Winona LaDuke - Part 3 & 4 and Karl Gasper's Article

This week’s reading of LaDuke and Gasper was very interesting and informative. However, I wanted to begin with something that resonated with me last class. Throughout the readings I have taken a more passive and informative stance as a reader on the information, partly because the arguments that the writers’ pose make sense and are very logical and articulated. I soak up the information and I don’t feel like I have really formed any vehement opinions or stances. For instance, in LaDuke, I can see the Native American perspective, and to some extent I can see the other perspective that exists in the clouded judgment of democracy and capitalism. Although that perspective is not desirable for me, I can still put myself in their shoes and their position. However, it was commented in class that there is a push for the development of the mind and NOT the body, resulting in a body that is so overly disciplined that we “relieve our body in perverse ways.” A few weeks ago, for my memoir writing class, I attended a lecture regarding alienation and “The Question Mark Kid” (it was a writing contest in light of the Virginia Tech shooting because the shooter was a creative writing major). The panel talked about the physical and emotional alienation which inevitably led to the worst school shooting in American history. Thinking about this idea of alienation of the body there is a little irony in the fact that the shooter choose to “relieve his body in perverse ways” to compensate his alienation in the highly intellectualized educational atmosphere. As a result, I began to ask myself, how is it that our educational system condones sitting in a classroom for sometimes four hours, disassociating our body for the pursuit of the “development of the mind?”

As a balance to school, I enjoy playing recreational soccer (to add a personal antidote). I am on five teams (both indoor and outdoor) and I believe that my enjoyment comes from the fact that it is an expression of my body - it is a type of release. I experience only concentrated, concrete thinking while forcing my body to play through your emotional states such as injury and fatigue. Furthermore, all of my intellectual actions are expressed solely through the movements of the body. In the sport, the body becomes a form of expression which, to some extent, fuses the intellect with the body. Thinking about this situation I began to vehemently believe that the development of the mind must occur simultaneously with the development of the body. Alienation of one or the other creates a fragmented self. Therefore, the vehemence of my spirituality occurs in this particular instance, not through traditional religious doctrines, but by combining the intellectual with the physical.

This idea of the physical helping attain the spiritual is reiterated in Karl Gasper’s article, “To Hold God’s Face in One’s Hands.” He indicated that most ideas of mystic figures are associated with the “White elite, ensconced in perpetual solitude, safe from worldly temptations” (24). However, he was surprised to find the mystics in the poor and marginalized (26). Gasper notes that their daily activities of farming or fishing left then in tune with nature and able to connect their emotional state with their physical state and the physical surroundings.

He also brings up the idea of the power of nonverbal communication when he states that “I realized the futility of writing down words spoken straight from the soul. These were words to be heard and cherished, not documented and printed” (26). I felt that he implied that it is the combination of nonverbal actions and truthful words that embodies such power but leaves them to seem cliché when written down. Gasper even falls into this trap when he states that we need the silence of nature such as “the movement of the stars, the whispers of the winds, the songs of the turtledoves” (27). Although this is true, it becomes somewhat cliché because, on the one hand, it is too hard to encapsulate the emotional and physical response to the movement of the stars by just stating those words. But on the other hand, these actions provide a spiritual and deep response in an individual. I believe that it is this nonverbal coupled with verbal communication that provides individuals, including myself, with a spiritual feeling.

Ultimately, Gasper argues that the ordinary is sacred. He states that, “every day is holy, every place is sacred, and the divine infuses everything around us” (27). This is also what LaDuke is trying to illustrate regarding the Native American culture. LaDuke writes in parts three and four of “Recovering the Sacred,” that companies and corporations see seeds, rice, corn, horses and the land as commodities, while the Native Americans view these items as all equally sacred and significant. For instance, she quotes an Iroquois biologists as saying, “the simple act of planting connects me the past, roots me in the present, and commits me to the future” (165). This interpretation of his land being sacred has established him in the past, present, and future simultaneously. Yet, LaDuke reiterates over and over in the book how most non-whites attempt to strip this deep connection of the sacred ordinary in pursuit of profit. Time and time again, LaDuke explains how these big businesses tear tribes away from their spirituality when they use Native American products or land as commodities. They are robbed this deep connection to the past, present, and future.

