Printer Friendly

Re-visioning native America: an indigenist view of primitivism and industrialism.

Those damned lazy Mexicans. You can't get 'em to work. Always takin' siestas during the best part of th' day. It's no wonder they end up livin' like dogs, th' way they lay around doin' nothin'. But that's th' way it's always been with them.

-- West Texas Farmer, 1985

All this fuss about Indian poverty and unemployment is just a bunch of bullshit. Hell, it's their own fault. You hire 'em to do a job; they work awhile, then just up and drift away. You can't depend on 'em to finish anything they start. There wouldn't be no Indian problem if their nature wasn't to be such a shiftless bunch.

-- South Dakota Rancher, 1988

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE LABOR PROCESS TO THE WAYS OF LIFE OF INDIGENOUS peoples is a central issue in any attempt to conceive a positive alternative to the conditions under which they presently live. Although the term "indigenous peoples" has global appropriateness, encompassing the several thousand distinct cultural-nationalities known to hold aboriginal links with the land base they occupy, usage in this article will accrue primarily to two major groups within the 48 coterminous states of the United States. These are the members of the various American Indian nations located within this geographic area, and a significant portion of the Mexican/Mexican-American/Chicano population residing within the U.S. at any given moment. The latter group is understood to be composed of American Indians from nations located mostly, but not exclusively, south of the Rio Grande, within what are now the states of Chihuahua, Sonora, Coahuila, Baja California del Norte, and Tamaulipas, in Mexico.(1) They are distinguished from their more northerly cousins by virtue of having undergone a Spanish-originated -- rather than Anglo-Saxon -- process of colonization.(2)

Taken together, these groups make up the very poorest strata of North American society, and have done so throughout the 20th century.(3) In particular, those Indians whose homelands lie north of the Rio Grande represent what may be accurately described as "the poorest of the poor" in the U.S. Overall, according to the government's own statistics, they experience hardly the lowest annual and lifetime per capita incomes of any identifiable "ethnic" aggregate. Their collective unemployment exceeds 65% each year, year after year; in some locales, such as the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, the unemployment rate has hovered in the upper 90th percentile for decades. Correspondingly, American Indians suffer the highest rates of infant mortality, death by malnutrition and exposure, tuberculosis, and plague (to list but a few causes of death) of any population group on the continent. The current life expectancy of the average American Indian male is barely 44 and one-half years. Females live an average of three and one-half years longer.(4)

These data readily suggest association with Third World contexts rather than with a subsection of what is reputedly "the world's most advanced industrial democracy," a matter that has led many critical observers to remark upon the existence of a bona fide "Third World at home" in the U.S. -- in the Indian World as "domestic dependent nations" in reservations, but also including Black ghettos and Spanish-speaking barrios. More accurately, such analysts might reflect upon the reality of a nonindustrial and very much ongoing Fourth World, an indigenous world upon which each of the other three -- First World (capitalist, industrialized), Second World (socialist, industrialized), Third World (either capitalist or socialist, and industrializing) -- has been constructed and is now being maintained or developed.(5) It is instructive that the people of this Fourth World, or "Host World" as it is sometimes called, comprise the absolute poorest sector of the populations attributed to each of the assortment of nation-states making up all three industrial or industrializing venues.(6) In other words, Fourth or Host World peoples are as marginalized in Third World settings as they are within the U.S. or former USSR.(7)

Conventional explanations of such circumstances, regardless of the relative degree of sophistication with which they are expressed, are reducible in their substance to echoes of the assertions tendered by the pair of "ignorant rednecks" quoted at the outset of this article. This is to say that it is a scholarly orthodoxy transcending ideological differentiation that native people, insofar as they retain and manifest genuine core attributes of their own "Stone Age" (or at least "primitive") cultures, do so in ways that prevent their effective incorporation into "modern" labor processes.(8) This inherent "irrationality" consistently shows itself, for example, in their readiness to elevate the importance of their participation in the ceremonial life of their culture above that of involvement in the "organized work place"; when spiritual duty calls, native people simply fail to show up for work. Similarly, they often display a marked willingness to assign a higher priority to meeting familial obligations, engaging in social activities, hunting and fishing seasons, and a host of other factors -- including an apparently insatiable desire for rest and recreation -- than to insuring "stability" in their "working lives."(9) Suffice it to say, indigenous folk make it abundantly clear that sale of their labor power is not an essential preoccupation of their existence. Consequently, they are considered to be among the least employable of all potential workers within any industrial or industrializing socioeconomic system.

The sort of endemic poverty experienced by indigenous peoples is therefore, in the conventional view, directly correlated to their retention of certain "retrograde" cultural characteristics. It follows that the route to solving the problem of native impoverishment is quite uniformly perceived among adherents to intellectual orthodoxy as lying in the obliteration of the final residues of "savagery" imbedded in the indigenous mind, assimilating the natives ever more perfectly and completely into the "advanced civilizations" that have come to dominate, and in many cases subsume, their societies.(10) Implicit in this notion -- once described as "the white man's burden" by Rudyard Kipling -- is the assumption that the physical well-being of any indigenous people is possible only in direct correspondence to the extent to which its cultural integrity is destroyed, its worldview extinguished. Although the genocidal content of such thinking and action, intended as it is to foster the disappearance of entire human groups as such, is quite recognizable under contemporary international legal definitions, it is invariably presented as "the humane alternative" to what are viewed as the range of other "realistic" possibilities.(11) Ultimately, these amount to only a pair of options: either letting the frustration of less-patient sectors of the dominant population vent themselves by physically exterminating indigenous obstructions to the "path of progress," or allowing indigenous peoples to continue as they are, until their deteriorating material situation accomplishes the same result.

A difficulty typically encountered by "Friends of the Indian," "Hispanic Bootstrappers," and others who would engage in cultural rather than physical forms of genocide is (and has been) the resistance mounted by native populations when it comes to cooperating in the liquidation of their ways of living and understanding the world.(12) Even worse, some among the subjects of the Friends' benevolence have been known to counter that they themselves hold visions of how things might be, which differ, root and branch, from those held within the dominant culture. These insights, the "Fourth Worlders" or "indigenists" argue, could serve to save not only their own nations from the predicaments in which they are now mired, but also those of the Friends as well.(13)

A singular basis for this "ingratitude" or "recalcitrance" is discerned in the continuing attachment of indigenous peoples to their heritage of "primitivism." Having never really experienced the benefits of material affluence -- the essence of their cultures being predicated in perpetual scarcity rather than surplus -- they do not comprehend the fact of their poverty. In sum, they have achieved no capacity to truly "understand what's good for them." The task confronting those who would better their miserable lot is thus fundamentally educational, to acquaint them with all they are "missing" through their obstinate insistence on remaining "outside of history."(14) Properly coached and oriented, it is widely believed, the consciousness of the natives can and will "evolve" to a point where they will be willing to harness themselves to the wheel of production in exchange for their proper share of otherwise unavailable goods and services. It is even possible, in the more radical elaborations on this theme, that they may become "as good as we are" (albeit, quite tardily and after the fashion of petulant children).(15)

There are, to be sure, several objectionable aspects to the thesis at hand, not least being the liberal doses of smug arrogance and cultural chauvinism with which its proponents, whatever their ideological guise, habitually adorn it. Beyond these, the entire conceptualization that places industrialism in a superior position vis-a-vis other sociocultural systems is grounded in a series of profoundly mistaken assumptions, erroneous conclusions, and sheer falsehoods concerning the functional and structural realities of both industrial and nonindustrial societies. It is to these that we now turn.

America's "Stone Age Savages"

The first question to pose in this connection is whether the indigenous peoples of North America actually lived in what might be reasonably categorized as a "stone age" prior to the European invasion. In framing such a query, it is important to observe that the term "Stone Age" itself derives from orthodox anthropological/archaeological conceptions of the socioeconomic conditions prevailing in Europe some 15,000 to 40,000 years ago, an extended period during which stone tools were the normative material expression of culture on that continent. It is generally believed that this "cave man" stage of material development in the evolution of European societies intersected with only the most feeble sorts of human accomplishment: economies were restricted to those of the preagricultural subsistence ("hunting and gathering") variety, and all but the most rudimentary suggestions of abstract thought were entirely absent. It is apparent that the early Europeans led a rather squalid existence, doomed to spend every waking moment laboriously pursuing the nutrients required to stave off the ever-present specter of imminent starvation, plagued throughout the generations of their consistently brief life spans by a chronic scarcity induced by the grossly inefficient economic structure.(16)

Only with the acquisition of certain "great discoveries" from the Middle East -- agriculture, animal domestication, and, eventually, metallurgy -- was Europe able to free itself from the constraints on human potential inherent to its Stone Age. To put it in simplest terms, as alterations in material circumstances allowed increasing economic efficiency, the proportion of human time necessarily devoted to the quest for sustenance correspondingly diminished. Time was, in other words, increasingly available for devotion to all the "other things" that are taken as constituting true culture: superstition was transcended by complex systems of theology; philosophical and mathematical thinking emerged, as did the practice of medicine, science and engineering, written language, art and architecture, codes of law, and concepts of enlightened governance. Each step along this route of "advancement" is seen to be coupled to a level of technological innovation making it possible. Conversely, none of it is possible for a people whose technology is indicative of the Stone Age.(17)

