I think you missed the important detail that Kimmerer isn't degrading European-descent people. She is highlighting cultural differences between Native Peoples and Europeans to provide a context for why some people may not have as much of a connection to, or lack identity with, nature and the land (she's not stating that all people have no connection to nature, but maybe just some individuals don't, and/or maybe just have less in comparison to natives). Much of what she talks about IS the Native perspective, and historically to her people, our development of nations has degraded the landscape. She points this out and provides the negative way that indigenous people feel/respond towards that. It's not inherently degrading towards people of European descent, it's remarking upon historical action, cultural differences, and how she feels that Native culture and Native perspective can potentially help other people have more of a connection with nature and aid in altering perspectives to promote sustainability. I see this missed especially around 9 minutes into the video. Kimmerer is trying to emphasize that she feels the language we use is important, especially in regards to the environment. She presents the cultural language differences as a small illustration of how we frame an issue, and how that determines its importance. She makes the conclusion that we might not have as strong of a connection to the natural world as Natives do because of how we refer to aspects of the environment as things and "its" rather than in animate terms. She is emphasizing that that may lead people of European descent to treat the environment much differently and may lend to why we may see it as more of a commodity in some circumstances, not that our wording means that we are inherently destructive towards the environment. I'm sorry that you feel that she's not giving European-descent people a fair run, but the book isn't attacking European-descent people. It's pointing out how things have occurred historically, and what the Native reactions and perceptions are to that. You may want a book to "join people together", and in a way, she's trying to do that by presenting a potential route of examining things and treating things differently, but it would be a failing of this book to NOT include this part of the Native perspective, and to acknowledge what first drove different peoples apart. The overarching whole of the book does have a sense of togetherness and trying to bring people together to embrace other perspectives (specifically Native/Potawatomi for this book, which is entirely reasonable, not all sides of everything have to be presented in this book, it's not about environment discourse, it's about one type of perspective which isn't always highlighted in a very detailed way when having discussions about the environment). Some of the details in the book, however, is what I feel you are hung up on. Pointing out history and indigenous perspective on historical actions isn't attacking a whole people, it's her presenting the narrative of what the indigenous perspective has been. Which she doesn't present in a harsh way, and even if she had, it seems a little fair that that would be the Native perspective, given what they've had to endure. This book may not "join people together" in the exact sense you wanted it to, but it DOES have a sense of trying to get more people together and share perspective. This WHOLE BOOK is about highlighting a perspective to bring into the conversation about the environment; it is inherently part of sharing and coming together, not dictating how all people should behave, just a different way of mentally framing things that she thinks may be beneficial to the cause. Additionally, this book isn't a discourse book where different sides are argued, the whole point is to highlight the Native perspective, and while I understand that you probably get that and still feel a certain way about some her points about her perspective and people of European descent, I think you miss the point that she is providing direction reason of the perspective through history and Native perspective about history. She isn't going in and painting things in terms of them being black or white and saying "oh you guys don't do things or think about things like the people who are part of my heritage do, so you're wrong and bad and every bad thing that's happening is because of you as an individual and the group of people you are racially/ancestrally connected to", she's literally only providing historical context and Native perspective on that history; she's just detailing her culture which influences her perspective and recommends considering her perspective on a deeper level because she thinks that individuals taking it to heart and using it to change individual actions in their own lives (most ideally on a large scale) may help with sustainability and other environmental issues. She's not attacking white people, she's detailing Native perspective and showing where some of it happens to be rooted in, which is Europeans coming to the U.S. and subsequent historical events/actions afterward, specifically in relation to how land was developed and treated.
