Humanity needs the earth to survive, but it is slowly dying. Did you know that from 1985 to 2005 Glacier coverage in BC dropped 2525 km2? (Government of BC) Did you know that “over 400 dead zones-where nothing can live-exist in today’s oceans, covering 95,000 sq miles?” (United Nations). These statistics are just two of many that highlight how human actions are disturbing the environment. Since “climate change is now affecting every country on every continent” (United Nations), different forms of environmentalism are taking shape, and enacted many different ways, including through individual actions and governmental legislation. This paper will argue that Indigenous environmentalism stems from a personal relationship with the land and therefore more actively encourages the level of individual action necessary to halt humanity’s slow destruction of the earth, which is in contrast the capitalist and consumerist societal structure of the western world. This will be demonstrated by first defining indigenous environmentalism in comparison with western environmentalism to show how inherently different values motivate the two practices. Following is an examination of how Indigenous groups have conceptualized three environmental issues: BC logging practices, the Canadian salmon industry, and the Dakota Access pipeline. Ultimately, these examples will demonstrate how Indigenous values innately consider the sustainability of the earth unlike western values do, thus resulting in the promotion of individual action regarding climate change.
Western versus Indigenous Environmentalism
The western world is built upon capitalism and consumerism, and now even western environmentalism has become connected to the economy. Dauvergne has coined the term ‘environmentalism of the rich’ and uses it to define the environmental practices of the western world, which are understood as being direct acts of environmental action, but ultimately are just acts of consumerism which perpetuate the western capitalist model of society. He explains how the ideas surrounding environmentalism of the rich are shared and practiced, “for individuals it surfaces as a belief in the power of eco-consumerism and small lifestyle changes as forces of progressive change—walking a recycling bin to the curbside, taking shorter showers, and buying eco-products—even as overall consumption continues to rise (Dauvergne 4). Ultimately, Dauvergne states that the practices of environmentalism of the rich do not add up to “anything approaching global sustainability. Resulting reforms are modest and incremental” (5). Bernstein argues a similar understanding of western environmentalism by instead labelling it ‘liberal environmentalism’, stating that it “accepts the liberalization of trade and finance as consistent with, and even necessary for, international environmental protection” (7). Through these explanations of the western brand of environmentalism, it becomes clear that such environmental practices do not work to better the plight of the earth. As capitalist and consumerist values have completely saturated western environmentalism and have rendered it’s effects mundane, one must consider how these values have come to be more important than ensuring a clean and hospitable environment for humanity.
Indigenous environmentalism’s roots, in stark contrast to the values at the base of western environmentalism, lay in the encouragement placed upon a personal relationship with the earth, and a holistic understanding of resource consumption and sustainability. In 2016 Goldtooth, the executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, stated that as Indigenous People “we understand how we are here as the guardians and caretakers of the soil, land, nature, and life itself” (Frank). Within his sentiments it is evident that an Indigenous outlook forces personal responsibility in regards to the state of the earth, and this sense of duty is linked solely to the land. Additionally, in an interview detailed by Kinch, Sleeping Grizzly who is a member of the Annishinaabek people, said that “it is not really environmentalism, it’s more of us living with the land with what the land provides. But don’t take from the land more than you need” (Kinch 260). Thus, one can see that the roots of Indigenous environmentalism connect individuals to the earth, and encourage sustainable practices.
However, due to colonization, indigenous environmental opinions have been pushed to the side. Simpson, a prominent Indigenous academic, argues that due to the imposed colonial power structures, community leaders are made to rely on western analysis and recommendation in regards to the land and resource sustainability, and while “the results of these endeavors are usually satisfactory from a western scientific point of view, [they] often undermine the rights and knowledge of Aboriginal peoples” (223). Deiter, Connie, et al. also comment on how western values have dominated, writing that Indigenous culture is very much so linked to the environment (for example, the gathering of herbs/plants/ect to make traditional medicines) and now “industrial-driven environmental contamination continues to cause the loss of biodiversity, deforestation, and the mass pollution of waterways. This, in turn, impacts upon human health and all other life” (33). In a critique of these western values, Simpson states that by excluding Indigenous elders from policy discussions “the Canadian government is choosing to assimilate…components of our knowledge they deem useful, all the while ignoring the worldviews, values, philosophies and intellect that reside within the holders of our traditional knowledge” (9). Therefore, it is evident that while Indigenous environmentalism encourages a personal sense of responsibility for the environment that inspires the necessary passion to enact change, colonialist/western societal structures are silencing this viewpoint in favour of the enabling of a capitalist and consumerist societal structure.
Noble Indian Trope
While the idea of Indigenous environmentalism may be understood to draw upon the trope of the Noble Indian, Krench has explored this connection and found that Indigenous environmentalism is indeed innately connected to the land. Upon reflecting upon this particular trope, which Krench calls the Ecological Indian, he came to three conclusions. First was that Indigenous people do in fact wield extensive knowledge about their environment; second, this knowledge while ecological, is cultural and therefore based deeply in regional understandings; and third is that where historical evidence exists, it points “to the insignificance (or absence) of conservation until commodification-induced extirpations of beaver, buffalo, deer, and other animals and plants. Ideas about conservation became more important through time and have flourished” (Krench 79). Although conservation and sustainability were not a large part of Indigenous conceptualizations of the land, there was no need for them to be until western based values like capitalism and consumption came to consume the colonial society and their practices. Thus, it can be seen that the trope of Indigenous environmentalism and the accompanying innate connection to the land has been researched, and proven to be true.