I also felt that LaDuke used the last chapters effectively by illustrating the plight of a few non-Natives and Natives who have been proactive in their attempt to reconcile and recover what was taken from them. LaDuke explains that “the reconciliation of loss is only through vigilant and long-term vision” (225). The Native Americans have been wronged. LaDuke clearly asserts and supports this statement throughout the pages. However, LaDuke leaves the book on a positive note by providing examples of how the Native Americans have turned travesty into hope and renewal. She states that they have bought back land, aided the education of farming, cultivation of plants, and begun to establish green power. For instance, LaDuke notes that “we are energy junkies” and America has an “insatiable thirst for oil.” But instead of perpetuating this downtrodden and antiquated system of wasting resources, Native Americans have established wind energy and taken proactive measures to ensure harmony with nature. Essentially, both LaDuke and Gasper place the most emphasis on the fact that ordinary must be considered sacred in order to ensure a healthier, cleaner, and more spiritual surrounding for our lives.

Lecture on Sacred Ecology

Lecture: Wednesday (4-16-08). 7pm. Dr. James Preston. Sacred Ecology

The lecture yesterday reiterated and reinforced many of the topics that we are exploring in this class. Dr. James Preston gave a generalized overview of issues that reinforce this idea that ecology must have a sacred aspect in order to be effective. For instance, he illustrated how most Native American tribes have a spiritual bond with animals which is overtly seen through rituals in their everyday life. He stated that one tribe expresses how they are married to the buffalo. This metaphoric marriage (as I saw it) represents the ultimate connection with animals. I believe that in marriage there has to be some kind of reciprocity, compromise, and respect in order to be successful and the Native Americans illustrate this level of intimacy and kinship with animals.

Dr. James Preston also illustrated the tendency for religious ideals to either reaffirm nature or deny and control nature. He stated that Hinduism, Buddhism, and Daoism all maintain a kind of equilibrium with nature. They use nature as part of their identity. Whereas, Western monotheistic religion tends to use the wilderness as a mechanism for control or they view it as a dangerous place. I definitely agree that imbalance with nature (or lack of respect of nature) is problematic because it induces a sense of apprehension and fear. However, we shouldn’t go to the other extreme and place nature or the wilderness as supreme. Dr. Preston touched on the idea that it is also dangerous to romanticize nature. For instance, he played a video of individuals participating in New Age religion where they would literally cry and scream among the trees. He stated that although ideal, this doesn’t accomplish anything. I also agree that apologizing to nature and trees is not totally effective because it is not proactive.

Ultimately, Dr. Preston argues that we need to think of ecology as more than just pragmatics - we need to view the earth as sacred. I believe that we can’t alienate ourselves from wilderness nor can we romanticize it. We need to find a middle ground that is conducive to both nature and humans. Can this be achieved? The lecture lacked any concrete solutions for this problem and I think we still need to find a solution that will put us in equilibrium with nature.

Recovering the Sacred - Part I

Winona LaDuke illustrates through part I of her book, “Recovering the Sacred,” how Native American sacred spaces have been infiltrated by non-Native Americans and used in order for monetary gain. LaDuke’s words mesh together to voice a grand passionate plea for Native American sacred spaces to be returned and for their spirituality to have weight in society. For instance, LaDuke begins by illustrating the controversial topic of the University of Arizona’s observatory on Mt. Graham. LaDuke describes how the Apache’s were forced to obtain a “permit to pray” because Mt. Graham is located on private land and therefore to reach their sacred space atop the mountain they are forced to go through legal and logistical formalities. The fact that the Apache religion and its sacred areas are not fully acknowledged and accommodated inevitably implies that the Apache and Native American culture is also not recognized or valued in the dominant society. It is placed as subordinate to any type of economic pursuit. Furthermore, LaDuke refers to a local newspaper who explains that “the project has turned the University of Arizona into a ‘star-whore’” (21). The University solidifies this position when they described themselves as building “the Harvard of the West” (27). Although I highly value academia, I think that blatantly disregarding a religious area without any intention to compromise or even take into consideration their position is not appropriate. LaDuke describes the University of Arizona’s actions as “self-aggrandizement” and I agree that creating a bigger and better observatory in order to increase the University’s power and prestige is a grand act of selfishness. And I am made to wonder if education and research can ever compliment religion? LaDuke quotes a “New York Times” writer Jack Hitt who stated that “if Galileo shocked the old order by stating that the earth is not the center of the solar system, the environmentalists and the Apaches are asserting that man is no longer at the center of nature” (32). I think this is the main conflict between Native American spirituality versus education. The University’s intrinsic focus is toward the individual and their pursuit for education while the Apache’s high value of nature places man and the individual on the peripheral.

