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.