This book is often a available for free at the library for pick-up, ebook or audio. Not a commercial, just wanted to mention that. Thought what you said was fair, you really did try to take in the book and I do think you were very careful with your wording. I agree with one of the older comments said about religious underpinnings, it might be what's keeping you from grasping some of the other portions of the book. I didn't see the us vs them part that you really blatantly saw as well as insults to European-descent people's and religions because I kind of read it from a institutional/cultural/system-wide perspective and not from a personal or even an interpersonal one. There's no one person or people to blame for for the tragedy that happened to indigenous peoples, and if there were any names many of them are long gone and have passed, I wouldn't take the criticisms that Kimmerer has as a personal attack. Rather I see what she says as a comment about larger norms in western culture that still persist today. I also don't think your characterization of her native perspective as the noble savage is correct either.. she has a chapter about mundane rituals performed in place of forgotten ones due to the displacement of her people from her homeland and coffee pouring that really speaks to this. Her people don't have the all the answers. So I actually think you guys are on the same page with that. Also with the citations thing. So far I haven't come across anything so controversial and profound that warrants a look up to a study, most of the things that she mentioned are relatively new, but not exactly debatable? Trees emitting chemicals to communicate with each other for example, it's a fact, not really disputed anymore, so the heavy emphasis on the book lacking citations also makes me think that you also uphold science very highly as well (I do too, and I respect that) but to the point where it discounts and marginalizes other ways of knowing or passing on of knowledge... You know, I think you gave the book a fair shot! Not everybook is for everyone. Good, intentional video with an honest perspective.
Yes, I suppose I mainly dislike the way the author oversimplifies the beginning to “European” vs “Native American” cultures. I think there are a lot of variations within those cultures. The comparison between women in origins stories as a basis for a culture was also unnecessary. I was really looking forward to the later parts of the book, but was turned off by the opening...and yes, a lot of the science I can find elsewhere now, so I am not stressed about it...and lol if you watch more of my videos, I am always a pain about citations. I do think the author and I would have a lot more in common in a give and take dialog versus me reading her work, but I think that applies across the board. Nothing replaces actual encounter and dialog. Thank you for your feedback. I often wonder if I should just take this video down, but honestly, I was looking for someone to be willing to offer the dialog I felt the book was lacking. Thank you.
Susan McMaster that may be a fair comment. I agree with combining native wisdom and science, but it is difficult to hear someone when they keep insulting and degrading others.
I am reading the book and I am interested in clarifying a point regarding my perspective. The author, when targeting Europeans, is not targeting you or people in general. But it refers to the fact that as European settlers they not only brought a variety of knowledge opposed to indigenous beliefs. But also a different forms of evil. And it is that colonization not only remains in history, but it still exists in many countries and throughout Latin America. And who are the ones doing these damages? Well, nothing more and nothing less than the Europeans and the United States and Canada. People who are of European descents. With this I do not see that she is targeting common people, but rather people who have the power and influence to do such evils to ancient cultures. She is European descent, but she doesn't feel that way, and she shows it in her book. She prefers to consider Mother Earth and ancient indigenous wisdom more than jus European scientific theories. When I think of coffee, or I think of oil, I don't just think of the simple fact that it can be bought in a store or called "coffee". But we have to think that there are many people who die planting coffee and many wars because oil. The oil that is used more in European countries, Canada, and USA. This is actually sad, and Kimmer's book goes beyond. She says, "Just get what nature gives you." Which in fact, the abuse with nature is visible in all the worlds that belong to the third world. And not visible to those who belong in the first world. Because that's what it's all about, they take away our oil, our gold, bauxite, copper, minerals, etc. And they give us pollution, and many minerals in the bodies of children. Just for the gold to turn into in an elegant engagement ring or necklace. Minerals for use in cars or other products. A world full of evil that many indigenous and native people suffer everyday just because loving our Mother Earth.
Patty, we will have to agree to disagree here. I think the difference is in how close one lives to the land as opposed to how removed one is, not one’s ethnic heritage. There are currently many countries taking advantage of less developed (not better or worse) cultures. Many developed countries see the raw materials of a less developed culture and either ally themselves or take advantage of them. The idea of a noble savage is a beautiful one, but even indigenous cultures have abuses and wars. A much better book (imho) would have been the weaving of her cultures and wisdoms into a dialog that did not alienate, but joined peoples together.
@@DeannaWillistonOFS I don't know what you mean by that precise thought. The ethnic heritage is the wisdom of our ancestors. And it is what connects us as cultural transcendence for generations. In that way, we become more grounded to our Mother Earth. I cannot connect to the actual meaning and what is Mother Earth, living in a modern or more civilized country. That is the intention of the social structure to which many societies are tied to. Indigenous wars and abuses? You actually have to be specific. But in fact none of those wars and abuses that you point to, compare to the abuses and wars of white supremacy, who have spilled in history and continue to do so. And more with chemicals that destroy thousands of human lives and living things in less than a minute.