Since the implements and utensils employed by American Indians at the point of first contact with Europeans were made mainly of stone, Eurocentric orthodoxy -- both popular and scholarly -- has always decreed that their station in life must have equaled that of Europe during its Stone Age. To be blunt, the assumption is that not only were the indigenous peoples of America retarded by at least 10 millennia behind the levels of material and other sorts of cultural attainment already reached in Europe, but they were also physically and intellectually incapable of favorably altering this situation without the intervention of Europeans. The conventional portrait painted of those living north of the Rio Grande, in particular, has been that of a tiny, extremely dispersed population wandering endlessly across huge and vacant expanses of land, grubbing out the most meager possible livelihood through the perpetual toil of hunting, fishing, and the gathering of wild nuts, fruits, and berries.(18)

American Indian Agriculture and Medicine

In actuality, fully two-thirds of all the vegetal foodstuffs now consumed by humanity were under cultivation in Native America -- and nowhere else -- when Columbus first set foot on Hispanola.(19) An instructive, but hardly exhaustive, list of these crops includes corn, potatoes, yams, sweet potatoes, tomatoes, squash, pumpkins, most varieties of beans, all varieties of pepper (except black), amaranth, manioc (tapioca), mustard and a number of other greens, sunflowers, cassava, some types of rice, artichokes, avocados, okra, chayotes, peanuts, cashews, walnuts, hickory nuts, pecans, pineapples, bananas, plantains, bread fruit, passion fruit, many melons, persimmons, choke cherries, papayas, cranberries, blueberries, blackberries, coffee, sassafras, vanilla, chocolate, and cocoa.(20) To raise this proliferation of food items, American Indians had perfected elaborate and sophisticated agricultural technologies throughout the hemisphere -- including intricate and highly effective irrigation systems, ecologically integrated and highly effective planting methods such as milpa and conuco, and the refinement of what amounted to botanical experimentation facilities, among other things -- long before the arrival of the first European.(21)

Upwards of 60% of the subsistence of most Native American societies came directly from agriculture, with hunting and gathering providing a decidedly supplemental source of nutrients (just as fishing did and does, throughout the world).(22) This highly developed agricultural base was greatly enhanced by extensive trade networks(23) and food-storage techniques(24) that afforded precontact American Indians what was (and might well still be, if reconstituted) by far the most diversified and balanced diet on earth. This undoubtedly figures heavily in their generalized state of healthiness,(25) while allowing them to create a vast range of distinctive and quite lively regional cuisines, from which many dishes -- tacos, potato chips, and clam chowder, to name but three have subsequently been attributed to conquering groups.(26)

In contrast, the European agriculture of the same period revolved almost entirely around a narrow range of cereal grains -- primarily wheat, barley, oats, and rye -- accompanied by a few vegetables such as beets, turnips, cabbage, and carrots.(27) These were combined with large proportions of domesticated meat and dairy products, producing a diet that was at once strikingly bland in its culinary aspects and unbalanced to the point of inducing an assortment of endemic diseases extending from gout to scurvy.(28) Simply put, indigenous American agriculture and its concomitants were considerably more developed than those of the allegedly superior European civilization by the 16th century and, in many respects, have arguably remained so through the present day.(29)

Much the same might be said with regard to medicine. At a time when the cutting edge of European knowledge decreed that the application of leeches to drain off "tainted blood" was an effective treatment for all manner of ailments, and that causing the sick to be stung by hornets would cure bubonic plague, American Indians were widely using holistic and preventive approaches to health care. Hygiene and sanitation were conspicuous elements of native life in the Americas, even while the absence of sewers in European cities gave rise to devastating epidemics, and bathing was considered a crime against god and king.(30) Native American pharmacology already contained a veritable cornucopia of "wonder drugs" including quinine, a close equivalent to aspirin, assorted vitamin compounds, anesthetics, analgesics, astringents, stimulants, antispasmodics, and a wide array of creams and ointments developed to facilitate the healing of every sort of wound, bum, and abrasion.(31) A number of native peoples are also known to have established the procedures necessary to allow their performance of such operations as tumor removal, amputation of limbs, and brain surgery.(32) In this connection, it is worth noting that steel instruments never yielded the precision obtained by precontact indigenous practitioners with the obsidian blades they designed for use in their surgical activities; it was not until the advent of laser technologies during the 1970s that Western science came to rival the accuracy inherent to traditional American Indian surgical tools.(33)

Native American Mathematics, Science, Architecture, and Engineering

In terms of mathematical and related forms of abstract thinking, the accomplishments of precontact indigenous peoples provide an ample accompaniment to the achievements already discussed, centering mainly in the sciences of botany, horticulture, anatomy, and pharmacology. It is appropriate to observe that the concept of zero originated among the Mayan peoples of Central America.(34) The Mexicanos (Aztecs) of the central Mexican highlands had, well before the first Spaniard set foot on their plateau, computed a calender extending some 500 years into the future and with a degee of accuracy several decimal places greater than that of the "Julian" calender still in general use by Eurocentric societies.(35) The existence of the Mexicano calender can be understood only within the context of a body of astronomical knowledge markedly superior to that current in Europe at the time, where heated debates on the probable flatness of the Earth were not especially uncommon. Nor is there reason to suspect that such astute awareness of the heavens' functioning was unique to Mesoamerica, as examination of the belief systems indigenous to areas as geographically diverse as Tierra del Fuego in the south, or the Arctic tundra in the north, readily reveals.(36)

Beyond calendars and astronomy, American Indian mathematical and scientific thought manifested itself in a proliferation of forms of architecture and engineering. Throughout Mesoamerica, indigenous people mastered the principles involved in constructing earthquake-proof buildings on both residential and monumental scales hundreds of years before Columbus. Many of their efforts remain the tallest and/or largest structures by volume in their locales, having continued to stand while subsequently erected buildings -- based in supposedly superior European architectural concepts -- have collapsed all around them. In the process of creating their edifices, these native peoples developed ways of quarrying and perfectly squaring huge stones without the use of steel tools of any sort. The cut stones, many weighing 10 tons or more, were then moved -- often uphill and over great distances -- to construction sites where they were lifted into place.(37) All this was accomplished as a matter of course, without resort to draught animals and, supposedly, without wheeled vehicles.(38) Needless to say, certain of these feats could not be duplicated today, even with application of the most "space age" of technologies.

The Incas of the Andean highlands and, to a lesser extent, the Mexicanos further north, also constructed lengthy complexes of leveled, graded, and paved roads -- just one of which, Capac Nan, stretches more than 2,500 miles -- complete with curbs, guttered drainage systems, retaining walls, rest areas, and road signs posted at regular intervals. Substantial portions of these roads, most of them built at a uniform 24-foot width, are still in use, most notably in Ecuador and Peru. To complete their roadways, the Incas perfected the design and construction of suspension bridges long before the relevant engineering concepts saw common usage in Europe.(39)

North of the Rio Grande, the Anasazis had, by the year 1200, completed construction of their cities at Mesa Verde (Colorado) and Chaco Canyon (New Mexico). These complicated socio-architectural endeavors remained the largest apartment complexes built in North America until well into the 20th century.(40) They also incorporated engineering elements concerning insulating characteristics and use of solar energy that are appreciably sounder than those employed by most Eurocentric architects and engineers right up to the present. In the same vein, the Hidatsas, Arikaras, Pawnees, and other peoples of the Great Plains region developed comfortable, spacious, and durable "underground" housing techniques that were both extremely energy efficient and ideally suited to the tornado-ridden climate in which they lived.(41) Today, after a long hiatus brought about by their conquerors' insistence that grossly inefficient and vulnerable above-ground construction represented a superior mode of building on the plains, subsurface or "partially submerged" building designs are making a comeback at the hands of some of the more "radical" and "innovative" Eurocentric architects. Although these "new" conceptions are precisely similar in principle to those long ago implemented by native builders, acknowledgment of and attribution to the actual inventors have been sorely missing.