The second chapter I experienced much more skepticism toward the position that LaDuke takes regarding the Black Mesa coal mine. Although I agreed that the coal mine was definitely attempting to abuse and misdirect the Hopi tribe, I found some of the information beyond believable. For example, LaDuke explains that the “attorneys representing the tribes were also, secretly, on the payrolls of the mining companies” (36). I am not positive, but I would believe that would be illegal and a form of malpractice if the lawyers did not inform both sides of their conflict of interest before proceeding. Perhaps through convoluted language and careful wording the lawyers were able to slip this fact under the radar, but I find it hard to believe that the lawyers could secretly be on the payroll of the mine without the Hopi being properly informed. Furthermore, LaDuke explains that the Hopi unwittingly signed the lease agreeing to the slurrying of the coal using the ground water (37). One the one hand these acts are not entirely smart business managing, however, on the other hand, should we hold the Hopi accountable when they are only trying to maintain their way of living while compromising and incorporating non-Native influences? Capitalizing on their traditional way of living does not make it alright to take economic advantage of the tribe. Furthermore, I do not agree that businesses should be able to use natural resources without any kind of consequence or without a neutral party examining the environmental impact on the project. I think that businesses tend to overlook water issues and shrug them off as inane formalities when in truth they are highly important and they immensely impact both Native American communities as well as the general population as a whole. LaDuke explains that “water levels in some Black Mesa wells have dropped more than 100 feet, and many springs are dry” (39). She also explains that “the combination of massive mining development, with the use of water from the aquifer, has been a huge blow to the ecology of the region” (28). Therefore, LaDuke implies that if the mining company continues to use the water to slurry the mines, eventually the water will be overused and will dry up leaving the mining company, the Native American villages, Arizona developments and the surrounding nature void of water. It seems as though the mining company’s main concern is in the here and now without concern for the future or the surrounding area that is dependent on the water. This is also illustrative of the United States as a whole. Our consumption of natural resources is grossly impacting the entire world as we are depleting precious resources. In Quinn’s “Ishmael” this is reiterated throughout the entire novel - this idea that since it is working today we will not worry about tomorrow. Ishmael explains that the rule of the Leavers is “take what you need, and leave the rest alone” (127). However, in this dominant society, as illustrated with the Black Mesa mining, the mentality is take everything you want in order to make it more productive, beneficial and easy on the company. This is the same with Mt. Graham. LaDuke states that the University of Arizona does not need to alter the top of the mountain because “there are 37 better observatory sites in the continental United States” (30). However, as Ishmael describes we do not follow this Leaver rule. Instead, we take in the attempt to accumulate everything and gain the most power.

The third chapter illustrates the depletion of another resource in Oregon, the Klamath River Basin. LaDuke notes with great sadness that the suckers and the salmon population have dwindled leaving the Klamath tribe economically and spiritually crippled and without the support of the government. Reading today’s newspaper I came across a similar situation that is occurring in Sacramento regarding the Chinook (king salmon). The Press Democrat states that this week the state Fish and Game Commission will vote to close recreational fishing on the Sacramento River. The article states that commercial and recreational salmon fishing is already closed “in federal waters off California.” Inevitably the article asserts that this closure could cost “$255 million this year and 2,263 jobs.” These imbalances in nature and with fish cause economic hardships because the cycle has broken and it is no longer cyclical in the give and take. LaDuke quotes one Klamath tribe member saying, “we have lived there since time began and so have the fish. Our dependence is reciprocal. The fish and the river have provided for us for all those years. Now it is our turn to pay them back” (63). This is definitely a step in the right direction. In order to prevent these closures and population decreases in the rivers and nature, we need to learn how to maintain a balance. I feel that LaDuke uses these situations to illustrate that we cannot afford to take, take, take, without looking at the larger picture and seeing everyone and everything that is affected (whether spiritually, economically, and/or socially) with a single action.