Your comments on missionary schools are extremely undereducated. If you think for one second that those missionary schools helped our people then you need to listen to real experiences of what occurred. Your idea of these schools comes from your assumptions based of snippets of stories. A friend enjoying his trade he learned in a school is just an example of colonization. These trades were presented in order to further adapt Indigenous peoples into Westernized and patriarchal societies. The removal of Native children because of "lack of food" is absurd. Children died in those schools from starvation due to taking away food as punishment. Rocks are not spirits, they have a spirit. Respecting the earth and every component in its ecosystem is necessary for the continuation of life on Earth. Lastly, the fact that you are not willing to understand Kimmerer's point from a different cultural perspective is the main reason for the "you/us" language.
I will only speak to the point about the schools because I had been told by American media how horrible they were and that they were colonization. I now have family who went to those schools & loved the experience. I understand not everyone might have had such a positive experience, that does not invalidate those that did.
@@MsAndreaVasquez i have been following the updates about the schools. While the abuse that happened is horrible and many children died for lack of funding, I still think the vast majority of teachers went in with good intentions. To be honest, why else would they have taught in such schools as the media now describes? If the children all had TB and small pox, their was no funding for supplies or decent food, and the classrooms were over-crowded, it would have been very difficult to get teachers. The teachers were probably of two extremes.
Are you kidding me. They’ve found over 10,000 bodies of children killed in the internal investigations of the residential schools in Canada. Bodies in mass graves, found stuffed in the walls. And you’re under the impression that instructors went in with “Good intentions”!? Rape, sodomy, murder, neglect and abuse of every kind was committed in these “good intentioned” schools. My grandma was beat by these “holy” people (nuns). Do not try to tell US about OUR experiences in these schools. Just because you have heard accounts of ok circumstances in schools does not mean Carlisle wasn’t the epitome of hell. These accounts you speak of clearly are of more recent accounts because I have NEVER met an elder who has survived these atrocities and claimed to “love it”. Sick.
I think you missed the important detail that Kimmerer isn't degrading European-descent people.
She is highlighting cultural differences between Native Peoples and Europeans to provide a context for why some people may not have as much of a connection to, or lack identity with, nature and the land (she's not stating that all people have no connection to nature, but maybe just some individuals don't, and/or maybe just have less in comparison to natives). Much of what she talks about IS the Native perspective, and historically to her people, our development of nations has degraded the landscape. She points this out and provides the negative way that indigenous people feel/respond towards that. It's not inherently degrading towards people of European descent, it's remarking upon historical action, cultural differences, and how she feels that Native culture and Native perspective can potentially help other people have more of a connection with nature and aid in altering perspectives to promote sustainability.
I see this missed especially around 9 minutes into the video. Kimmerer is trying to emphasize that she feels the language we use is important, especially in regards to the environment. She presents the cultural language differences as a small illustration of how we frame an issue, and how that determines its importance. She makes the conclusion that we might not have as strong of a connection to the natural world as Natives do because of how we refer to aspects of the environment as things and "its" rather than in animate terms. She is emphasizing that that may lead people of European descent to treat the environment much differently and may lend to why we may see it as more of a commodity in some circumstances, not that our wording means that we are inherently destructive towards the environment.
I'm sorry that you feel that she's not giving European-descent people a fair run, but the book isn't attacking European-descent people. It's pointing out how things have occurred historically, and what the Native reactions and perceptions are to that.
You may want a book to "join people together", and in a way, she's trying to do that by presenting a potential route of examining things and treating things differently, but it would be a failing of this book to NOT include this part of the Native perspective, and to acknowledge what first drove different peoples apart.
The overarching whole of the book does have a sense of togetherness and trying to bring people together to embrace other perspectives (specifically Native/Potawatomi for this book, which is entirely reasonable, not all sides of everything have to be presented in this book, it's not about environment discourse, it's about one type of perspective which isn't always highlighted in a very detailed way when having discussions about the environment). Some of the details in the book, however, is what I feel you are hung up on. Pointing out history and indigenous perspective on historical actions isn't attacking a whole people, it's her presenting the narrative of what the indigenous perspective has been. Which she doesn't present in a harsh way, and even if she had, it seems a little fair that that would be the Native perspective, given what they've had to endure.
