Reference no: EM133276292

Shepherd Kreck III questions the empirical validity of the "ecological Indian" stereotype. He argues that historical Native American resource management made sense according to the ideas and myths through which Indians understood the world, and particularly their relationship to nature. He emphasizes that this cultural basis for resource management was not essentially the same as contemporary 'ecological science' and did not always lead to practices that conform to contemporary 'conservation' ideals. Kat Anderson, on the contrary, argues that California Indians "by keeping ecosystems in a modest or intermediate level of disturbance, in many senses Indians lived in ecological harmony with nature." Answer one of the following questions. a. Which argument is more compelling? Use specific examples to support your claims. b. Krech's argument has triggered a strong response from critics such as Sioux Indian historian and legal scholar Vine Deloria, who calls Krech's argument "anti-Indian" and others who have accused Krech of implying that "American Indians must be stopped form controlling their own resources at any cost." Why has Krech's argument, which reviewer Kimberly Tallbear describes as well researched and largely valid, elicited such strong responses? And do you think that Krech's argument has any ethical and/or political implications regarding contemporary Indian claims to authority over natural resource management?