Seller Inventory ING David Rich Lewis. Publisher: Oxford University Press , This specific ISBN edition is currently not available. View all copies of this ISBN edition:. Synopsis About this title During the nineteenth century, Americans looked to the eventual civilization and assimilation of Native Americans through a process of removal, reservation, and directed culture change. From the Back Cover : During the nineteenth century, Americans looked to the eventual civilization and assimilation of Native Americans through a process of removal, reservation, and directed culture change.
Buy New Learn more about this copy. Other Popular Editions of the Same Title. Search for all books with this author and title. Customers who bought this item also bought. Stock Image.
[PDF] Neither Wolf nor Dog: American Indians, Environment, and Agrarian Change - Semantic Scholar
New Hardcover Quantity Available: 1. Seller Rating:.
New Hardcover Quantity Available: Book Depository hard to find London, United Kingdom. Published by Oxford University Press New Paperback Quantity Available: America was increasingly urban and industrial, no longer a nation of simple yeoman farmers. The persistent heterogeneity of immigrant identity and the failure of one hundred years of civilization programs to eradicate Indian cultures flew in the face of the American "melting pot" ideal.
As Indians ceased being "romantic" figures and became farmers, the public lost interest in them. Policy rhetoric strayed from the long-held goal of assimilating Indians into mainstream American society toward a less optimistic program of merely incorporating them on the margins—of encouraging local agrarian self-sufficiency, then withdrawing federal assistance, leaving Indian families to cope on marginal lands with little access to national markets or society. The Indian Bureau directed farmers to demonstrate practical techniques on the agency farm. Following allotment, these were to be phased out and demonstrations carried out on individual allotments by farmers living in "district stations.
Farmers received technical assistance from other government agencies, including the bureaus of Reclamation, Plant Industry, Animal Industry, and Entomology, and the Agricultural Extension Service. Commissioner Thomas J.
- Afro-European Conference for Industrial Advancement: Proceedings of the First International Afro-European Conference for Industrial Advancement AECIA 2014.
- Neither Wolf nor Dog: American Indians, Environment, and Agrarian Change;
- History and the Disciplines: The Reclassification of Knowledge in Early Modern Europe.
- Neither Wolf Nor Dog: American Indians, Environment, and Agrarian Change.
- The Indispensability of Mathematics.
- Neither Wolf nor Dog?
- The spectralities reader : ghosts and haunting in contemporary cultural theory.
Morgan made it clear that "the employment by the government of white farmers is a temporary expedient," and that Indian peoples must learn to work their own allotments, but agency farms and farmers remained important resources into the s. Field matrons were the white farmers' female counterparts, instructing Indian women in all aspects of domestic arts and home economics in order to provide a stable home for their model agrarian families.
Their broadly defined duties included teaching food storage and other home manufactures, sewing, cooking, cleaning, keeping domestic livestock 18 Neither Wolf Nor Dog and a kitchen garden, and encouraging industry, Christianity, and a civilized appearance. They followed up by organizing agricultural associations or homemaking clubs, creating a mutual support group for their "progressive" Indian farm families.
Indian Bureau officials stressed practical, manual labor education, with just enough of the "3 R's" for basic literacy. During the early twentieth century, government publications, course study guides, and directives for Indian schoolteachers stressed the domestic and agricultural lessons Indians should learn in school. Textbooks contained practical math applications for farm and household, readings extolling agrarian values, and written and oral presentations on industrial themes.
Commencement addresses by visiting dignitaries and graduating students stressed the benefits of agricultural education and labor. Indian school periodicals were full of stories about "successful" Indian farmers and homemakers—role models for students returning to wrest a living from allotted reservations.
Complaints about the uneven quality and work of Indian Bureau employees particularly farmers continued, despite stricter hiring standards and work rules. The Indian Bureau hesitated to promote livestock ranching over farming on western reservations because of the emphasis on individual allotment and fear that herding reinforced nomadic tendencies. Extensive irrigation projects, built in the early twentieth century with Indian monies, generally came too late to save Indian farmers and ended up benefiting neighboring whites who bought up or leased allotments along the ditches.
The ceremony commemorated the final act of allotment, in which individuals received full title to their land and became citizens, symbolizing their progress from Indian savagery to agrarian civilization. In at Santee Agency, each Sioux male receiving a patent to his allotment emerged from a tent, shot a last arrow into the air to symbolize the end of his "Indian" life, and took hold of a plow to symbolize his new life.
The agent administered a solemn oath of citizenship and gave each man a flag, a badge, and a purse to signify his new status. Women took a special oath as homemaker and received a flag, badge, workbag, and purse. By , it became clear that allotment and, by extension, the agrarian program for Indian civilization, had failed in its promise of incorporating Indians or turning them into self-sufficient yeoman farmers. The Meriam Report blasted allotment and detailed desperate reservation conditions.