This book may not "join people together" in the exact sense you wanted it to, but it DOES have a sense of trying to get more people together and share perspective. This WHOLE BOOK is about highlighting a perspective to bring into the conversation about the environment; it is inherently part of sharing and coming together, not dictating how all people should behave, just a different way of mentally framing things that she thinks may be beneficial to the cause.
Additionally, this book isn't a discourse book where different sides are argued, the whole point is to highlight the Native perspective, and while I understand that you probably get that and still feel a certain way about some her points about her perspective and people of European descent, I think you miss the point that she is providing direction reason of the perspective through history and Native perspective about history. She isn't going in and painting things in terms of them being black or white and saying "oh you guys don't do things or think about things like the people who are part of my heritage do, so you're wrong and bad and every bad thing that's happening is because of you as an individual and the group of people you are racially/ancestrally connected to", she's literally only providing historical context and Native perspective on that history; she's just detailing her culture which influences her perspective and recommends considering her perspective on a deeper level because she thinks that individuals taking it to heart and using it to change individual actions in their own lives (most ideally on a large scale) may help with sustainability and other environmental issues. She's not attacking white people, she's detailing Native perspective and showing where some of it happens to be rooted in, which is Europeans coming to the U.S. and subsequent historical events/actions afterward, specifically in relation to how land was developed and treated.
This book is often a available for free at the library for pick-up, ebook or audio. Not a commercial, just wanted to mention that. Thought what you said was fair, you really did try to take in the book and I do think you were very careful with your wording. I agree with one of the older comments said about religious underpinnings, it might be what's keeping you from grasping some of the other portions of the book. I didn't see the us vs them part that you really blatantly saw as well as insults to European-descent people's and religions because I kind of read it from a institutional/cultural/system-wide perspective and not from a personal or even an interpersonal one. There's no one person or people to blame for for the tragedy that happened to indigenous peoples, and if there were any names many of them are long gone and have passed, I wouldn't take the criticisms that Kimmerer has as a personal attack. Rather I see what she says as a comment about larger norms in western culture that still persist today. I also don't think your characterization of her native perspective as the noble savage is correct either.. she has a chapter about mundane rituals performed in place of forgotten ones due to the displacement of her people from her homeland and coffee pouring that really speaks to this. Her people don't have the all the answers. So I actually think you guys are on the same page with that. Also with the citations thing. So far I haven't come across anything so controversial and profound that warrants a look up to a study, most of the things that she mentioned are relatively new, but not exactly debatable? Trees emitting chemicals to communicate with each other for example, it's a fact, not really disputed anymore, so the heavy emphasis on the book lacking citations also makes me think that you also uphold science very highly as well (I do too, and I respect that) but to the point where it discounts and marginalizes other ways of knowing or passing on of knowledge... You know, I think you gave the book a fair shot! Not everybook is for everyone. Good, intentional video with an honest perspective.
Yes, I suppose I mainly dislike the way the author oversimplifies the beginning to “European” vs “Native American” cultures. I think there are a lot of variations within those cultures. The comparison between women in origins stories as a basis for a culture was also unnecessary. I was really looking forward to the later parts of the book, but was turned off by the opening...and yes, a lot of the science I can find elsewhere now, so I am not stressed about it...and lol if you watch more of my videos, I am always a pain about citations. I do think the author and I would have a lot more in common in a give and take dialog versus me reading her work, but I think that applies across the board. Nothing replaces actual encounter and dialog. Thank you for your feedback. I often wonder if I should just take this video down, but honestly, I was looking for someone to be willing to offer the dialog I felt the book was lacking. Thank you.
Thanks for sharing, you appear to be very sweet, but your religious underpinnings keep you from fully embracing braiding sweet grass.
Susan McMaster that may be a fair comment. I agree with combining native wisdom and science, but it is difficult to hear someone when they keep insulting and degrading others.
I am reading the book and I am interested in clarifying a point regarding my perspective. The author, when targeting Europeans, is not targeting you or people in general. But it refers to the fact that as European settlers they not only brought a variety of knowledge opposed to indigenous beliefs. But also a different forms of evil. And it is that colonization not only remains in history, but it still exists in many countries and throughout Latin America. And who are the ones doing these damages? Well, nothing more and nothing less than the Europeans and the United States and Canada. People who are of European descents. With this I do not see that she is targeting common people, but rather people who have the power and influence to do such evils to ancient cultures.