Meanwhile, like the peoples of Mesoamerica, the Anasazis constructed a paved road system, this one radiating outward from Chaco Canyon and extending for hundreds of miles in virtually straight fines across the Arizona/New Mexico desert. Far to the southwest, the Hohokams had, during the same period, built more than 3,000 miles of irrigation canals, each running quite straight and exhibiting a uniform width. The Hohokam canals were also engineered to effect a neatly consistent gradient drop of about one-half inch per quarter mile to insure maximally efficient water flow. Europe knew no counterpart in terms of sustained architectural precision at this point in its history. Suffice it to observe that the present-day cities of Phoenix and Tucson have opted to incorporate large segments of this ancient indigenous water transportation system into their own, and have done so without substantial modification to the original engineering.(42)

Indigenous Governance in America

A typical Eurocentric notion of how the societies of North America's indigenous peoples were traditionally organized is that they were grouped into "tribes," ruled by an assortment of "chiefs." Nowhere is the fallacy of this idea better demonstrated than with the Haudenosaunee, or Five (later Six) Nations Iroquois Confederacy, as it is more commonly known. Assembled in present-day New York State and southeastern Canada on the basis of the Kaianerekowa ("Great Law of Peace") promulgated by an indigenous philosopher named Deganwidah at least three centuries before Columbus, the Haudenosaunee may well have been the first functioning model of real democracy and was an essential practical precursor to the contemporary aspirations for international harmony expressed through the United Nations.(43)

At a time when even the most enlightened European nation-states were still afflicted with a firm belief in the "divine rights of kings," the Haudenosaunee had been living under a highly effective form of representative government for hundreds of years.(44) As contrasted with the chronic bias against females still displayed by all Eurocentric societies, the Haudenosaunee had institutionalized gender balance by vesting all power to select and recall governmental delegates among women. Further safeguards to genuine egalitarianism were built into such socioeconomic arenas as property relations, age-based organizational mandates, and the matrilineal/matrilocal nature of kinship bonding.(45)

Nor was all this possible because the Iroquois amounted to only a small, "backwatered" or powerless amalgamation. To the contrary, the record shows them to have been consummate diplomats who entered as equals into bilateral agreements with the European powers, held the balance of military power in their area for nearly two centuries after first contact with the invaders, and tipped the scales of victory to Great Britain during the so-called French and Indian Wars.(46) It was a Haudenosaunee leader named Canassatego who, during a meeting between colonists and British officials in 1744, firsts suggested that the 13 English colonies of the eastern seaboard be organized into a federation similar to that created by his own people.(47) Benjamin Franklin, Tom Paine, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others among the "Founding Fathers" of the United States candidly acknowledged in their personal papers that they drew great conceptual inspiration from the Haudenosaunee in their quest to establish the "first modern republic."(48) They insisted, of course, on intermingling ideas drawn from ancient Greece and Rome, as well as those of more topical thinkers such as Voltaire and Rousseau, with those of the Iroquois. The result was an unmistakable and unqualified diminution of basic Haudenosaunee libertarianism within its Euro-American counterpart.(49)

The "Iroquois League" was not the only example of its sort. From at least as early as 1350, the powerful Creek Confederacy, in what are now the southeastem states of Georgia, Florida, and Alabama, also governed itself through an elected council structure. Like the Haudenosaunee, it later engaged quite successfully and over an extended period in high-level diplomacy with European nation-states. After contact with Old World peoples, the Creeks also displayed an unparalleled interracial openness, marrying, adopting, and otherwise naturalizing both European immigrants and large numbers of escaped African slaves as full citizens within their society.(50) Far to the west, in the central Sonoran desert, the Yaqui federation exhibited many of the same democratic characteristics as the Creeks and waged a protracted war first against Spain, and then the Republic of Mexico, to forestall the erosion of their fundamental liberties through imposition of Eurocentric forms of governance.(51) Many further examples might be given by which to illustrate the rarified political acumen attained by precontact indigenous peoples on this continent. The best testimony to this effect, however, may be the fact that, during its westward expansion, the U.S. government found occasion to formally recognize the preexisting full national sovereignty of various native peoples at least 371 times between 1778 and 1871.(52)

"Slaves to Subsistence"?

While the preceding information should have done much to counter certain standard assumptions concerning the style and quality of living that prevailed in North America prior to the conquest, it addresses several important questions only obliquely. These center upon the ideas that the precontact population on this continent was quite tiny and largely nomadic and that its time was almost wholly consumed in the drudgery of pecking out a most meager subsistence. As Marshall Sahlins (1972: 3) has framed the perception:

The nomadic hunters and gatherers barely met minimum subsistence

needs and often fell far short of them. Their population of 1 person to

10 or 20 square miles reflects this. Constantly on the move in search

of food, they clearly lacked the leisure hours for nonsubsistence activities

of any significance, and they could transport little of what

they might manufacture in spare moments. To them, adequacy of

production meant physical survival, and they rarely had surplus of

either products or time.(53)

Although such misconceptions may have been implicitly corrected through even limited examination of such phenomena as native agriculture and architecture, it would be well to discuss each issue more directly.


It is an article of faith within the Eurocentric vision that traditional American Indians "wandered the land," driven to perpetual motion by their utter dependence upon access to migrating animal herds and the seasonal ripenings of an array of wild fruits, nuts, and berries.(54) In actuality, every precontact indigenous society in North America was organized around fixed villages, towns and, sometimes, cities.(55) These constituted the focal points for cultural and socioeconomic activity, generation after generation, allowing not only the development of highly efficient surplus and trade economies, but also the sort of long-term social stability that lent itself to the realization of well-polished forms of governance, property relations, and the like. Such consistency in land use and occupancy also fostered clear understandings as to the national territorialities of given peoples, not in the European sense of precisely defined national borders, but from a more fluid, interactive, and cooperative posture of international affairs.(56)

The urban centers of Native American life were not few and far between, as is typically claimed by proponents of Eurocentric orthodoxy. As Weatherford (1988: 231-232) has observed:

Even though the European settlers imposed new architectural styles

and new ideas of urban planning on America, they usually built over

existing Indian settlements rather than clearing out new areas of settlement.

Subsequent generations of Americans usually forgot that

their towns and cities had been founded by Indians. Myths arose

about how the colonists literally carved their settlements out of the

uninhabited forest.... In nearly every case the European colonists

built a city that eventually stretched to hundreds and even thousands

of times the size and population of the original Indian settlement, but

nevertheless they built on top of a previous settlement rather than

starting a new one. Even the Puritans took over fields already cleared

by the Indians but abandoned when European diseases decimated the

native population.

Weatherford goes on to note that thousands of contemporary place names in North America -- Chicago, Nantucket, Milwaukee, Roanoke, Tallahasee, Minneapolis, Poughkeepsie, Oswego, and Kansas City among them -- are lifted directly from those already bestowed by native occupants before the first Europeans arrived. Others, like Seattle, result from the Euro-American practice of renaming village sites after indigenous leaders who resided in them at the point each was taken away. Even the location of the U.S. Capitol, which legend has it was selected by George Washington amid a virgin tract of forest, was really the site of Naconhtake, a major trade center of the Conoy Indians. The present Washington, D.C., suburb of Anacostia gained its name via a Latinized corruption of the original indigenous word. The Potomac River, astride which the Capitol now sits, was so designated through a comparable corruption of the name of Patawomeke, a principal Conoy leader (Ibid.).

Despite the "sedentary" constant of precontact native existence, the travel quotient for most societies, especially for young adult males, was undoubtedly rather high. Hunting and fishing, which were integral to (though not preponderant within) nearly all indigenous economics, demanded it, as did engaging in the extensive interregional commerce that fleshed out the inventories of commodities available in each locale. Hence, it is fair to say that the degree of mobility evident among precontact American Indians was pronounced. The meaning of this can be accurately understood only from the vantage point of a perspective tendered elsewhere: "The Indian did not wander; he commuted" (Jennings, 1975: 71).

"The Vacant Land"

Another core tenet of Eurocentric doctrine is that the invading European population did not really displace anyone in North America because the land was largely an uninhabited vacuum, vacant and open for the taking. The "scientific" foundation upon which this assertion rests is the contention of a "giant of American anthropology," James M. Mooney, who posited that the precontact population of the continent north of the Rio Grande totaled "approximately 1,100,000 persons" (Mooney, 1928). The methods Mooney employed in determining that this number was in any way accurate are quite ambiguous, given that his study of the matter was published posthumously and without footnotes. It is apparent, however, that they consisted of nothing more than a compilation of arbitrary, across-the-board reductions -- by an average of more than 50% -- of earlier regional and subregional estimates. These, in turn, were based on equally arbitrary reductions of still earlier first-hand accounts regarding the size of given native groups at or shortly after first Contact.(57)

Mooney's "provisional detailed estimates" were immediately adopted by his successor as leading U.S. anthropologist, Alfred Louis Kroeber, seemingly without so much as a cursory glance at their merits. For some period, Kroeber devoted much time and energy, as well as the luster of his academic prestige, to discrediting anyone brash enough to suggest that his and Mooney's rearward demographic projections might have been cast too low, overall, or at least with regard to specific locales.(58) Then, based on no discernible factual evidence at all, Kroeber announced that he had concluded Mooney had overestimated, and effected yet another across-the-board reduction of 10%. The resulting "definitive" tally, which came to "not more than 1,000,000" indigenous people living in all of North America prior to 1492, was entrenched as "scholarly truth" for some 40 years after its publication in 1939, and is still widely believed today.(59)

The placement of an arbitrary ceiling upon the number of native people who lived in precontact North America corresponds quite well with the equally arbitrary limits orthodox anthropology has sought to impose upon the forms and levels of cultural attainment they had achieved. Also at issue is an apparent desire of the status quo to diminish the magnitude of indigenous population reduction associated with the Euro-American "civilization" of North America. Using Kroeber's maximum estimate of one million in comparison to the U.S. Census Bureau's finding in 1890 that only about 227,000 American Indians remained alive in the United States, one is led to conclude that some 78% of the native population was wiped out during the invasion and conquest.(60) While this figure places the extermination of Indians on par with history's worst genocides, more accurate estimates of precontact population serve to drive the rate of attrition into the upper 90th percentile, a matter that is simply unparalleled. The distinction is not insignificant, as official insistence upon the accuracy of Kroeber's spectacularly low count readily shows.