Diana Eck illustrated in “A New Religious America,” our need to expand our perspective of religion and religious life in the attempt to create a more inclusive society. Specifically, in chapter six Eck states that we need to move beyond first impressions and sight when she explains that “visible difference is the issue” (297). The first thing we seem to notice is sight and through sight difference and strangeness becomes readily apparent. It seems that our prejudgments come out when we see someone that looks different from the norm and that is always problematic.

Eck continues the chapter by illustrating how laws have been passed in the attempt to squash these prejudgments and discriminations that ensues from visible and religious difference. For instance, Eck notes that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits religious discrimination. However, the vague definition and the loose interpretation of the law causes hiccups in the process to gain religious equality. Eck indicates that “but just what constitutes ‘reasonable accommodations’ and ‘undue hardship’ is the thorny issue as each [court] case comes forward” (317). I feel that there is a need to have consistent and cohesive decisions when the language is extremely vague and requires constant interpretation. For instance, Eck explains how the courts rejected the claim that a Native American’s daughter obtain an alternative to the traditional social security number because it was felt that “to assign a number to his daughter would ‘rob her of her spirit.’” While that is very refreshing to hear and realistically few people are overjoyed to be assigned a number in place of their individuality, pragmatically it would be impractical for the government to allow this to take place. It seems like a sticky situation because both arguments are persuasive which makes it is hard to interpret and determine what is just and what is religious discrimination.

However, there were some cases that Eck portrayed that both shocked and appalled me as it essentially revealed the extreme ignorance of some people. This is especially evident when Eck repeats the dialogue of a worker at a domino’s pizza restaurant who states, “‘unless you take that stupid thing [head scarf] off you have to leave” (317). This illustrates that there is sometimes a lack of understanding of another religion and religious practice, especially in the workplace. Although there is individual responsibility of understating and education regarding religion, I think that it also has to be the responsibility of the employer to instill some kind of religious appreciation. Both employees and employers need to be held accountable. Ultimately, this example shows how there is a dire need for education on religion.

Throughout chapter six, Eck convincingly painted many pictures and incidents that reaffirmed our need for understanding regarding other religions. However, I disagreed with Eck’s comparison between religious discrimination and racial discrimination. Eck stated that “looking different comes with a price, as America’s Amish and Hutterites can testify and as people of racial minorities in the U.S. have experienced” (299). Although I definitely agree that religious discrimination is unjust and unnecessary, the choice to wear a headscarf (as was Eck’s example of religious discrimination) can be removed and therefore, it is to some small degree, a choice. Whereas race and skin color is not a choice because it cannot be changed or taken off to alleviate prejudice or discrimination. Therefore, while I see Eck’s point that religious discrimination is prevalent and harmful in society I disagreed with her analogy to race. I also found myself asking more question and wanting more explanation during this chapter. For instance, Eck states that “local media responded supportively with outrage, but the tragedy was ignored by state and national media” (312). I wanted to know why religious persecution or discrimination does not receive national media attention?

Overall, I found Eck’s writing to be extremely informative and I agreed with her solution that we need to stop being strangers and begin to see each other as neighbors and friends. This means taking the time to learn and understand religious differences instead of just pegging them as abnormal or strange. Eck concludes by stating that “time and again, stories that begin with incidents of hatred and conflict evolve in time into stories of new neighbors who have, in the course of their conflict, learned much more about one another. Distant images have become people with faces, voices and problems...and neighbors, even those who differ from us, become allies in creating our common society” (332). It seems that once we get to know and understand a person on an individual level, the lack of understanding and prejudicial ignorance flakes off. It made me understand why Eck notes that “the most religiously motivated hate crimes are directed at property rather than people” (301). It shows that individuals resist what they do not understand and what they think religion symbolizes. Instead of putting a face to Islam or Buddhism or Christianity they pull from the abstract and create misinformation that makes “other religions” seem dangerous and unwanted.

