| OCR Text |
Show 293. Both Marsh and LeConte believed that "savages," as they called them, were e s s e n t i a l l y a p a r t of wild Nature, and accordingly required conquering by Lord Man who had r i s e n above them. Vine Deloria, J r . argues in Custer Died for your Sins that this attitude is typical of the white c u l t u r e which defined Indian as wild animal and Negro as d r a f t animal. If Muir believed that wild animals deserved an undisturbed, happy, harmonious life in Nature, then he should have seen Native American cultures in the same l i g h t . I believe t h i s became his personal a t t i t u de when he went to Alaska. Just as he t r i e d to learn something about living in the wilderness from animals, so he might have perceived the primitive c u l t u r e s of North America as fountain or foundation for c i v i l i z e d c u l t u r e . This i s the view of Gary Snyder. If one wants a more s c i e n t i f i c argument, Carl Sauer the geographer has argued that c i v i l i z a t i o n needs to understand the ways these so-called primitives found to live in the world by adapting to i t s r u l e s . It is surprising how l i t t l e we know about even t h i s miniscule portion of our own natural h i s t o r y . As Thoreau said, "The Natural History of Man i s yet to be w r i t t e n ." Muir r a r e l y made use of an understanding that primitive societies living close to the changing conditions of their environment came to respect those conditions. He c e r t a i n ly criticized the c i v i l i z e d men who hid from Nature in their houses. Perhaps he did not guess the extent to which a technological society in the future would believe that i t could violate Nature's laws with impunity, grow i n d e f i n i t e l y , and |