Even as the Mooney/Kroeber numbers were being entrenched as dogma, much lesser known -- but far more solidly researched -- estimates were being reached by scholars such as Lesley B. Simpson, Sherburne F. Cook, and Woodrow Borah.(61) By the late 1960s, the work of Henry F. Dobyns had revealed that the population of what is now the state of Florida alone very nearly equaled that attributed to all of North America by Mooney and Kroeber, while the Ohio River Valley had supported a somewhat larger number.(62) Ultimately, Dobyns estimated that the aggregate Native North American population may have been as great as 18.5 million at the time of Columbus' arrival in the New World,(63) While more conservative researchers such as Russell Thornton have concluded that a precontact indigenous population of 10 million or more is entirely probable.(64) Ecological demographers such as William Catton (1982) have concurred, suggesting that North America was saturated with human population in terms of the natural carrying capacity of the land long before 1500 and that indigenous peoples had quite deliberately held their numbers at or below this level in order not to unbalance the proportional equations of nature.

"Paleolithic Drudges"

As should by now be abundantly clear, the normative standard of precontact Native American life, material and otherwise, did not devolve upon the hunting and gathering activities indicative of "paleolithic" socioeconomic organization. In purely materialist terms, "neolithic" would perhaps be a more appropriate descriptor, although it, too, is conspicuously lacking in its ability to convey the range of nonmaterial attainments evidenced by traditional native cultures. One of the cardinal signifiers of the conceptual gulf separating orthodox anthropological classifications of precontact socioeconomic forms and actual indigenous realities rests in the quantity of labor supposedly required to meet subsistence and other material needs.

It is taken as a given of mainstream scholarship that at both paleolithic and neolithic levels of development, work was/is a virtual constant, a necessity precluding the leisure time marking "quality of life" and the concomitant creativity leading to cultural refinement. As has been noted, such sweeping quantitative assessments derive in large part from the fact that the case studies forming the predicate of anthropological wisdom were gleaned almost exclusively among peoples undergoing geographical dislocation and other radical disruptions of their traditional socioeconomic structures as the result of European invasion, conquest, and colonization during the 19th century. By contrast to these wildly skewed examples, the invading culture has always made itself appear vastly superior in terms of relieving its members of most of the drudgery thus associated with "primitive" societies.

More recent evidence, however, obtained among those indigenous peoples who have been able to maintain or reconstitute (however imperfectly) their precontact socioeconomic forms, has begun to tell a very different story. For instance, studies conducted among the aboriginal population of Arnhem Land, Australia, during the late 1950s concluded that the average work day among these true hunter-gatherers averages five hours, eight minutes, all told.(65) Further, the work load seems not to be especially tiresome, either physically or mentally (Ibid.: 150 fn.). Consequently, those engaged in the labor process "do not approach it as an unpleasant job to be got over as soon as possible, or a necessary evil to be postponed as long as possible" (McArthur, 1960: 92). To the contrary, some aboriginal groups, such as the Yir-Yiront, make no linguistic distinction between work and play (Sharp, 1958: 6). Yet all basic subsistence needs are more than minimally satisfied on a consistent rather than erratic basis (McArthur, 1960: 92).

Among the Dobe portion of the !Kung Bushmen of Botswana, another true hunting and gathering culture, the data are even more striking. Only about two-thirds of the Dobe potential work force is deployed as labor at any given moment, leaving the other third free to engage in other pursuits (Lee, 1969: 67). Of those engaged in labor, the average work week is approximately 15 hours, or two hours, nine minutes per day. In other words, "each productive individual supporting herself or himself and dependents still has three and a half to five and a half days [per week] available for other activities" (Ibid.). All subsistence needs are nonetheless met, and an appreciable surplus generated; "the Bushmen do not lead a substandard existence on the edge of starvation as has been commonly supposed?" (Ibid.: 73).

Concerning peoples for whom agriculture augmented by hunting and gathering is the mode, the figures are comparable. Among the Bemba of Zimbabwe, for example,

at [the village of] Kasaka, in a slack season, the old men worked

fourteen days out of twenty and the young men seven; while at [the

village of] Kampamba in the busier season, the men of all ages

worked an average of eight out of nine working days [Sunday not included].

The average working day in the first instance was two and

three-quarters hours for men and two hours gardening plus four hours

domestic work for women, but the figures vary from zero to six hours

per day. In the second case the average was four hours for men and

six for women, and the figures showed the same variation (Richards,

1962: 393-394).(66)

The work patterns of the Bemba are quite similar to those of the Toupouri of North Cameroon, where 105.5 days per year are devoted to agricultural labor, 87.5 days to work of other sorts, 161.5 to leisure, and an annual average of nine and a half sick days are reported to be normative (Guillard, 1962: 415-428; Clark and Haswell, 1964: 117).

Such circumstances are hardly restricted to Australia and Africa. Among the Kuikuru people of the Amazon Basin, "a man spends about 3.5 hours a day on subsistence -- two hours on horticulture, and 1.5 on fishing. Of the remaining 10 or 12 waking hours of the day, the Kuikuru men spend a great deal of time dancing, wrestling, in some form of informal recreation, and in loafing" (Carniero, 1968: 134). And again, with regard to the Kapauku of Papua (New Guinea):

Since the Kapauku have a conception of balance in life, only every

other day is supposed to be a working day. Such a day is followed by

a day of rest in order to "regain lost power and health." This

monotonous fluctuation of leisure and work is made more appealing

to the Kapauku by inserting into their schedule periods of prolonged

holidays.... Consequently, we usually find only some people departing

for their gardens in the morning, the others are taking their "day

off." However, many individuals do not rigidly conform to this ideal.

The more conscientious cultivators often work intensively for several

days in order to complete clearing a plot, making a fence, or digging

a ditch. After such a task is accomplished, they relax for several days,

thus compensating for the "missed" days of rest (Pospisil, 1958).

The same sorts of observations have been made concerning the Maori of New Zealand, the Lozi and other Bantu groups in Azania (South Africa), the Siuai of Bougainville (Solomon Islands), and many other peoples in varying locales.(67) It is worth noting that, by-and-large, such labor-related demands on time as commuting and domestic forms of work have been lumped into the labor time totals attributed to the various traditional indigenous socioeconomic contexts studied. Hence, the uniformly abundant "off work" periods involved represent truly free time that can be devoted entirely to recreation and creativity. As a result, as Audrey Richards (1962: 393) has observed, "the whole bodily rhythm of [traditional indigenous people] differs completely from that of a peasant in Western Europe, let alone an industrial worker."

Those who take for granted the superior quality of life attending industrial socioeconomics would do well to seriously consider the implications of such things in comparison to the correlate indices of their own system, remarked upon by Andre Gorz (1983) and others: a base work week of 40 to 48 hours, exclusive of overtime, commuting time, time required for subsistence shopping and food preparation, as well as time consumed in sundry other domestic chores. The average per capita labor-time expenditure in advanced industrial societies exceeds 80 hours per week, more than 530% of the average for Dobe society (Ibid.). Additionally, the imposition of such massive quantities of labor time in even the most liberal industrialized context is far more regimented and arbitrary than that evidenced in the most rigidly structured indigenous society. The result is a vastly more stressful, less leisurely environment, under conditions of industrialization than appears to be the case in even the most primitive of Stone Age cultures.


Although it is undoubtedly true that industrial society generates a much greater abundance of material items than do traditional native societies, axiomatic correlations between this fact and living standards are questionable in the extreme. Indeed, it is plainly arguable that -- in genuine human terms such as a sense of personal fulfillment, control over one's time, and general peace of mind -- the quality of life realized within traditional native societies greatly outstrips that of their industrialized counterparts. Viewed from this perspective, one can only conclude that quality of life, at least for the great bulk of a given population, deteriorates in direct proportion to the degree of industrialization it has undergone. Such a process is, at best, a strange emblem by which to define "human progress."