Trees, Fish, and Oil
An examination of how the worldview of the Huu-ay-ahts people, an Indigenous group located on Vancouver Island, can be put into conversation with logging practices provides an initial example of how Indigenous environmentalism is inherently linked to personal responsibility and action. The Huu-ay-ahts people have a worldview called “Hishuk Tsawak, which translates into English as ‘everything is one, everything is connected’” (Castleden et al. 795). In practice Hishuk Tsawak is respecting nature by giving thanks to the trees and animals one harvests, consuming appropriately throughout the seasons, and respecting sacred places in nature. Ultimatley, Hishuk Tsawak conceptualizes “the connection between humans and nature as inherently spiritual” (Castleden et al. 796). Thus commercial violations of natural areas, through practices like logging, are seen as more than just ecologically detrimental, they threaten spirituality.
The practices of the logging industry in BC is “characterized as species and ecosystem destruction at such a rate and extent that they risk destroying the minimum biological requirements needed to regenerate forests” (Castleden et al. 790). Donald, a participant in Castleden et al.’s exploration of Hishuk Tsawak, stated that this colonial based, and unsustainable consumption is not new, and has already caused the severance of many people’s spiritual connection to the land, “as the forest went, so did the fish, so did the Huu-ay-aht . . . they’re interconnected, the humans, the salmon, the forest . . . when they clear-cut the forest it affected the trees, affected the salmon, and then our people moved away… it’s not whole anymore” (Castleden et al. 797). Thus it becomes apparent that while colonial practices prioritize profit in the logging industry, Indigenous values encourage a personal relationship with the earth and recognize the importance of the trees. By encouraging such a worldview, the value of individual actions is understood and exercised in regards to sustainable consumption.
The Canadian salmon industry provides a concrete example of how Indigenous environmentalism motivates a sustainable relationship with the earth. While the industry is relatively new, it is a very controversial source of revenue. From an environmental perspective there are three reasons why the fish farming taking place on the BC coast is causing controversy: first “salmon aquaculture sites are major polluters”; second when fish escape they can colonize waters they are non-native to, “compete with fragile wild stocks, or else genetically alter them through interbreeding”; third these farms facilitate the transfer of diseases and parasites among fish (Young and Liston 1045).
Many Indigenous communities from the area have voiced their opposition to the salmon industry as recorded by Young and Liston. Laurence Helin, an Elder of the Lax Kw’Alaams Band voiced his opinion regarding fish farming, “Nothing is [here] anymore. So it goes for the rest of our land. It’s been depleted of everything. As soon as… the Europeans came among us, maybe 200 years ago, it’s been a downhill slide since then … White man’s business started. They started to make money” (Young and Liston 1057). Helin’s statement reflects how the western drive for money resulted in unsustainable consumption, and thus left the environment stripped of resources.
Peter Siwallace voiced similar opposition to the salmon industry, “we as human beings, as First Nations people, depend on [wild] salmon. We are not the only ones that depend on it. All the animals in the forest – the trees, the birds, the bears, everything – depend on that salmon. Once that salmon is gone, where are we going to be?” (Young and Liston 1054). Siwallace’s reflection demonstrates how Indigenous values are much more holistic in approach than western values, and include all parts of the ecosystem. Within both these statements of rejection to salmon farming, the contrast between Indigenous environmental values and western values is apparent. While salmon farming creates revenue and brings profit to the province, it ultimately affects the sustainability of the British Columbian coast. Greg Knox, a small local business owner, states that “the wild salmon of our area are the lifeblood, the soul, of our coast. If [salmon farms] are allowed here, they will tear apart our soul, and you will see a lot of angry people” (Young and Liston 1055). Knox’s statement perfectly demonstrates how Indigenous environmentalism cultivates the understanding of a personal relationship between the land and people, thus as salmon farming harms the environment it is seen as harming a way of life, consequently motivating individuals to take action against the industry.
The events surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline serve as a final example of how Indigenous environmentalism encourages individual action against climate change. The pipeline, if completed, will cross under the Missouri River just upstream from the area where the Standing Rock Sioux tribe lives. Due to both the possibility of the pipe breaking and consequently contaminating the land and water surrounding the area, and the contentious treaty violations in regards to the use of the land, the tribe and many other Indigenous people and their allies have been actively protesting the project for months. While the Obama administration had supported a more rigorous exploration of the environmental impacts the pipeline would have, the Trump administration recently granted permission to the developer of the pipeline to continue with the project.
In February, Trump ordered the abandonment of the main protest camp by all, which lay in the path of the pipeline and had been there almost a year. However, the Indigenous activists did not leave easily, “it took 3½ hours for about 220 officers and 18 National Guard members to methodically search the protesters’ temporary homes and arrest people, including a man who climbed atop a building and stayed there for more than an hour before surrendering” (The Associated Press). The executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, Dallas Goldtooth, reacted to Trump’s actions by stating that, “today begins the next phase of mass resistance to Donald Trump’s toxic Dakota Access pipeline… This is our land, our water, our health, and our culture at stake — and if Donald Trump thinks we will give all of that up without a fight he is wrong” (MacPherson and Nicholson).
Both the protests at Standing Rock and Goldtooth’s statement demonstrate how Indigenous groups view the Earth as something that is deeply linked to themselves, and consequently as something that has immeasurable value. Pipeline projects in North America are a direct manifestation of a capitalist society which draws upon unsustainable resources in order to profit, and Indigenous resistance to such projects continually demonstrates a more biocentric view. The protests at Standing Rock over the months have not always been peaceful, yet individuals continued to travel there to show their support, therefore revealing their individual commitment to environmental sustainability. Indigenous perseverance in regards to the environment is highlighted in Goldtooth’s sentiment that people will not give up without a fight. This perseverance has been demonstrated not only through the action taken at Standing Rock, but on many other occasions, such as the protests regarding the Enbridge pipeline in Vancouver.
Conclusion
In 2012 David Suzuki, arguably one of the most influential environmentalists of modern time, said that “environmentalism has failed” because it has failed to stop the exploitation of natural resources, and to change people’s mindsets (Suzuki). However, maybe it is just western environmentalism that has failed because it enables capitalism and consumption. As shown above, the root values of Indigenous environmentalism work to better create a personal relationship with the land and encourage individual action to stop the exploitation of resources. Suzuki acknowledges this in an article in which he praises Indigenous environmentalism, stating that “people who live close to the land understand that seasons, climate, weather, pollinating insects, and plants are critical to our well-being” (Suzuki). Since Indigenous people’s cultural values link them fundamentally to the earth through historical establishment, their current values align much better with the biocentric world view necessary for positive, global environmental change. The exploration of this topic is valuable because humans need a healthy environment to survive, and in recent years, the conversations surrounding environmental practices have becoming increasingly important. By understanding and teaching the values behind Indigenous environmentalism, humanity may be more motivated to take direct action in regards to promoting environmentally sustainable practices, and thus saving the crumbling earth.
Bibliography
Bernstein, Steven F. The Compromise of Liberal Environmentalism, Columbia University Press, New York, 2001.
Castleden, Heather, Theresa Garvin, and Huu-ay-aht F. Nation. “”Hishuk Tsawak” (Everything is One/Connected): A Huu-Ay-Aht Worldview for Seeing Forestry in British Columbia, Canada.” Society & Natural Resources, vol. 22, no. 9, 2009, pp. 789-804
“Climate Change – United Nations Sustainable Development”. 2016. United Nations Sustainable Development.
Dauvergne, Peter. Environmentalism of the Rich, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2016.
Deiter, Connie, et al. “We are the Land; Let Us Heal Ourselves.” Biodiversity, vol. 3, no. 3, 2002, pp. 33-34, doi:10.1080/14888386.2002.9712601.
Frank, Miriam A. Defending the Sacred: Tom Goldtooth. vol. 40, Cultural Survival, Inc, Cambridge, 2016.
Government of BC. “Change In Size Of B.C. Glaciers (1985-2005)”. 2016.
Kinch, Megan. “Indigenous Takes on Environmentalism: An Interview on the Front Lines of Indigenous Land Defense.” Alternate Routes, vol. 25, 2014., pp. 259-266.
Krech, Shepard. “Reflections on Conservation, Sustainability, and Environmentalism in Indigenous North America.” American Anthropologist, vol. 107, no. 1, 2005, pp. 78-86
MacPherson, James and Blake Nicholson. “Company To Resume Work To Finish Dakota Access Pipeline”. The Washington Post 2017. Web. 8 Feb. 2017.
Simpson, Leanne R. “Aboriginal Peoples and the Environment.” Canadian Journal of Native Education 22.2 (1998): 223-37. ProQuest. Web. 5 Apr. 2017.
Simpson, Leanne. “First Nations and Last Species: Including the Input of Aboriginal People in Policy Decisions.” Alternatives Journal, vol. 26, no. 1, 2000, pp. 8.
Suzuki, David. “The Fundamental Failure Of Environmentalism”. David Suzuki Foundation. N.p., 2013. Web. 25 Jan. 2017.
The Associated Press. “Police In Riot Gear Arrest Remaining Standing Rock Protesters”. CBC News. N.p., 2017. Web. 6 Apr. 2017.
The United Nations. “Facts And Figures”. 2016. Unep.Org.
Young, Nathan, and Mary Liston. “(Mis)Managing a Risk Controversy: The Canadian Salmon Aquaculture Industry’s Responses to Organized and Local Opposition.” Journal of Risk Research, vol. 13, no. 8, 2010, pp. 1043