Native Americans and the Environment: Perspectives on the Ecological Indian

Preface

From where I now sit, fortified by distances of time and geography, “Re-figuring the Ecological Indian,” the tenth annual (2002) symposium of the University of Wyoming’s American Heritage Center (ahc), seems an inspired event, not the least because it initiated conversations that inspired this volume , so expertly organized by Michael E. Harkin and David Rich Lewis. Emerging, as such things do, out of opportunity (in this case the publication of a thought-provoking book by an eminent anthropologist), supported by ahc leadership (Rick Ewig and Michael Devine in particular), and driven by a fruitful partnership of academic departments and programs from Anthropology and American Indian Studies to American Studies and History, “Re-figuring” promised to draw significant scholarly attention to what heretofore had been an under-noticed and under-appreciated series of very fine symposia, hosted by one of the Gem City’s true jewels. Of course, any piece that begins with the disclaimer “From where I now sit” telegraphs something more than misty reminiscence of halcyon days. Yes, “Re-figuring” put the ahc and its annual symposium on the map. And certainly, when all was said and done, participants and audience members enjoyed many stimulating conversations, provoked and inspired by a truly fine collection of thoughtful papers (a few of which are reproduced in this collection). But we didn’t always believe we’d get there, or at least I didn’t. The stimulus for this symposium, it is true, was the 1999 publication of Shepard Krech’s The Ecological Indian: Myth and History. And in pitching the idea to ahc interim director Rick Ewig, our organizing committee (Michael Harkin; Judith Antell, director of American Indian Studies at the University Preface Brian Hosmer of Wyoming [uw]; and myself, then a member of the uw History Department ), always conceived of a prominent role for Krech, even though we never intended the symposium to be about that book, either in critique or defense. Rather, we hoped that the book offered an opportunity to highlight emerging scholarship on Natives and the environment—in the broadest sense. We were, to put it mildly, unprepared for the reaction. And fortified by that particular variety of naïveté (cluelessness?) reserved for academicians, we resolved to ride out (ignore?) the gathering storm, even if “resolve” suggests a higher degree of steadfastness than we possessed. Call it inertia, absence of an alternate plan, or a “deer in the headlights” kind of resolve. As Michael Harkin and David Lewis recount in the introduction to this volume, the events of September 11, 2001, caused us to reschedule the symposium for the spring of 2002. By that time, passions seem to have cooled, Shep Krech felt a little less like we had used his feet to step (jump?) into a hornet’s nest, and, remarkably, most of our original presenters made the trip anyway. Donald Fixico led the revised cast of characters and, in typical fashion, found a way to gently prod us into considering the moral and ethical dimensions of what we had set into motion. By that time, organizers and audience members were receptive to what Fixico had to say. Months of e-mail denunciations had, I think, caused us to examine our original motivations for staging this academic gathering, forcing us to take seriously the full range of genuine scholarly concern that this volume evoked. Yes, as academics engaged in American Indian Studies , we knew that this topic positively invited controversy. But did we fully appreciate just how its message would be received, translated, transmitted , and (particularly by conservative talk-radio personalities) twisted into supporting a set of political positions clearly at variance with the author’s own? Speaking only for myself, not so much. To the extent that the symposium proved successful, all to the good. But success or not, organizing it was a sobering experience, and a lesson I took with me when I moved to the Newberry Library in 2002. But what of the issues, raised in the course of that scholarly gathering, and then afterward—in this volume and elsewhere? I interpret my role as xii | brian hosmer “preface writer” fairly narrowly, so I don’t see this as space for extended commentary. But since scholars rarely abandon any stage prematurely, allow me to suggest that, amid (or because of) the swirling controversy, the symposium presented opportunity to reflect upon power and representation , science versus...