She is European descent, but she doesn't feel that way, and she shows it in her book. She prefers to consider Mother Earth and ancient indigenous wisdom more than jus European scientific theories. When I think of coffee, or I think of oil, I don't just think of the simple fact that it can be bought in a store or called "coffee". But we have to think that there are many people who die planting coffee and many wars because oil. The oil that is used more in European countries, Canada, and USA. This is actually sad, and Kimmer's book goes beyond. She says, "Just get what nature gives you." Which in fact, the abuse with nature is visible in all the worlds that belong to the third world. And not visible to those who belong in the first world. Because that's what it's all about, they take away our oil, our gold, bauxite, copper, minerals, etc. And they give us pollution, and many minerals in the bodies of children. Just for the gold to turn into in an elegant engagement ring or necklace. Minerals for use in cars or other products. A world full of evil that many indigenous and native people suffer everyday just because loving our Mother Earth.
Patty, we will have to agree to disagree here. I think the difference is in how close one lives to the land as opposed to how removed one is, not one’s ethnic heritage. There are currently many countries taking advantage of less developed (not better or worse) cultures. Many developed countries see the raw materials of a less developed culture and either ally themselves or take advantage of them. The idea of a noble savage is a beautiful one, but even indigenous cultures have abuses and wars. A much better book (imho) would have been the weaving of her cultures and wisdoms into a dialog that did not alienate, but joined peoples together.
@@DeannaWillistonOFS I don't know what you mean by that precise thought. The ethnic heritage is the wisdom of our ancestors. And it is what connects us as cultural transcendence for generations. In that way, we become more grounded to our Mother Earth. I cannot connect to the actual meaning and what is Mother Earth, living in a modern or more civilized country. That is the intention of the social structure to which many societies are tied to.
Indigenous wars and abuses? You actually have to be specific. But in fact none of those wars and abuses that you point to, compare to the abuses and wars of white supremacy, who have spilled in history and continue to do so. And more with chemicals that destroy thousands of human lives and living things in less than a minute.
Your comments on missionary schools are extremely undereducated. If you think for one second that those missionary schools helped our people then you need to listen to real experiences of what occurred. Your idea of these schools comes from your assumptions based of snippets of stories. A friend enjoying his trade he learned in a school is just an example of colonization. These trades were presented in order to further adapt Indigenous peoples into Westernized and patriarchal societies.
The removal of Native children because of "lack of food" is absurd. Children died in those schools from starvation due to taking away food as punishment.
Rocks are not spirits, they have a spirit. Respecting the earth and every component in its ecosystem is necessary for the continuation of life on Earth.
Lastly, the fact that you are not willing to understand Kimmerer's point from a different cultural perspective is the main reason for the "you/us" language.
I will only speak to the point about the schools because I had been told by American media how horrible they were and that they were colonization. I now have family who went to those schools & loved the experience. I understand not everyone might have had such a positive experience, that does not invalidate those that did.
Some recent information about residential schools newspunch.com/remains-of-250-dead-children-found-at-catholic-school/
@@MsAndreaVasquez i have been following the updates about the schools. While the abuse that happened is horrible and many children died for lack of funding, I still think the vast majority of teachers went in with good intentions. To be honest, why else would they have taught in such schools as the media now describes? If the children all had TB and small pox, their was no funding for supplies or decent food, and the classrooms were over-crowded, it would have been very difficult to get teachers. The teachers were probably of two extremes.
Are you kidding me. They’ve found over 10,000 bodies of children killed in the internal investigations of the residential schools in Canada. Bodies in mass graves, found stuffed in the walls. And you’re under the impression that instructors went in with “Good intentions”!?
Rape, sodomy, murder, neglect and abuse of every kind was committed in these “good intentioned” schools. My grandma was beat by these “holy” people (nuns). Do not try to tell US about OUR experiences in these schools. Just because you have heard accounts of ok circumstances in schools does not mean Carlisle wasn’t the epitome of hell. These accounts you speak of clearly are of more recent accounts because I have NEVER met an elder who has survived these atrocities and claimed to “love it”. Sick.
The colonial perspective on braiding sweet grass. This is an illegitimate review of this book.
Calling natives noble savage. Wow