Investigators enumerated the weaknesses of the agricultural program—inadequate equipment and instructions, environmental limitations, market isolation, and native resistance. Despite this the report concluded that agriculture remained "the chief economic possibility for the great majority of Indians," although the effort should be directed away from competitive market agriculture to the development of self-sufficient family farms. Commissioner John Collier and the Indian Reorganization Act of put an end to allotment as depression put a virtual end to Indian farming.
Under Collier, the Indian Bureau recognized the national trend away from small family farms to larger corporate operations and retreated from attempts to transform Indians into self-sufficient or even individual market farmers. Collier's bureau encouraged corporate tribal farming and ranching operations by supporting the reacquisition and consolidation of tribal lands and arranging reimbursable loans and stock programs, but few of these proved as successful over time as did other tribal economic ventures. Environmental limitations, the lack of capital, technical knowledge, and markets, the advantages of leasing, and Indian disillusionment with farming hindered such operations.
But slowly, both farming and ranching were replaced by Bureau and tribal schemes for wage work, resource development, relocation, and termination. Tribal trust land status and complicated heirship cases further limited Indian operations.
By the s Indian Bureau programs discounted agriculture as a viable source for reservation economic development. Recent intertribal attempts to reinvigorate Indian agricultural activities have emerged, but their proposals have been blocked by the Indian Bureau's concern for individual over tribal land rights.
While many Indian people continue to live in rural areas and spend part of their time working land or livestock, few make a living at it. Today, land leasing, water sales, and resource mining turn more profit for tribal peoples than eking out an existence as the idealized yeomen farmers and farm families of a bygone era and policy vision. With their ethnocentric values and "good intentions," Anglo reformers and officials attempted to assimilate Indians and, failing that, reduced them to the lowest Euro-American denominator, the poor farmer.
They rarely questioned why Indians should abandon their own customs to adopt those of their white adversaries. They were too busy trying to instill notions of private property and awaken accumulative desires—"to get the Indian out of the blanket and into trousers—and trousers with a pocket in them, and with a pocket that aches to befitted with dollarsl"41 Reformers believed that Indians' landed inheritance naturally suited them to farm, even when their remaining lands dictated a marginal farming economy on the periphery of American society.
Overlooking the fact that even non-Indian farmers were struggling to make a living in subhumid areas, they forged ahead, secure in their agrarian idealism and faith in progressive social development. The agrarian bent of American Indian policy did not continue on faith and theory alone, but in part because government officials and reformers could point to a number of notable "success stories. Traditional agrarian peoples provided the most visible examples of adaptation and success. Officials believed that allotment simply reinforced this trend. Yet studies indicate that following allotment, Indian farming actually declined—that by the early twentieth century the breakup of tribal farming projects, restrictions on property rights and access to credit, and inducements to lease and sell lands ultimately discouraged Indian farming.
Like all generalizations about the nature of government programs and Indian agriculture, it tends to conceal the complexity and diversity of the experience. It quantifies success and failure in terms of Euro-American values. It tells us more about American society than native societies. What needs to be addressed just as seriously is the response of Native Americans as rational actors, living in known environments, with their own scales of value and their own cultural reactions to farming and directed changes entailed in American Indian policy.
According to their mythology, Utes are descendants of a myth-time world family composed of beings sharing both human and animal characteristics. Among the Southern Numic, "Earth Diver" myths account for the creation of land from Ocean Woman and explain how these myth-time animal beings particularly Wolf and Coyote shared in the final process of creation. Ute ancestors learned how to live and behave from this family until the animal beings became parts of the cosmic environment or took their present form.
Animals observed in nature today are considered collateral relatives descended from these spirit ancestors. From the Ute point of view, their stories explain the natural order of the world and serve to instruct each new generation in the proper behavior toward that world and each other. In the beginning there were no people. One day Sinawaf made his knife sharp and, without telling Coyote, went off to the hills to cut some nice straight branches from a tu'va bush serviceberry.
He brought back several bun- Nuciu, the Northern Ute People 23 dies of these sticks, cut them into pieces about the same length, and tied them up in a sack. He repeated this until the sack was nearly full.go
Neither Wolf Nor Dog: American Indians, Environment, and Agrarian Change
Coyote was curious, so when Sinawafwent out the sixth and last time, Coyote untied the sack. People rushed out of the sack, shouting loudly in different languages, and scared Coyote away.
Whites came out first and fled east; the rest who went north and south were Indians. They scattered over the country, raising quite a cloud of dust. When Sinawafsaw this, he cursed his brother for being too nosy. You must look out carefully now. Those who speak different languages will be our enemies; they will fight and kill us and one another.
Desert Archaic hunter-gatherers inhabited the area between 10, B. About A. At about the same time the Fremont Culture emerged in northeastern Utah, possibly as Desert Archaic peoples settled down and borrowed Anasazi traits. Both the Fremont and Anasazi were relatively sedentary peoples with a developed maize-bean-squash horticultural complex. Both lived in rectangular, wetlaid masonry dwellings constructed in cliff faces or on the valley floors. They constructed pit house granaries and made coiled and twined basketry, gray-black pottery, and clay figurines.
Both prospered until A.