U & D

a space for the exploration of LD291 and its implementation

What It’s all about

May 28th, 2008 · 2 Comments
Economics · Sovereignty

This post owes a debt to Donna Loring, who said to me once, “It’s all about economics.” Economy is an important word on the Word Wall. Take a minute, if you have time, to read Loring’s blog posts on Tribal Economics and Part II. This is the ongoing story of the deliberate scattering – destruction – of the Penobscot economy for the economic gain of non-Natives. All Maine teachers should read these. In fact, I suggest that they be read aloud to your classes, beginning in grade 8.

What should jump out at teachers, and students, are the roles of land and of community in the Wabanaki economy. When the economy is good, available wealth and resources are managed for the good of the community. For the pre-Contact natives, as Loring points out, this required careful management of resources, forethought (more than many texts credit the Wabanakis with), and alliances (formal and informal) with other bands and nations. Land, not owned or fenced, is available by historical agreement.

Could this be really true? I doubt that it was always true. Certainly there were times when shortages, climactic disasters, or even a rampant leader created cause for aggression – land and resources were taken, not shared. Yet the overwhelming record is of a balanced and peaceful economic landscape in what is now Maine. Loring does a good job of drawing the startling contrast between this and the European economic record.

I am struck by the degree of compromise & change that must have been necessary for cultural continuity among the Wabanakis pre-Contact. One simple little historical footnote – that as a result of European contact in Nova Scotia, pottery making almost disappeared among the Wabanakis – is HUGE in terms of its implications for economic adaptability. Snowowl.com makes several interesting observations about economic survival in the timeline at their site. Students could, as an interesting activity, skim this and other Native studies timelines for evidence of economic resilience.

Students will ask, Why then were the Wabanakis so ineffectual at surviving Contact with sound economies in place? Why is there a problem now? The answer is simple: although the definition of economy is the same pre and post Contact, the rules by which “goods and resources are managed for the good of the community” changed with European contact. So did the dominant community. At this point in time, the Wabanaki economic definition – and please correct me if I am wrong – is a blend of sustainability and sovereignty with newer concepts of competition and marketing. It is a changing definition that nonetheless owes everything to its cultural roots.

Distill the two Loring posts down to this: post-Contact, the Wabanakis lost the majority of both land and community. They could no longer rely upon their land base (it was taken from them) or their community (it was disrupted and reduced) to provide economic subsistence. Bullet the historical points made by Loring in Part II. Students can skim the timelines for evidence of land loss and community disruption. Show your students the maps of this land loss (available in The Wabanakis of Maine & the Maritimes and online). Reteach the Great Dying (see resources below) and discuss what happens to economy when over 75% of a population dies quickly. You should discuss the breakup of communities during times of war (timelines will give you war dates too). Compare observations to what students know of life in the Sudan, Somalia, Congo, Kenya, Iraq, or any other contemporary hotspot

And by all means do not neglect the NOW. It is essential that the efforts of Maine’s four tribes to develop sustaining, sovereign economies be recognized by today’s students. Students should visit tribal websites (link in the right sidebar) and scan Maine Newsstand for current information (see two recommended articles below).

Don’t neglect positive economic continuity/adaptation, like basket making, guiding, and those many Natives who have transitioned from craft/technology to art. Acquaint students with Natives in each tribe whose personal economies are strong: lawyers, doctors, teachers, artists, writers, craftsmen, performers, politicians, etc. I personally feel that it is an error to leave students with the impression that Natives can only make an income from traditional pursuits. You do not want them to believe that Maine’s Natives living in poverty because they can not make canoes or baskets.

Strong economies must adapt, but they must also have an economic incentive and a boost up. Remember the beaver trade? It boomed and then busted. Show students that without the support of economies outside of the reservations, the Wabanakis will have more difficulty developing their own industries and income producing models. To be sovereign is not to live in economic isolation, as the Wabanakis have known for thousands of years. They know better than Maine does what they need – and what needs to be done to get it. I personally am stunned again and again that the citizens of Maine still refuse to meet its Natives on a level playing field, still insist upon the old, greedy rules.

It is all about economics – has always been. We can not neglect this aspect of Maine’s future.

Here is a beginning resource list - to be expanded as I find good resources. Make suggestions in a comment.

Great Dying:

Cultural Survival:

  • Mi’kmaq Resistance – resistance, accommodation and cultural survival (Prins) – book of readings and case studies covering many economic issues, as well as other issues – generally Canadian – available in libraries and from Amazon.com
  • Readings from An Upriver Passamaquoddy.
  • Basketry: Weaving New Life into Ancient Forms – scroll down to read about Theresa Secord (Penobscot)

Fur Trade & Later Economics:

 Tagged: , , , , , ,

Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)

2 responses so far ↓

  • 1    Joseph E. Charnley // Jun 3, 2008 at 7:43 am

    Betsy – I am honored to be working with you. I am continually impressed by your depth of knowledge and the energy you bring to your work. This blog should be ‘required reading’. I’ll do what I can to make it so.

    One distinction that has worked for me (but perhaps against indigenous peoples!) is that of territory and property. Native land use was highly organized, like trading systems, and was never just empty land as ‘discovered’ by Euros. The conflict arose when folks arrived, saw ‘unused’ lands, and then enacted their custom of enclosing them with fences, placing livestock on them, and drawing up lengthy documents that proclaimed ‘ownership’ into perpetuity. This practice destroyed the land base and eroded community. Would I give up my ‘property’ today? No. But do I support Native reaquisition of lands for their communal use? Yes.
    Be well. Joseph

  • 2    Elizabeth Sky-McIlvain // Jun 5, 2008 at 3:23 pm

    I’ll go you one step more and say I support Native reacquisition of lands for economic gain. I like your analogy – it is one that the kids can grab hold of in Middle School (no pun intended).

Leave a Comment

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-Spam Image