Monday, February 23, 2009
Tallbar review; Krech's arrogance (?) towards religious beliefs
Kimberlly Tallbar (see Tantillo's post) writes a fair review of Krech, and really gets at what Krech was trying to say (as opposed to what she wished he had said, which is what many reviews focus on). Interestingly, she speaks (p3) about how both Krech's book and the criticism thrown at it are almost entirely centered within Euro-American assumptions about natural resources. I find it sad and ironic that even when discussing how the book may have failed Native American interests, most reviews do so from within a White cultural context. Tallbar is really effective at providing the perspective that I certainly can't mimic. I especially like her perspective on the reincarnation ideas (p4) because I thought that Krech was guilty of treating these beliefs with a certain arrogance (though perhaps it just read that way). Do you agree?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Overall I thought Krech was truly fair and neutral in his novel. I don't believe he tries to give things from a 'white' perspective anymore then assuming people will have basic assumptions and knowledge of white/indian interactions. Such knowledge is presumably common place nation-wide (though I am making an assumption here myself). I do like that her (can't remember the name...) book review took it from a more neutral perspective especially considering her heritage. At the same time her reliance on other reviews to prove her points was... different. Still not sure if I like it. She tries to distill his argument as she interpreted it. I believe it was something like "to show the evidence." Yes, we had similar opinions on the matter. At the same time that doesn't do much for me (at least). I suppose there is much other opinionated material that is less 'fair' but her blunt extrapolation makes the novel seem more like a court case. To be fair my problem really isn't with her review, but rather Krech's novel itself. I know have an arsenal of facts on hand that show Indians not only coveting nature but also exploiting it. But Krech's ambiguous evidence portrayal is frustrating. Indians historically may not have been 'conservationists' by the modern definition, but the 'Ecological Indian' is rooted in a culture acceptance that despite some anti-environmental tenancies, Indians as a whole treated the continent with much more respect then post-industrial society.
not to nitpick or anything, but Krech's book is nonfiction, not a novel. also I agee that he is fair and for the most part neutral in the book. I think the book review did a good job of defending Krech against some fo the criticisms.
Post a Comment