There are countless ways to view the past, and it’s very possible that there is no correct way to interpret history. “Landscape and Narrative,” a chapter from Barry Lopez’s Crossing Open Ground, looks at a distinct dichotomy that exists between the authentic and the inauthentic, explaining that there is not just one way to see history. Lopez discusses different narratives, and how the true history affects which ones get passed on. There are two common narratives that have endured regarding the relationship that exists between Native Americans and the environment:
1. Native Americans had a very low impact on the environment
2. Native Americans had a distinct – but overall positive – impact on the environment
While there is clear documentation …show more content…
Whitney convincingly supports his opinion that indigenous peoples did not leave the land in an immaculate state, and arguments from other sources such as William Cronon’s Changes in the Land and Carolyn Merchant’s American Environmental History: An Introduction defend correspondingly. Whitney, Cronon, and Merchant provide evidence that the goal, and impact, of natives was not to leave the land untouched, but rather to use the land as needed through methods that were least harmful to the environment. One of the tools that both Whitney and Cronon use as defense for their shared argument is the native peoples use of fire in northeastern North America, and the effects of which it …show more content…
Indigenous peoples have been referred to as “native conservationists.” Native Americans knew that specific practices would have specific outcomes, and they worked with the environment to develop a relationship that can be referred to as symbiotic – meaning that the environment affected the native peoples, and the native peoples affected the environment. They were aware of how their modes of living would impact the land. For example, burning certain areas would provide the soil with nutrients, which would improve the health of the environment, while also benefitting their own agricultural needs. Native Americans also regarded other species as equals. Ceremonies to honor animals that had been killed were performed out of what the native peoples believed to be a mutual respect between themselves and other animal
1. Native Americans had a very low impact on the environment
2. Native Americans had a distinct – but overall positive – impact on the environment
While there is clear documentation …show more content…
Whitney convincingly supports his opinion that indigenous peoples did not leave the land in an immaculate state, and arguments from other sources such as William Cronon’s Changes in the Land and Carolyn Merchant’s American Environmental History: An Introduction defend correspondingly. Whitney, Cronon, and Merchant provide evidence that the goal, and impact, of natives was not to leave the land untouched, but rather to use the land as needed through methods that were least harmful to the environment. One of the tools that both Whitney and Cronon use as defense for their shared argument is the native peoples use of fire in northeastern North America, and the effects of which it …show more content…
Indigenous peoples have been referred to as “native conservationists.” Native Americans knew that specific practices would have specific outcomes, and they worked with the environment to develop a relationship that can be referred to as symbiotic – meaning that the environment affected the native peoples, and the native peoples affected the environment. They were aware of how their modes of living would impact the land. For example, burning certain areas would provide the soil with nutrients, which would improve the health of the environment, while also benefitting their own agricultural needs. Native Americans also regarded other species as equals. Ceremonies to honor animals that had been killed were performed out of what the native peoples believed to be a mutual respect between themselves and other animal