Karen Armstrong also reiterated the need for appreciation and reeducation of religion in her speech regarding the Charter for Compassion. What I found most intriguing and enlightening was the fact that Armstrong vehemently pushed the need to display compassion. She noted the benefits of having compassion is that “we dethrone ourselves from the center of our world and we put another person there.” I felt that this quote was important because it is such a simple ideal yet it seems the hardest to achieve. Instead of compassion some interpret the holy texts so that they are only applicable to them and only benefit them. Some people mold and form religion so it fits in their world and meshes with their beliefs. All texts and laws can be to a certain extent twisted and interpreted in order to benefit someone or something. I believed she referred to this as “religious illiteracy.” Ultimately, Armstrong advocated a reclamation of religion as a tool for compassion and empathy and I thought she illustrated a refreshing illustration of the potential of religion

Research Project Proposal

I am interested in finding out the details of the situation regarding the protesting monks in Burma. I heard about the incident (Buddhist monks protesting the government in Burma) briefly in September, but I haven’t really pursued any details regarding the why. I would like to know the background that led up to this point. I would also like to find out about the current situation and its impact on the United States (if any). I am interested in the relationship between this religious group and their outspoken response to their government and think that it would be a good topic for me to explore.

White Theology

In Mo’s presentation handout last Tuesday she observed in James W. Perkison’s article, “White Theology: Outing Supremacy in Modernity,” that the white/male normative gaze still exists today. She states that “our social structure and media have this gaze as the base for women’s approval level, that women must conform to and be a product of desire for white men.” I definitely agree that beauty is defined from the gaze of the white male. For instance, women tend to discipline the body in order to conform to this ideal image through corsets, bras, heels, etc. Furthermore, in terms of race and ethnicity, we see European beauty as the norm while other races’ beauty is categorized as “exotic” and “unusual.” This beauty ideal and this white normative gaze clearly illustrates white supremacy and how this dominant culture elicits self-defined superiority. For instance, in “The American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World,” David E. Stannard states that the idea that Native Americans were actually human was constantly questioned because “if they were men, they were ‘men without God, without Law, without breeches’” (229). I thought it was extremely funny that their lack of clothes presumes that they are savages. But however illogical, it was not surprising to me. This fact that I was not shocked or surprised by the article's illustrations is in actuality extremely sad. Essentially, this line of thinking illustrates how Europeans did not and (for the most part) could not, put themselves in the shoes of Native Americans. Instead, there was a presumption and deep rooted belief that their culture was superior to all other cultures. This is true even today. We call certain types of customs archaic and villages without electricity are deemed primitive. We cannot see the benefits of having these different customs because it is ingrained in our minds that our way is the most effective way. I go back to Ishmael again when he states that, “each Leaver people has a system that works well for them because it…was suited to the terrain in which they lived, suited to the climate in which they lived, suited to the biological community…suited to their own particular tastes, preferences, and visions of the world” (206). Ishmael calls this “wisdom.” However, it is this wisdom that our dominant culture lacks because we insist that our way of living is the best way regardless of climate, biology, taste, etc. It illustrates how the United States’ culture is deeply ingrained with white privilege because we believe that we have the right to control and criticize the activities of other cultures and customs. Who’s to say our customs are superior or even correct? It is because of the white male normative gaze.

James W. Perkison continues his argument of white theology and white privilege by stating that “white self-confession requires more than mere self-naming or ‘me- too-ism.’ It demands clear steps of conversion away from the historical intentions of material privileges of white self-interest” (226). When individuals come to the realization that they are beneficially impacted by white privilege it is a profound discovery. However, Perkison notes that dismantling white privilege goes beyond just admitting that the privilege exists. The hardest part is consciously taking steps to strip some of that privilege from a person’s life. Perkison examines this white privilege through gated community living. He notes that “for some, refusal to live ‘middle class’ in lifestyle and ‘gated’ in a place is a deep choice of spiritual formation and a first step toward social solidarity with the marginalized” (228). This seemingly simple choice actually has powerful connotations. Living in a gated community assumes that a safer environment can be created with a certain level of wealth and money. It also presumes that a gated community is in fact safer than a street without a gate. Furthermore, instead of taking action to change and uplift a community or area, a gated community encourages that money can buy safety and other non material things.