Here, the dilemma experienced by contemporary North American Indians snaps into bold relief. While the colonially-induced physical circumstances under which they suffer -- depicted at the outset of this essay -- are plainly intolerable, the "solutions" presented by all facets of the dominant culture are in many ways even worse. The option of embracing the industrial order might, as advertised, alleviate the magnitude of their material deprivation. Simultaneously, however, it would seal them into the surrounding pathos of Euro-America, negating, perhaps irrevocably, those aspects of their own tradition that are unmistakably preferable to that which is offered as its replacement. American Indians are thereby trapped within a netherworld in which it is presently impossible either to abandon their sociocultural heritage or to viably reconstitute its socioeconomic forms.

The means to break this impasse lie within the broader society, particularly its more enlightened and progressive sectors. Only there does sufficient weight and mass exist to reshape the current social order in such ways as to allow North America's native people the "space" they require to reconstitute themselves in a meaningful fashion. Any broad-based initiative to support the genuine liberation of Native North America will necessarily be predicated on a general and fundamental alteration in consciousness among the dominant population. Popular conceptions concerning the nature of, and meaning assigned to, the workings of traditional indigenous cultures must be recast far more accurately than has heretofore been the case. Only from such a reformed vantage point, of the sort barely sketched in this article, can non-Indians hope to make decisions and undertake actions alleviating rather than perpetuating, and even increasing, the magnitude of the problems their society has imposed upon native people. At one level or another, it is to be expected that many, if not most, progressive non-Indians will agree that this is a worthy goal, at least in an abstract moral or "idealistic" sense. Yet it is much more.

Any coin has two sides, this one no less than any other. The very process of reconceiving the Stone Age, as suggested above, inherently entails a simultaneous reconsideration of the Eurocentric notion of historical materialism in all its various guises. Such ideas as the "labor theory of value" will inevitably be called into question from progressive rather than reactionary standpoints. This is equally true of attempts to uncover conceptual remedies to the sorts of malaise -- alienation, reification, and the like -- besetting advanced industrial societies themselves. Already, such efforts have been undertaken, however tentatively, by theorists such as Michael Albert, Murray Bookchin, and Rudolph Bahro.(68) Their collective quest to achieve a new synthesis of understanding is to be applauded, but must be carried far beyond its immediate, preliminary level if it is to prove successful. As the Lakota scholar Vine Deloria, Jr. (1979: 213), framed the matter, more than a decade ago:

Western science must reintegrate human emotions and intuitions into

its interpretation of phenomena.... In the re-creation of metaphysics

as a continuing search for meaning which incorporates all aspects of

science and historical experience, we can hasten the time when we

will come to an integrated conception of how our species came to be,

what it has accomplished, and where it can expect to go in the millennia

ahead. Our next immediate task is the unification of human


Unfortunately, none of the aforementioned thinkers have approached their task in the manner described by Deloria. As yet, they have not begun to come to grips with the fact that many of the "new" insights they seek already exist, imbedded in ongoing systems of indigenous knowledge the world over. Perhaps ironically, the conceptual key to liberation of native societies is thus also the key to liberating Eurocentrism from itself, unchaining it from the twin fetishes of materialism and production. In the most concrete possible terms, the reactualization of traditional indigenous socioeconomic structures where they have been most severely suppressed -- especially in North America, with its abundant juxtaposition of native peoples and "modern" technologies -- can provide practical living models of how other societies might begin to truly redefine and reorganize themselves in constructive ways. To this extent at least, the reemergence of a vibrant and functioning Native North America in the 21st century would offer a vital prefiguration of what humanity as a whole might accomplish.

What is called for is not some "reconstitution of the Stone Age," but rather that the Fourth World finally be extended the proper recognition, understanding, and respect that it has always been due. Instead of consigning it arbitrarily and presumptuously to the irrelevancy of "archaicism," the wisdom and values retained all along by unrepentant "Stone Agers" of the modern indigenous world must at last be allowed to inform the other paradigms of knowledge within the human endeavor in such a way as to complete and perfect the whole.

Then, and probably only then, will we be able to create a human project in which, as Abbie Hoffman once put it, "we can strap our computers to the trees and live within instead of upon nature."(69) Only then will we be able to forge a multifaceted, but collectively held, worldview that places materialism and spirituality in sustainable balance with one another. Only then will we be able to remove labor from its burdensome contemporary position as the descriptor of our essence, returning it to its rightful place as an integral, but not overdetermined, aspect of our being.(70) Together, we must hammer out the intellectual methods by which we not only retain that which is useful in that which exists, but also recapture that which most of us have lost in the process of acquiring it. Indigenous peoples are the primary repositories of the latter and thereby possess the figurative road map to our future. Hence, they must be asked to lead as well as follow. It is time we at last clasp hands and move forward ... as equals.


(1.) The indigenous nations of Canada are not considered within the definition used here because, unlike their counterparts in northern Mexico, almost none of their populations have been displaced into the U.S., either transiently or permanently. (2.) Significant confusion attends this definition insofar as a substantial portion of the populatio in question attempts to identify itself with the tradition of its Spanish colonizers, rather than the colonized indigenous nations from which it so obviously springs. Such identification by victims with the identity of their victimizers is a rather well-known phenomenon in the psychology of individuals and often marks the experience of entire peoples under sustained colonial rule. See Fanon (1967). (3.) This is said in full knowledge of the fact that appreciable segments of the Black population in the U.S. -- in the Brownsville, Harlem, and South Bronx sections of New York City, for example -- experience poverty every bit as pronounced as that which pertains on most Indian reservations or among the streams of Chicano migrants. Taken as a whole, however, the U.S. Black population nonetheless finds itself in a somewhat better economic position than the two indige groups. See Amott and Matthaei (1991). For information on Native Americans, see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1988). (4.) See U.S. Bureau of Census, Population Division, Statistics Branch (1984). See also U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1988). For detailed corroboration of the fact that things have not lately "improved," see U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1976). (5.) An interesting articulation of the Fourth World concept may be found in Weyler (1984: 212-250). (6.) In this political paradigm, then, the former USSR's brand of community capitalism is just the flip side of corporate capitalism derived in the U.S. Yet, in a visionary sense, the Host World also meant to be the guardianship for balance and order of the natural order that includes, but is not preempted by, homo sapiens of all cultural traditions and social persuasions. For example, the communalism of indigenous peoples would be contrasted with the consumerism of Euro-Americans. In such a cultural/social construction, all cash economies that replace subsistence ones are predicated on a labor, consumer, and elitist leadership to control the masses via "representative" governance that is now threatening us (the masses) through a global transcorporate "new world order." In such scenarios and international interdynamics, so-called representative governance undermines "participatory" government, as in "by the people," in false dichotomies that contrast "development" to undevelopment or underdevelopment, an economic hierarchy of classism/elitism versus communalism, and "civilization" versus "primitivism" or what is now termed tribalism.

