Eco-critism and Roosevelts “Conservation”

So, I’m going to be honest, what I thought was ecocritism in my master’s might have been wrong…So, I’m learning a lot here! The two passages we read were very helpful; I especially enjoyed “Mapping by Words”: The Politics of Land in Native American Literature. The Wind From an Enemy Sky seemed extremely interesting and informative about the General Allotment Act about how land was divided and gave white farmers usually the best/most plots. While I haven’t read a lot of native american literature, this is something that I really want to invest more time in — @Eco-Courtney, you have any suggestions?

This story immediately made me think of “conservation efforts” that Roosevelt established during his time as a presidency. While he did (from his point of view and many others) turn a vast amount of land into National Parks, National Monuments, and protected areas, many of these areas were taken from Native Americans. In my time in Taos, we went to Taos Pueblo where about 150 indigenous Pueblos live full-time. They share some of their customs and history with tourists, but a lot is still protected and kept to themselves. One of the interesting conversations I remember listening to was from a young Pueblo who talked about Blue Lake. Basically Blue Lake is a sacred part of the Taos Pueblos religion, and it was taken by Roosevelt for “conservation” reasons. I’ve included a bit more of a description below. This is from the Taos Pueblo site, in case you want to read more about it.

“WHAT IS BLUE LAKE?
The single most dramatic event in the recent history of Taos Pueblo land is the 1970 return of 48,000 acres of mountain land including the sacred Blue Lake. It was taken by the U.S. Government in 1906 to become part of the National Forest lands. Among the ritual sites where Taos people go for ceremonial reasons, Blue Lake is perhaps the most important. Its return is a tribute to the tenacity of Pueblo leaders and to the community’s commitment to guarding its lands for the spiritual, cultural and economic health of the Pueblo. The return of this land capped a long history of struggle. Blue Lake and mountains are off-limits to all but members of our Pueblo” (Taos Pueblo Website).

So, why do I bring this up? I think it goes back to perspectives. Both Owen and Morton mention that we can only do so much and we can only see the “good” from our perspective. We might not be able to fully grasp the ecological mesh we are entangled in. So, from Roosevelt’s point of view (and many others) he did a great thing by creating conservation areas. But to the Pueblos and many other Native Americans, who he openly despised, he stole their land and prohibited them from using the land for their religious purposes.

This is a topic I, personally, struggle with. On the one hand, I really appreciate these areas because I know they are going to be taken care of (well, until our most recent administration started taking them away…). On vacations, my family and friends always go to these areas to hike and to be closer to nature. But, on the other hand, these are areas I should have no right to explore. I am still trying to grasp this issue and what it means when I explore these areas that I know were stolen from indigenous peoples. I really did appreciate these readings for bring up similar issues and helping me understand ecocritism a little bit more.