Perkison also asserts throughout this article that everyone benefits either indirectly or directly from this privilege and it takes individual and collective responsibility to join the struggle. The “tongue” or the voice cannot alone solve any solutions. Instead, it is “complex rhythm—in concert with other bodies similarly working anguish into eloquence—is the longest-standing human antidote for such inchoate eruptions” (232). It requires that we no longer look through the white/male gaze and value the white male body as the norm in our culture. It requires a complete reformation of our cultural assumptions. For instance, in our society today most, including myself, still struggle with identifying what is white culture and identifying my white privilege when it takes on the most minuscule forms in my life and in the life of others. Furthermore, this white gaze relates directly to our society’s preference and use of labels for categorization. Labels are used to classify people on a scale where white actions and white culture is normative. Certain types of speech and certain types of dress are valued over others as a way to illustrate covertly that white culture is at “the apex of the great chain of being” (71). Perkison states that “confronting white supremacy in oneself, sooner of later, means exploring the possibility of learning to speak in more than just one voice, to express more than just one rhythm, to reiterate more than just one culture” (238). Ultimately, I take this to mean that even if we use labels as a way of identification, we need to escape from this antiquated idea of assigning value to certain labels.

Perkison concludes his article by briefing touching on the issue of baptism and religion in the context of white supremacy. He explains that instead of experiencing a “momentary, a brief ‘wetting’” of this enlightenment we need a baptismal reprogramming where an individual is enlightened and “able to see and feel the significance of the entire system of supremacy” which would inevitably involve “a disinterring of the theological structure of whiteness as a mode of identity” (245). In these brief last two or three pages Perkison makes a very strong case in which he unveils the negative aspect of religion in the dominant culture. I feel that most hide under the façade of enlightenment that comes with baptism and religion. They realize that discrimination and this “othering” is unnecessary and unwarranted. However, just as recognition of the problem is not enough, neither is a brief water drop of enlightenment. Instead, there needs to be an inclusive look at white supremacy and how it manifests in most religious structures. For instance, at the most obvious level, how is it that today, women are not allowed to be in the high positions of the Catholic Church? How come some religions are segregated by race and gays are condemned for their lifestyle? These questions and more need to be examined and scrutinized in order to see that small silvers of enlightenment does not dismantle this “theological structure of whiteness” that is so prevalent in the dominant religions and in dominant society today.

The World We Used To Live In

In The World We Used to Live In, Vine Deloria Jr. explains spirituality and religion concerning both Native Americans and non-Native American perceptions. Deloria begins by explaining how Indian spirituality is heavily commercialized and appropriated. Deloria even explains that “the mystery is largely gone” and these rituals are just that, only rituals without any real meaning that was invested behind these rituals before they became known to the public. We have turned into a consumerism society where we value “accumulating goods” which forces us to set aside Native Americans' values because they don’t match with the dominant society. Deloria notes that only “the south-western tribes are to be congratulated for their protection of sacred ceremonies.” He states that they don’t let strangers into their ceremonies that might exploit them and use their rituals to gain any kind of profit. Deloria implies that in Native American culture there is a huge difference between exploitation and education but these two completely different issues seem to get blurred together at times. In the attempt to educate non-Native Americans, they open up their rituals and cultural activities to the public and in turn these sacred activities become exploited and commercialized.

This is largely due to the fact that non-Native Americans don’t value the spiritual; they only value what is visible. This is most evident when Deloria states that, “believing in nothing, we have preempted the role of the higher spiritual forces by acknowledging no greater good than what we can feel and touch.” This idea that there is value only in the material is reiterated in Ishmael and its comments on the “taker” society. Since most of the time there is no concrete material benefit in believing in spirituality, “takers” tend to degrade spiritual activities and rituals because there is an absence of physical proof.