Use of the "Host World" terminology may be found in Winona LaDuke's preface to Churchill (1983: i-vii) and in LaDuke (1989). hi the latter essay, she seems to prefer the Host World as a general concept to the Fourth World, which I agree with and have interpreted as correlating the Host World to an indigenous worldview compared to the Fourth World as the economic strata/classes of industrialism. (7.) An interesting elaboration on portions of this topic may be found in Connor (1984). According to Gloria Grant Means, a Navajo (Dine) woman educator, in an interview on August 5, 1992, "The Dine people have traditionally conceptualized the Fourth World as a spiritual transition based on our creation stories, a cycle that is inevitable but a very difficult one in terms of human self-destruction, that is ultimately guidance (not governance) to a higher wisdom." (8.) See, as examples, Dalton (1961: 1-25), LeClair (1962: 1179-1203), and Hindless and Hirst (1975). (9.) For an excellent commentary on the sort of phenomenon at issue and an illustration of the ways in which it has been treated within Eurocentric anthropology, see Barnett (1938: 349-358). (10.) The classic discourse in this vein is, of course, Graham Clark's (1953). (11.) The complete text of the United Nations 1948 Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide may be found in Brownlie (1981: 31-34). (12.) The terminology used here is commonplace, the intercultural dynamics consistent; see Prucha (1978). (13.) See, as one example, Akwesasne Notes, Editors (1977). (14.) For a lucid exposition on this theme, see Wolf (1982). (15.) Such posturing is common not only to capitalist thinking and literature, but also to that of the Marxian variety. See, for example, Reno (1981). (16.) For a classic articulation of this thesis, see Braidwood (1957). See also Bordes (1968). (17.) See, for example, Redfield (1953). See also Braidwood (1952) and Loring (1979). (18.) The classic in this genre is James M. Mooney's The Aboriginal Population of America North of Mexico (1928). Mooney's grotesquely inaccurate conclusions were canonized in American anthropology by Alfred Louis Kroeber in an essay entitled "Native American Population" (1934: 1-25). The essay is also included in Kroeber's Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America (1939). (19.) This has been well known for some time, as is revealed in certain of the less public pronouncements of the anthropological establishment. In 1929, for instance, H.J. Spinden, a Smithsonian scholar, quietly observed that "about four-sevenths of the agricultural production of the United States are in economic plants domesticated by the American Indian and taken over by the white man" (1929:465 fn.). (20.) See Farb and Armelagos (1980). See also Weatherford (1988). It is also important to note that literally hundreds of foodstuffs being grown by Native Americans at the point of first contact -- tuber and root crops such as oca, anu, achira, papa liza, liki, and maza -- were never adopted by the conquerors, and in many cases forced out of production. (21.) See Josephy (1968). See also Holmes (1909). Concerning more southerly practices, see Gliessman, Garcia, and Amador (1981). (22.) Several studies are relevant here. As a sample, see Herndon (1967: 283-297), Russell (1961: 58-91), Vayda (1961: 618-624), and Sahlins (1969: 13-33). (23.) It is estimated that peoples in highly productive agricultural areas devoted as much as half their annual crops to trade with peoples in less or differently productive locales, either for diffe crop items, for meat and/or fish, or for nonfood commodities. Trade networks were quite extensive, with the indigenous peoples of New England known to have regularly engaged in commerce with those of the Arctic Circle, the peoples of the Great Plains region of the U.S. interacting with those of present-day Guatemala. See Jennings (1975: Chapter 5, "Savage Form for Peasant Function," especially pages 61-67). See also Wallace and Hoebel (1952). (24.) American Indian methods of food preservation centered on drying ("jerking"), freeze drying, and smoking, all more efficient, palatable, and nutritional than the European convention of salting food for storage. See Russell (1962: 47-49) and Weatherford (1988: 64). (25.) Most nutritionally related diseases were virtually unknown in precontact Native America. See Wissler, Krogman, and Krickerberg (1939). (26.) Consider "Irish" potatoes and "English" walnuts as but two examples of entire food items being attributed to the conquerors rather than the original domesticators of the foodstuffs in question. Consider also the implications for so-called Italian cuisine had the tomato never been acq from Native Americans. Similarly, several cuisines of China (Szechuan, for example) would be nonexistent without the varieties of pepper developed by American Indians. The same might be said for the curries of India itself. See Bryant, Courtney, Markesbery, and DeWalt (1985). See also Crosby (1972). (27.) For the best exposition on this topic, see Salaman (1949). See also Weatherford (1980). (28.) An excellent survey of this may be found in Drummond and Wilbraham (1957). See also Salaman (1949). (29.) This is true not only in terms of the ecological modes of agriculture developed by indigenous peoples of the New World, but also in terms of relative crop yield and efficiency. More than 3,000 varieties of potato were under cultivation in the Americas at the point of arrival; fewer than 250 remain in production today, with fewer than 20 comprising at least 75% of the world crop (Weatherford, 1988: 63-64); See also Gumpert (1986). Another perspective on the high efficiency of traditional American Indian agriculture may be found in Stea (1985). (30.) On the impact of disease, see McNeill (1976). Of additional interest, see Creighton (1891). (31.) Concerning native pharmacology, see Taylor (1965). See also Vogel (1970) and Hutchins (1969). On the impact of quinine in particular, see Laderman (1975: 587-594). (32.) On indigenous surgical techniques, see Guzman (1985). See also Wissler et al. (1939). An interesting related reading is Kidwell (1985: 277-287). (33.) See Weatherford (1988: 188). The author also notes that the concepts of the syringe, rubber hose, and plaster cast for setting broken bones also originated in the Americas well before first European contact. Interesting commentary on the incorporation of these technologies into Europ medical practice may be found in Bakeless (1961). (34.) Probably the best elaboration on this topic may be found in Morley and Bainerd (1983). See also Carmack (1973). (35.) See Tompkins (1976). Additional information may be found in Borah (1963). (36.) On the most southerly portion of the Americas, see Lothrup (1929). Concerning the Arctic area, see Weyer (1932). (37.) See Cespedes (1985). See also Helms (1982). (38.) Much has been made of the "fact" that American Indians "failed to invent" the wheel. This is categorically untrue. Wheeled toys were rather common throughout the Americas prior to 1492. Similarly, a variety of wheels, pulleys, and the like were undoubtedly used in the constructio techniques of a variety of peoples in diverse geographic settings. That the wheel may not have been deployed as a transportation device seems due primarily to the reality that no animal suitable for pulling large wheeled vehicles existed anywhere in the hemisphere until importation of horses, mules, and oxen began with the arrival of Europeans. Thus, it appears that while the wheel was known to the indigenous peoples of America, it was considered a largely useless contraption, at least in many of the ways in which it was applied in the "Old World." See Weatherford (1988). (39.) On this topic, see Von Hagen (1976). Interesting side-bar readings may be found in Mariategui (1971). (40.) For illuminating discussion, see Mays (1982). (41.) A good exposition on these building techniques may be found in Driver (1969). See also Nabokov and Easton (1988). (42.) Mays (1982). See also Weatherford (1988: 246) concerning the Anasazi roadways. The author goes on to point out that many modern highways trace the routes laid out along unpaved but well-established trails already in place in North America long before the first white man came. Many of these extended for hundreds of miles, and some for thousands, being the infrastructure of the above-mentioned system of international commerce actualized by American Indians prior to the European invasion. (43.) See Brandon (1986). See also Wilson (1959). (44.) Considerable detail on this assertion is contained in Grinde and Johansen (1991). See also Burton (1986: 4-9). (45.) These dimensions of Haudenosaunee life are covered in Goldenheiser (1967). See also Morgan (1851). (46.) See Aquila (1983). It should be noted that the "French and Indian Wars" consisted of four separate conflicts during the course of nearly a century: King William's War (1689-1697), Queen Anne's War (1702-1713), King George's War (1744-1748), and The Great War of Empire (1754-1763). (47.) See Grinde (1977). See also Graymont (1972) and Grinde and Johansen (1991). (48.) For direct quotations, see Cappon (1959), Thomas Jefferson (1955), and Thomas Paine (1969). Quotes from Franklin and an interesting overview may be found in Parrington (1927). (49.) An illuminating, if unintended, commentary on this score is offered in Commager (1978). (50.) On Creek governance, diplomacy, and race relations, see Nash (1974). See also Halbert and Ball (1969). (51.) See Hu-deHart (1984). See also Harris (1984). (52.) The federal government of the United States is constitutionally prohibited (under the First and Sixth Articles) from entering into a treaty relationship with any entity other than another full sovereign national government. The ratification of any treaty by the U.S. Senate is therefore de facto formal recognition by the United States of the other party's sovereign status. The texts of 37 duly ratified treaties between the U.S. and various American Indian nations may be found in Kappler (1972). (53.) Sahlins assembled this conventional anthropological summary by utilizing a series of juxtaposed quotes drawn from the standard literature: Stewart and Faron (1959: 60), Clark (1953: 27). Haury (1962: 113), Hoebel (1958: 188), Redfield (1953: 5), and White (1959: 31). (54.) For solid analysis of this stereotype, see Berkhofer (1978). A more standard anthropological treatment may be found in Spicer (1969). (55.) A comprehensive survey of known sites may be found in Coe, Snow, and Benson (1986). It is interesting to note that indigenous Settlement patterns were such as to concentrate population along both coasts of the present continental United States, as well as along major inland waterways such as the St. Lawrence, Mississippi, and Ohio Rivers. Tellingly, this is the same settlement pattern evidenced by the Euro-American population through the present day. (56.) Although little weight is placed on this important point in contemporary Eurocentric scholarship, this is not because the matter is mysterious. Indeed, the issue of defined and preexist native territorialities is addressed with a great deal of precision in each treaty entered into by the U.S. with various indigenous nations (this comes to at least 371 ratified documents and as many as 1,000 more that went unratified). On this basis, and through many other sources of informati it remains entirely possible to reconstruct the general boundaries of each indigenous nation. For detailed explanation of methodologies applicable to this end, see Sutton (1985). (57.) For example, Mooney sliced by half earlier estimates concerning the aggregate New England Indian population tendered by the notoriously anti-Indian historian John Gorham Palfrey. No evidential basis at all was cited to justify this downward revision. Palfrey himself had already engaged in a process of systematically discounting by as much as 80% the initial estimates of indige population in the region, contained in original settler accounts, for equally unexplained reasons. See Palfrey (1858-1890). (58.) For instance, Kroeber took great care to "rebut" the argument advanced by archaeologist H.J. Spinden that Mooney's estimate of a total native population of 150,000 having lived in the Ohio River Valley was grossly inadequate, based upon the results -- suggesting a precontact population of "several millions" -- Spinden obtained by excavating some of the area's vast burial mounds. Kroeber dismissed Spinden as a "romantic." He took the same approach with critiques of Mooney's overall population estimates advanced by C.O. Sauer and others. See Kroeber (1939). (59.) Kroeber's 1,000,000 figure was first published in 1934 (pp. 1-25) and was subsequently incorporated into his Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America (1939), which quickly became (and has remained) a centerpiece of the American anthropological canon. Tellingly, its conclusions have been as acceptable to self-proclaimed "revolutionary Marxists" among the Euro-Ameri population as they have to the most arcane and reactionary of "bourgeois academics"; see, for example, Revolutionary Communist Party, U.S.A. (1983: 35-58). (60.) See U.S. Bureau of the Census (1896). (61.) See, as examples, Cook and Simpson (1948) and Borah (1976,1964). (62.) See Dobyns (1980: 395-416). (63.) The estimate is made in Dobyns' culminating work. See Dobyns (1993). (64.) See Thornton (1979: 69-74). See also Thornton (1987). (65.) For those interested, the apportionment of labor along gender lines was virtually equal: five hours, nine minutes per day for men, five hours, seven minutes per day for women. See McCarthy and McArthur (1960). (66.) Richards did not record time spent by men in manufacture of farm implements and the like, a matter that would have raised the quantity of male labor to a level comparable to that attri to women. (67.) Concerning the Maoris, see Firth (1959: 192 fn.). On the Bantus, see Gluckman (1943); See also Leacock (1954: 7). With Regard to the Siuai, see Oliver (1949). (68.) See, as examples, Albert and Hahnel (1978), Bookchin (1982), and Bahro (1980). (69.) From a speech by Abbie Hoffman, Bradley University, November 23 (1970). (70.) This is not an altogether new theme within the Eurocentric tradition itself. See Lafarge (1917).


