“Transcending the Debate . . .”—Discussion Questions

Frank Yarbrough

1)      On pg 293, Nadasdy says, “. . .these critics point out, the image of ecological nobility is an unattainable ideal.” Do you think that this is so? On an individual level as well as a societal level?

2)      Also on pg 293, He shows that Native Americans also significantly alter their environments. Is there any way to live in the world and not alter our surroundings?

How is their solution different from the Jewish stewardship model?

3)      From your perspective, what is the reason that we view Native Americans as noble savages? What possible purpose does it serve to think of them as we do?

4)      What is the First Nation’s view of respect? How is this confused by the Euro-Americans?

5)      Is it possible that their view of respect serves them in an instrumental way?

6)      On pg 305, Nadasdy talks about how the First Nation people inhabit parts of the land that have things that will benefit them. Yet, each of them is capable of hunting and providing for themselves or at least contributing to society in a more direct way. My question is: are we, as a society, too dependent on each other such that we wouldn’t know where to go to kill a deer much less how to prepare it?

7)      Can utility be environmentally sound? That is, can we have an economic system that is not hurting the environment?

8)      On pg. 308-309, he talks about how the Rock Cree almost killed off a population of beavers, yet they were able to stop before they wiped them out completely. Do you think that this may be due to the fact that Native Americans are closer to them and can see the damage they are doing first hand?

9)      Why do you think that Native Americans go along with our stereotype of the noble savage? (pg 312)

10)  Some accuse Native Americans as being guilty of “opportunistic misrepresentation.” (pg 313) Do you see this as a problem? I mean, don’t we do the same thing all of the time?