Abstract

I maintain in this Article that federal, state, and ,local environmental managers have often been insufficiently attentive to the effects that their decisions have on Native resources. These non-Native environmental managers have often denied the place of Native environmental managers in determining the ends and means of restoration affecting Native resources. These non-Native environmental managers have often declined to acknowledge Native expertise.

Where this is the case, I observe that restoration efforts will likely be ineffective, cultural flourishing will be undermined, and cultural discrimination will persist unabated. Indeed, because Native ecological knowledge and Native resources are interdependent—the vitality of each depends upon the vitality of the other—not only will resources not be restored, but the health of the resources and of the Native people will likely deteriorate along each of these interrelated dimensions.

This Article begins by noting that non-Native society—the dominant society in the United States—has often discounted Native expertise and denied a place for Native environmental managers. Part II catalogues the various forms that denigration and denial of Native ecological science have taken. Part III marks the historical antecedents of such efforts to deny Native knowledge and to downplay the role of Native peoples as environmental managers. It then identifies particular features of the approaches favored by non-Native environmental managers that likely work to exclude, devalue, or discriminate against Native science, with the intention of encouraging further work to locate and dismantle occasions for discrimination. Part IV offers two considerations for intercultural conversations on restoration affecting Native resources. Finally, Part V presents some observations from recent efforts at intercultural approaches, meant again to identify issues for further work.

How to Cite