Akwesasne Notes, Editors 1977 A Basic Call to Consciousness. Mohawk Nation via Rooseveltown, N.Y. Albert, Michael and Robin Hahnel 1978 Unorthodox Marxism. Boston: South End Press. Amott, Teresa and Julie Matthaei 1991 Race, Gender, and Work: A Multicultural Economic History of Women in the United States. Boston: South End Press. Aquila, Richard 1983 The Iroquois Restoration: Iroquois Diplomacy on the Colonial Frontier, 1701-1754. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Bahro, Rudolph 1980 From Red to Green. London: Verso Press. Bakeless, John 1961 The Eyes of Discovery. New York: Dover Books. Barnett, H.G. 1938 "The Nature of the Potlatch." American Anthropologist 40. Berkhofer, Robert F., Jr. 1978 The White man's Indian. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Publishers. Bookchin, Murray 1982 Ecology of Freedom. Palo Alto, Cal.: Cheshire Books. Borah, Woodrow Wilson 1976 "The Historical Demography of Aboriginal and Colonial America: An Attempt at Perspective." William E. Denevan (ed.), The Native Population of the Americas in 1492. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. 1964 "America as Model: The Demographic Impact of European Expansion upon the Non-European World." In Actos y Memorias del XXXV Congreso International de Americanistas. Mexico City: Instituto de Antropologia. 1963 The Aboriginal Population of Central Mexico on the Eve of Spanish Conquest. Ibero-America 45. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bordes, Francois 1968 The Old Stone Age. New York: McGraw-Hill. Braidwood, Robert J. 1957 Prehistoric Man. Chicago: Chicago Museum of Natural History Popular Series, Anthropology, No. 37 (3rd Edition). 1952 The New East and the Foundations of Civilization. Portland: Oregon State System of Public Education. Brandon, William 1986 New Worlds for Old: Reports from the New World and Their Effect on the Development of Social Thought in Europe, 1500-1800. Athens: Ohio University Press. Brownlie, Ian 1981 Basic Documents on Human Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Bryant, Carol A., Anita Courtney, Barbara A. Markesbery, and Kathleen M. DeWalt 1985 The Cultural Feast. St. Paul, MN: West Publishers. Burton, Bruce A. 1986 "Iroquois Confederate Law and the Origins of the U.S. Constitution." Northeast Indian Quarterly 3,2 (Fall). Cappon, Lester J. 1959 The Adams-Jefferson Letters, Vol. 11. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Carmack, Robert M. 1973 Quichean Civilization. Berkeley: University of California Press. Carniero, Robert L. 1968 "Slash-and-Burn Cultivation among the Kuikuru and Its Implications for Cultural Development in the Amazon Basin." Y. Cohen (ed.), Man in Adaptation: The Cultural Present. Chicago: Aldine Publishers. Catton, William 1982 Overshoot. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Cespedes, Guillermo 1985 America Indigena. Madrid, Spain: Alianza Publishers. Churchill, Ward (ed.) 1989 Critical Issues in Native North America. Document 62 of the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs. Copenhagen, Denmark (December 1988-January 1989). 1983 Marxism and Native Americans. Boston: South End Press. Clark, Colin and Margaret Haswell 1964 The Economics of Subsistence Agriculture. New York: Macmillan Publishers. Clark, Graham 1953 From Savagery to Civilization. New York: Schuman Publishers. Coe, Michael, Deand Snow, and Elizabeth Benson 1986 Atlas of Ancient America. New York: Facts on File Books. Commager, Henry Steele 1978 The Empire of Reason: How Europe Imagined and America Realized the Enlightenment. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books. Connor, Walker 1984 The National Question in Marxist-Leninist Theory and Strategy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Cook, Sherburne F. and Leslie B. Simpson 1948 "The Population of Central Mexico in the Sixteenth Century." Ibero-Americana 31. Berkeley: University of California Press. Creighton, Charles 1891 A History of Epidemics in Britain. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Crosby, Alfred W., Jr. 1972 The Columbia Exchange. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Dalton, George 1961 "Economic Theory and Primitive Societies." American Anthropologist 63. Deloria, Vine, Jr. 1979 The Metaphysics of Modem Existence. New York: Harper and Row Publishers. Dobyns, Henry F. 1983 Their Numbers Become Thinned: Native American Population Dynamics in Eastern North America. Nashville: University of Tennessee Press. 1980 "Estimating American Aboriginal Population: An Appraisal of Techniques with a New Hemispheric Estimate." Current Anthropology 7. Driver, Harold E. 1969 Indians of North America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, (Second edition). Drummond, J.C. and Anne Wilbraham 1957 The Englishman's Food. London: Cape Publishers. Fanon, Frantz 1967 Black Skin, White Masks. New York: Grove Press. Farb, Peter and George Armelagos 1980 Consuming Passions: The Anthropology of Eating. New York: Washington Square Books. Firth, Raymond 1959 Economics of the New Zealand Maori. Wellington, New Zealand: R.E. Owen, Government Printer, (Second edition). Gliessman, S., R.R. Garcia, and M.F. Amador 1981 "The Ecological Basis for the Application of Traditional Agricultural Technology in the Management of Tropical Agroecosystems." Agro-Ecosystems 7. Gluckman, Max 1943 Essays on Lozi Land and Royal Property. London: Rhodes-Livingston Papers, No. 10. Goldenheiser, Alexander A. 1967 "Iroquois Social Organization." Roger C. Owen, James J.F. Deetz, and Anthony D. Fisher (eds.), The North American Indians. New York: Macmillan. Gorz, Andre 1983 Ecology as Politics. Boston: South End Press. Graymont, Barbara 1972 The Iroquois in the American Revolution. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press. Grinde, Jr., Donald A. 1977 The Iroquois and the Founding of the American Nation. San Francisco: Indian Historian Press Grinde, Jr., Donald A. and Bruce Johansen 1991 Exemplar of Liberty: Native America and the Evolution of Democracy. Los Angeles: American Indian Studies Center, UCLA. Guillard, J. 1962 "Essai de mesure de l'activite d'un paysan Africain: le Toupouri." L'Agronomie Tropicale 13. Gumpert, Anita von Kahler 1986 "One Potato, Two Potato." Americas (May). Guzman, Peredo 1985 Medical Practices in Ancient America. Mexico City, Mexico: Ediciones Euroamericanas. Halbert, H.S. and T.H. Ball 1969 The Creek War of 1813 and 1814. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press. Harris, Fred R. 1984 "Mexico: Historical Foundations." Jan Kippers Black (ed.), Latin America: Its Problems and Promise. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Helms, Mary W. 1982 Middle America. Boston: University of America Press. Haury, Emil W. 1962 "The Greater American Southwest." J. Braidwood and G.R. Willey (eds.), Courses toward Urban Life. Chicago: Aldine Publishers. Herndon, G. Melvin 1967 "Indian Agriculture in the Southern Colonies." North Carolina Historical Review 45. Hindless, Barry and Paul Q. Hirst 1975 Pre-Capitalist Modes of Production. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Publishers. Hoebel, E. Adamson 1958 Man in the Primitive World. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishers, (Second edition). Holmes, G.K. 1909 "Aboriginal Agriculture -- The American Indians." L.H. Bailey (ed.), Cyclopedia of American Agriculture: A Popular Survey of Agricultural Conditions, Practices, and Ideals in the United States and Canada, Volume IV. New York. Hu-DeHart, Evelyn 1984 Yaqui Resistance and Survival. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Hutchins, Alma R. 1969 Indian Herbology of North America. Toronto, Canada: Merco Publishers. Jefferson, Thomas 1955 Notes on the State of Virginia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Jennings, Francis 1975 The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Josephy, Alvin 1968 The Indian Heritage of America. New York: American Heritage. Kappler, Charles J. 1972 Indian Treaties, 1778-1883. New York: Interland Publishers. Kidwell, Clara Sue 1985 "Science and Ethnoscience: Native American World Views as a Factor in the Development of Native Technologies." Kendall E. Bailes (ed.), Environmental History: Critical Issues in Comparative Perspective. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Kroeber, Alfred Louis 1939 Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Publications in American Archeology and Ethnology 38. 1934 "Native American Population." American Anthropologist 36. Laderman, Carol 1975 "Malaria and Progress: Some Historical and Ecological Considerations." Social Science and Medicine 9 (November-December). LaDuke, Winona 1989 "Succeeding into Native North America." Ward Churchill (ed.), Critical Issues in Native North America. Document 62 of the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs. Copenhagen, Denmark (December 1988-January 1989). 1983 "Natural to Synthetic and Back Again." Preface to Ward Churchill (ed.), Marxism and Native Americans. Boston: South End Press. Lafarge, Paul 1917 The Right to Be Lazy. Chicago: Charles Kerr Publishers. LeClair, Joseph E., Jr. 1962 "Economic Theory and Economic Activity." American Anthropologist 64. Leacock, Eleanor 1954 The Montagnais "Hunting Territory" and the Fur Trade. American Anthropological Association Memoir No. 78. Lee, Richard 1969 "!Kung Bushman Subsistence: An Input-Output Analysis." A. Vayda (ed.), Environment and Cultural Behavior. Garden City, N.Y.: Natural History Press. Loring, Brace C. 1979 The Stages of Human Evolution. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Lothrup, Samuel K. 1929 The Indians of Tierra del Fuego. Museum of the American Indian. New York: Heye Foundation. Mariategui, Jose Carlos 1971 Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality. Austin: University of Texas Press. Mays, Buddy 1982 Ancient Cities of the Southwest. San Francisco: Chronicle Books. McArthur, Margaret 1960 "Food Consumption and Dietary Levels of Groups of Aborigines Living on Naturally Occurring Foods." C.P. Mountford (ed.), Records of the Australian-American Scientific Expedition to Arnhem Land, Vol. 11: Anthropology and Nutrition. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Press. McCarthy, Frederick D. and Margaret McArthur 1960 "The Food Quest and Time Factor in Aboriginal Life." C.P. Mountford (ed.), Records of the Australian-American Scientific Expedition to Arnhem Land, Vol. 11: Anthropology and Nutrition. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne University Press. McNeill, William H. 1976 Plagues and Peoples. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor/Doubleday. Mooney, James M. 1928 The Aboriginal Population of America North of Mexico. John R. Stanton (ed.), Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 80,7. Morgan, Lewis Henry 1851 League of the Iroquois. Rochester, N.Y.: Sage Publishers. Morley, Syvanus G. and George W. Bainerd 1983 The Ancient Maya. Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press, (Fourth edition). Nabokov, Peter and Robert Easton 1988 American Indian Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nash, Gary B. 1974 Red, White, and Black: The Early Peoples of America. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Oliver, Douglas 1949 Studies in the Anthropology of Bougainville, Solomon Islands. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology: Harvard University, Vol. 29, Nos. 1-4. Paine, Thomas 1969 Rights of Man. New York: Penguin Books. Palfrey, John Gorham 1890 History of New England, 5 Volumes (1858-1890). Boston. Parrington, Vernon L. 1927 The Colonial Mind, 1620-1800. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Pospisil, Leopold 1958 Kapauku Papuans and Their Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Publications in Anthropology, No. 54. Prucha, Francis Paul 1978 Americanizing the American Indian: Writings of the "Friends of the Indian," 1880-1900. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Redfield, Robert 1953 The Primitive World and Its Transformation. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Reno, Phil 1981 Navajo Resources and Economic Development. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Revolutionary Communist Parly, U.S.A. 1983 "Searching for the Second Harvest." Ward Churchill (ed.), Marxism and Native Americans. Boston: South End Press. Richards, Audrey I. 1962 Land, Labor, and Diet in Northern Rhodesia. London: Oxford University Press, (Second edition). Russell, Howard S. 1962 "How Aboriginal Planters Stored Food." Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society 23 (April-July). 1961 "New England Indian Agriculture." Bulletin of the Massachusetts Archaeological Society 22 (April-July). Sahlins, Marshall D. 1972 Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co. 1969 "Economic Anthropology and Anthropological Economics." Social Science Information 8,5. Salaman, Redciffe N. 1949 The History and Social Influence of the Potato. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Sharp, Lauriston 1958 "People without Politics." V.F. Ray (ed.), Systems of Political Control and Bureaucracy in Human Societies. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Spicer, Edward H. 1969 A Short History of the Indians of the United States. New York: Van Nostrum Reinhold. Spinden, H.J. 1929 "Population of Ancient America." Washington, D.C.: Anthropological Report, Smithsonian Institution. Stea, Vikki 1985 "High-yield Corn from Ancient Seed Strains." Christian Science Monitor (August 20). Stewart, Julian H. and Louis C. Faron 1959 The Native Peoples of North America. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishers. Sutton, Imre (ed.) 1985 Irredeemable America: The Indians' Estate and Land Claims. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Taylor, Norman 1965 Plant Drugs That Changed the World. New York: Dodd, Mead Publishers. Thornton, Russell 1987 American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History since 1492. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 1979 "American Indian Historical Demography: A Review Essay with Suggestions for Future Research." American Indian Culture and Research Journal 3. Tompkins, Peter 1976 Mysteries of the Mexican Pyramids. New York: Harper and Row. U.S. Bureau of Census 1984 A Statistical Profile of the American Indian Population. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1896 Abstract of the Eleventh Census: 1890. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1988 Chart Series Book. Public Health Service, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 1976 A Statistical Portrait of the American Indian. Washington, D.C. Vayda, A.P. 1961 "A Re-Examination of Northwest Coast Economic Systems." Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, Series 2, No. 23. Vogel, Virgil 1970 American Indian Medicine. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Von Hagen, Victor Wolfgang 1976 The Royal Road of the Inca. London: Gordon and Cremonesi Publishers. Wallace, Ernest and E.A. Hoebel 1952 Comanches: Lords of the Southern Plains. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Weatherford, Jack 1988 Indian Givers: How the Indians of the Americas Transformed the World. New York: Fawcett Columbine and Crown Publishers. 1980 "Millennium of Modernization: A Changing German Village." Priscilla Copeland Reining and Barbara Lenkard (eds.), Village Viability in Contemporary Society. AAAS Selected Symposium Series 34. Boulder: Westview Press. Weyer, E.M. 1932 The Eskimos. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Weyler, Rex 1984 Blood of the Land: The Government and Corporate War against the American Indian Movement. New York: Vintage Books. White, Leslie A. 1959 The Evolution of Culture. New York: McGraw-Hill Publishers. Wilson, Edmund 1959 Apologies to the Iroquois. New York: Fartar, Strauss & Giroux. Wissler, Clark, Wilton M. Krogman, and Walter Krickerberg 1939 Medicine among the American Indians. Ramona, Cal.: Acoma Press. Wolf, Eric R. 1982 Europe and the People without History. Berkeley: University of California Press.

