Neocolonial Thinking and Respect for Nature: Do Indigenous People have Different Relationships with Wildlife than Europeans?

IF 0.7 Q3 ANTHROPOLOGY
R. Pierotti, Brandy R. Fogg
{"title":"Neocolonial Thinking and Respect for Nature: Do Indigenous People have Different Relationships with Wildlife than Europeans?","authors":"R. Pierotti, Brandy R. Fogg","doi":"10.14237/ebl.11.1.2020.1674","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We respond to Mech (2019) “Do Indigenous American Peoples’ Stories Inform the Study of Dog Domestication” and point out a number of errors and omissions in Mech’s essay. These include: 1) assuming that the behavior of all wild wolves is the same, and can be characterized according only to Mech’s personal experience; 2) assuming that the domestication of wolves took place in only a single location at one time (14,000 yrs BP); 3) misrepresenting the statements and findings of other scholars; 4) assuming that all wolves that have ever encountered humans have experienced persecution; and 5) dismissing all accounts of interactions with wolves by Indigenous Americans. The last of these is particularly egregious and seems to represent a form of neocolonial thinking, in which only accounts and findings by Europeans are considered to be acceptable evidence. Mech’s own work on Ellesmere Island seems to support the idea that wolves can be curious and unthreatening to humans. We suggest that this might be the only actual time Mech interacted with true Canis lupus. In addition, Mech’s statements on wolf attacks and the significance of rabies are shown to be misleading. As a result, Mech’s work, especially his questioning of the validity of Indigenous knowledge, which often provides crucial insights into some aspects of ethnobiological research, represents a critique of methods employed by scholars within the discipline of ethnobiology, whereas, as a wildlife biologist, Mech seems to lack knowledge of the principles of ethnobiology. Received January 17, 2020 OPEN ACCESS Accepted June 3, 2020 DOI 10.14237/ebl.11.1.2020.1674 Published August 1, 2020","PeriodicalId":43787,"journal":{"name":"Ethnobiology Letters","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethnobiology Letters","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14237/ebl.11.1.2020.1674","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

We respond to Mech (2019) “Do Indigenous American Peoples’ Stories Inform the Study of Dog Domestication” and point out a number of errors and omissions in Mech’s essay. These include: 1) assuming that the behavior of all wild wolves is the same, and can be characterized according only to Mech’s personal experience; 2) assuming that the domestication of wolves took place in only a single location at one time (14,000 yrs BP); 3) misrepresenting the statements and findings of other scholars; 4) assuming that all wolves that have ever encountered humans have experienced persecution; and 5) dismissing all accounts of interactions with wolves by Indigenous Americans. The last of these is particularly egregious and seems to represent a form of neocolonial thinking, in which only accounts and findings by Europeans are considered to be acceptable evidence. Mech’s own work on Ellesmere Island seems to support the idea that wolves can be curious and unthreatening to humans. We suggest that this might be the only actual time Mech interacted with true Canis lupus. In addition, Mech’s statements on wolf attacks and the significance of rabies are shown to be misleading. As a result, Mech’s work, especially his questioning of the validity of Indigenous knowledge, which often provides crucial insights into some aspects of ethnobiological research, represents a critique of methods employed by scholars within the discipline of ethnobiology, whereas, as a wildlife biologist, Mech seems to lack knowledge of the principles of ethnobiology. Received January 17, 2020 OPEN ACCESS Accepted June 3, 2020 DOI 10.14237/ebl.11.1.2020.1674 Published August 1, 2020
新殖民主义思维与对自然的尊重:土著人与野生动物的关系与欧洲人不同吗?
我们回应了Mech(2019)的“美国原住民的故事是否为狗驯化的研究提供了信息”,并指出了Mech文章中的一些错误和遗漏。这些包括:1)假设所有野狼的行为都是相同的,只能根据Mech的个人经验来描述;2)假设狼的驯化只发生在一个单一的地点(距今14000年);3)歪曲其他学者的陈述和发现;4)假设所有遇到人类的狼都经历过迫害;5)否认印第安人与狼互动的所有描述。最后一点尤其令人震惊,似乎代表了一种新殖民主义思想,在这种思想中,只有欧洲人的描述和发现才被认为是可接受的证据。械甲怪自己在埃尔斯米尔岛的研究似乎支持了狼对人类好奇且不构成威胁的观点。我们认为这可能是械甲怪唯一一次与真正的犬类狼疮发生互动。此外,械甲怪关于狼袭击和狂犬病的重要性的说法被证明是误导性的。因此,Mech的工作,特别是他对土著知识有效性的质疑,通常为民族生物学研究的某些方面提供了至关重要的见解,代表了对民族生物学学科内学者采用的方法的批评,而作为野生生物学家,Mech似乎缺乏民族生物学原理的知识。收稿2020年1月17日OPEN ACCESS接收2020年6月3日DOI: 10.14237/ebl.11.1.2020.1674发布于2020年8月1日
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ethnobiology Letters
Ethnobiology Letters ANTHROPOLOGY-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信