environment/5879-wayward-whale-delighted-observers-before-her-death

To the American Indian:Lucy Thompson and Authenticity of Native Writing

I believe Lucy Thompsons book was highly influenced by her, but that her husband wrote it, and took advantage of some stories and knowledge he may have been told in confidence. There are parts in the book which really show Native storytelling influence, but many tip offs that she did not write it herself.

The first clue that this was not her work is the disagreement between the books title and the books dedication. With a title like “To the American Indian,” I would have expected a related dedication. Instead it reads “To Milton J. Thompson: My beloved husband with whom all of my married life has been so pleasantly spent…” There is also great emphasis on White ideals, for example her status and wealth, and that she has sacred knowledge that only Talth were entitled to. What I find interesting is that she then speaks of lower birth slaves, who think they know the stories and will run out and tell the White man anything (Thompson 26). I find this idea contradictory, because even if the book is addressed “To the American Indian” it would be available for all to see, Whites included.

 I do not believe this book was written for Native people, especially with the constant parallels and references to Christian religion. For example, the chapter entitled “Our Christ”, and “The Sampson of the Klamath Indians.” This is not to say these stories do not exist as parallels to the Christian religion, as many religions share similar archetypes, but the need to compare the two show that this book was written for the White majority. There is one passage in particular that shows a contradiction. On one page, she said she was taught there was a “God in Heaven” the on the very next page says he is “everywhere” (Thompson 74-75). These contradictions show that there are two voices in this book. What I believe to have happened is Lucy’s husband asked her to tell him stories, and then realized the correlations between their religions, or she may have eluded to the similarities herself. If she were writing this book, and writing it to Native Americans, I do not think she would have made the comparison at all. She would have focused on the stories as her peoples stories.

I believe Lucy may have said some of these things in confidence, and made the mistake of trusting her husband not to divulge some things he divulged. She may have wanted to write a book and he offered to help but exploited her. She may have had no idea the book was even written and her husband was merely taking advantage of romanticized nativism. Or she may have written it herself and just gone against her Native ideas.

Thompson, Lucy. To the American Indian: Reminiscences of a Yurok Woman. Berkeley: Heydey, 1991.