M. Annette Jaimes is a federally recognized Juaneno (California Mission Band) from the San Capistrano Southern California area and a nonfederally recognized Yaqui, born and raised in Arizona. She holds an M.A. degree in Secondary Education, with an emphasis in "Ethnic/Minority" History and Education, and a doctoral degree (Ed.D.) in Higher Education and Policy Studies, with an emphasis in Federal Indian Policy and Sociocultural Issues. She is pursuing a postdoctoral fellowship on "the politics of identity" with the Society for the Humanities at Cornell University (Ithaca, New York). Jaimes has been widely published on topics ranging from federal Indian policy, Native women's perspectives and gender issues, Indian identity/ethnicity, "civil rights" and sovereignty, American racism and nationalism among North Americans, as well as Third World peoples. She has recently edited two books: The State of native America (Boston: South End Press, 1992), a collection of essays on contemporary Indian cultural issues and political agendas, and Fantasies of the Master Race, a collection of critical essays authored by Ward Churchill on "literary colonization" in fiction, nonfiction, art, and cinema (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1992). She is currently preparing a work entitled Academic Apartheid in America (Common Courage Press). She can be reached at Saxifrage Publications, 1484 Wicklow Street, Boulder, CO 80303. An earlier version of this article was published in New Studies on the Left 14,3 (Winter 1990). Copyright[C] by M. Annette Jaimes.
COPYRIGHT 1992 Crime and Social Justice Associates
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1992 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Myth-Busting and New Perspective
Author:Jaimes, M. Annette
Publication:Social Justice
Date:Jun 22, 1992
Next Article:The legacy of Columbus.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters