There’s plenty of beaver news out there. But on this sunny Thursday morning I thought we’d talk about the OTHER B word that was wiped out in the 1800’s by greed. I’m speaking of course about Bison. An article was published yesterday in Wilderness News that is still getting under my skin. And should get under yours. This is by George Wuerthner.
I want to clarify that most of what follows is not a direct rebuttal to Sonneblume’s essay. Still, his assertions did prompt me to explore some of the common assumptions that he appears to hold, as do many others who champion Indigenous people as role models for sustainable living.
This theme is a familiar trope of many who advocate exploitation of wild nature, arguing that humans have always modified the landscape.
However, despite this human influence, ecosystem processes were sustainable, one assumes because Indigenous people exercised restraint due to their cultural values or by some quirk of genetics.
Beyond the danger to conservation efforts in such ideas is the False Cause Fallacy. Correlation is not Causation. The False Cause Fallacy occurs when we wrongly assume that one thing leads to something else because we’ve noticed what appears to be a relationship between them.
A common argument of those who advocate for Indigenous people is that in places where native people dominated wildlife and natural processes, ecosystems were more sustainable. They assume this was because Indigenous people were more in “tune” with the landscape and practiced cultural techniques that did not disrupt ecosystem processes.
His these is, as near as I can understand it, that all humans will exploit resources for their own personal gain and that when we paid natives for Buffalo hides they did too. So they aren’t that noble okay?
What is common in all these instances is low population and low technology. Change either of these factors, and humans everywhere, no matter their religion, race, or cultural identity, frequently overexploit the land.
The fallacy is saying because there were more wolves or more bison or whatever in times past when Indigenous people occupied a specific location, it was due to the people’s cultural values.
You see it was JUST A COINCIDENCE that there were more bison before white man came and destroyed tribal culture with their guns and firewater. And correlation doesn’t mean CAUSATION. Indians would have used up the bison too. Left to their own destructive devices. And when WE came and changed the culture they definitely did,
Let us examine, for instance, the common assertion that tribal people somehow sustainably utilized wildlife. It is widely assumed that white commercial hunters caused the demise of the western bison herds. This is such a widespread assertion that most people take it as fact, but particularly by Native American advocates.
Tribal people in North America were like humans throughout the world and demonstrated intelligence and self-interest and this often meant overexploitation of resources–when they had the capability to do so.
There is no doubt that commercial hunting provided the final nail in the coffin of wild bison. But a careful reading of early historical accounts of the western plains indicates that bison numbers were already in steep decline before significant commercial buffalo hunting began in the 1870s.
Once tribal people acquired the horse, and in particular, the rifle, bison numbers began to decline. Most tribes on the Great Plains had horses by the 1750s, and the typical “plains Indian” nomadic bison hunting lifestyle was in full swing by 1800.
You see the reason all those beavers were allowed to live until the 1800’s was that the white man hadn’t politely explained why they were valuable as hats. Once they did the natives were perfectly willing to exploit the population for their own gain.
The idea that Indians “used” all parts of the bison and didn’t “waste” wildlife is another myth. There are plenty of documented instances of tribes killing bison merely for their tongues and leaving behind hundreds and sometimes thousands of dead animals. How many bison were killed annually in this manner is unknown; however, it was common to take only the best parts of a bison if one anticipated encountering more bison in a few days.
Those wasteful Indians. I just wish R, Grace Moran were alive today to slash this article with her little red pen. Never mind that our best accounts of native life come from the period after which we had already destroyed and ruined their culture. Never mind that ascribing their greed to our own is blaming them for wanting to exist in the culture we transformed. Never mind that natives and bison (and beavers) lived together for centuries without using the other up.
I go through this detail to demonstrate that many of the assumptions and traits ascribed to the presumed “conservation ethic” of Indigenious people can be explained in other ways. No matter where they originate, humans have similar biological controls on their behavior. In general, all people seek to further their self-interest. And among more “primitive” cultures (I use that term to denote more limited technologies), the self-awareness of their actions on wildlife and natural processes was limited.
See we’re all humans. And native Americans were just as bad as us. That’s why it only took a little influence to get them to act like us. And since they weren’t really better than us. I don’t have to feel guilty. Nor do you.
Here endeth the lesson;
I am quite sure they well know how many irate natives voices and scholars are going to respond to this diatribe. I’m sure publishing this article is the equivalent of tapping the microphone and asking “Is this thing on?” They want to increase their readership when every irate reader shares this with three others.
Let them hear from you too.