Deloria also quotes Thomas Lewis in The Medicine Man stating “it would be helpful to return to the old religions in a new form.” Like in Ishmael, you can’t go back completely to the past. As a society we are not in the position to return to hunter-gatherers. Likewise, Deloria illustrates how Native Americans cannot return to the past. For instance, the Ghost Dance did not work because there is an inability to return completely to the past. We cannot ignore the present. Instead, both Deloria and Quinn illustrate how it is the idea of re-incorporating the past into the present that recreates a new (and perhaps better) form of religion and spirituality. Part of this incorporation of the past and the present that both Deloria and Quinn stress is achieved by having a relationship with nature. For instance, Deloria states that “being keen observers of the natural world, the people could quickly tell when something was amiss from the response of birds and animals to disturbances or the sudden changes of weather patterns.” Deloria notes how important it is to recognize the power of nature and it signs, behaviors and patterns. I definitely agree with this idea that nature is very telling and it can help us foresee what is ahead. For instance, in Zora Neale Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God, Hurston explains how first the animals moved out of the everglades followed by the Native Americans because they knew that a hurricane was coming. Hurston states that “the next day, more Indians moved east, unhurried but steady. Still a blue sky and fair weather. Beans running fine and prices good, so the Indian could be must be, wrong. You couldn’t have a hurricane when you’re making seven and eight dollars a day picking beans. Indians are dumb anyhow, always were” (155). Hurston’s words reiterate Deloria’s ideas in this article. Native Americans seem to be more in tune to nature and its systems and non-Native Americans or “takers” are more in tune to consumerism and capitalism where money runs life. If the characters in the novel were making money it couldn’t possible mean that Mother Nature would ruin their luck. There seems to be this imbedded belief by “takers” that since the material is present there is no need to listen to the immaterial or listen to nature.

Also, the fact that “leavers” (Native Americans) have a deep connection with nature while most “takers” do not is indicative of the fact that most “takers” do not value or really listen to our planet or the environment. Deloria states that “Indians were tuned in to the almost indiscernible rhythms of nature.” They have a deeply enriched connection with nature. However, “takers” instead of achieving this kind of connection, buy audio tapes of nature sounds. Instead of changing our lifestyle or attitudes we attempt to achieve the sounds of nature through recorded audio in order to feel connected in the unnatural or “concrete jungle” of the city. This type of action and thinking does not establish any kind of deep connection and I believe that it also reinforces this false belief that we do not need to change to survive.

Deloria also talks a lot about dreams and the power of dreams for Native Americans. He states that the power of dreams and the dangers of dreams are prevalent in the Native American culture. Deloria indicates that the Sioux believe that naps during the day will make them more vulnerable to bad and mischievous spirits. I believe that even in the dominant “taker” society there is always a fascination of dreams and their meaning. We have dreams books that analyze our dreams and their meanings. We have horoscopes that explain our behaviors and we have fortune tellers that predict our future. And although many of these things are seen with skepticism, people still are influenced by them. For instance, if you ask people, “what is your horoscope sign?” the majority of people will know what sign they are even if they don’t believe in the implications of horoscopes. And personally, although I don't take horoscopes very seriously, I take my dreams very seriously. The dreams that I remember upon waking usually foreshadow the future or something that is preoccupying my mind at the moment. It allows me to see my truest intentions and feelings.

Overall, the connection between Deloria and Quinn is very strong. Even though Deloria’s article deals with the specificity of Native American culture, both pieces of literature proclaim our need to have a greater relationship with nature. Both illustrate this immediate need and desire to work in harmony with the environment and nature. Progress and our quest for civilization and advancement has erased our connection with the environment and it has led us to degrade Native Americans’ close relationship with the environment. “Takers” do not see this interconnection as beneficial because it has no seemingly material value or reward. But in reality, Deloria illustrates that having a connection and a respect for the environment is highly beneficial because it helps us to “fit into the physical world in the most constructive manner” and it will have positive outcomes in the long run.