Shepard Krech's The Ecological Indian

Modern day Native American are widely known as stewards of the environment who fight for conservation and environmental issues. The position of the many Native American as environmentalists and conservationists is justified based on the perception that before European colonists arrived in the Americas, Native Americans had little to no effect on their environment as they lived in harmony with nature. This idea is challenged by Shepard Krech III in his work, The Ecological Indian. In The Ecological Indian, Krech argues that this image of the noble savage was an invented tradition that began in the early 1970’s, and that attempts to humanize Native Americans by attempting to portray them as they really were. Krech’s arguments are criticized by Darren J Ranco who in his response, claims that Krech fails to analyze the current state of Native American affairs, falls into the ‘trap’ of invented tradition, and accuses Krech of diminishing the power and influence of Native Americans in politics. This essay examines both arguments, but ultimately finds Krech to be more convincing as Krech’s

arguments are primarily focused on historical Native Americans rather than modern Native Americans and politics.
Shepard Krech III’s main argument is that the image of the Ecological Indian is not historically accurate.

Krech argues that, in order for this image to be true Native Americans had to be ecologists and thus had to think of their environment in systematic ways. He also argues that they that Native Americans had to be conservations, and therefore intentionally and wisely manage the future availability of resources. Krech argues that while Native Americans had extensive cultural knowledge of their environment, this does not necessarily translate to ecological knowledge. Krech notes that the further Native Americans have been removed from their environment, their knowledge about it dwindles. Krech argues that we will never know the true environmental impact of Native Americans as they too few and to thinly spread out to make a lasting difference on the land and its

resources.
One of Krech’s most convincing points is that conservation is different from sustainability. Conservation, as Krech notes, requires conscious thought and effort whereas sustainability does not. According to Krech, Native Americans certainty did live sustainably in order to maintain their societies, but they did not practice conservation. This is shown by the presence of the belief in reincarnation in many Native American societies. The idea of reincarnation shows that Native American societies believed that animals they hunted were infinitely renewable. The idea of infinite renewability defeats the idea of Native Americans as conservationists, as conservation would have been seen as unnecessary.
In opposition to Krech, Darren J. Ranco argues that Krech has tried to hide the political aspects of his findings. Ranco claims to analyze the historical, social, and representational complexities that Krech overlooks. One criticism Ranco levels against Krech is that he falls into the trap of the invented tradition thesis. Ranco argues that this thesis downplays the impact of imperialism. Ranco says that while humanizing Native Americans is admirable, Krech’s lack of appreciation for the historical and contemporary aspects of colonization shows an avoidance of power relationships. By downplaying these power relationships that throughout history Native Americans have suffered from, Ranco argues that because Krech’s ideas delegitimize Native Americans as environmentalists, he robs them of power and political influence that they have worked so hard to gain. Ranco even argues that intellectuals like Krech are participating in an academic imperialism that attacks the cultural integrity of Native Americans.
Krech’s arguments are more convincing than Ranco’s criticism of Krech’s arguments. The most important reason why this is so is because Krech’s focus is on historical Native Americans, not modern ones. Krech does not seek to undermine the environmentalist image of modern day Native Americans. Rather, he claims that the image of the noble save and the Ecological Indian are not historically accurate. While Krech does argue that not all modern day Native Americans are environmentalists, such as his example of the Inupiats who favor drilling for oil in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, this is not the crux of his main argument.
Ranco’s argument misses the point. Krech’s argument mainly refers to historical Native Americans, not modern populations. The most fatal flaw in Ranco’s argument come in his conclusion where he states that Krech, by passing judgement on Native Americans, shows his personal investment in those judgements. Ranco’s claim that Krech’s arguments open the door to attacks on reservation environmentalists is simply alarmist. Nothing Krech argues about promotes or legitimizes political attacks on the status of reservation environmentalists. Krech correctly recognizes that these attacks on him and his work are due to the fact that The Ecological Indian is politically incorrect.