Ken Burns' most recent documentary effort is "The American Buffalo" a multipart series on the depletion and reintroduction of the buffalo in the US. He combines several messages that are relevant to 1) contemporary environmental debates, 2) the place of indigenous peoples in the future of America, and 3) the basis of human relationships to other animal species.
In the Burns style, narrators are mixed with still and movie footage in a narrative that has a specific direction. In this series, the narrative describes the hunting of buffalo to near extinction, and then the various efforts to protect them and rebuild the herds. Many of the narrators are from indigenous tribes historically related to buffalo hunting. The simplest question of the series is: should the buffalo be preserved? prevented from going extinct? The narrative poses a strong "yes" but the basis for this is not so clear. The animal is "symbolic of America", according to who? The animal is essential to the "preservation of the great plains", which are now mostly plowed and planted with food grasses. The animal is the basis of the survival of the plains indigenous tribes, who have been displaced and abandoned by their conquerors. None of these justifications explains the peculiar efforts to prevent the extinction, and the inconsistent efforts to do so. The narrative does not give a convincing national or economic explanation for the preservation of this animal, which turns out to be an important point.
The contemporary environmental debate is centered around the role of fossil fuels in producing climate change, and the need to reduce and reverse this effect if possible. Several pathways exist to enable this goal, but none involve preserving the buffalo directly. Other protected species are the justification for preserving and protecting "wilderness" lands from development, but these rarely involve climate change, and never the buffalo. Similarly, concerns about pollution are an environmental issue that does not involve the buffalo. Is it relevant to environmental concerns?
Indigenous plains tribes hunted buffalo as a major source of food, clothing, housing, and tools for centuries before European arrival. Despite their intensive hunting, buffalo herds were counted in the millions at the time of European discovery. The animals were also a part of their religious observance, consistent with the importance of them in survival. The relationship between native peoples and buffalo indicates a clear mutual interdependence, with humans more dependent on the animal than the reverse. This is similar to the dependent relationships of other native peoples to their natural environment and resources. Over hundreds of thousands of years, indigenous peoples occupied the Americas without exhausting its resources or overpopulating. (Claims that native hunters were responsible for the extinction of other North American species, including horse and camel, are now disputed.) All this came to an end with the European migration.
Europe was experiencing economic population pressures that made the discovery of new lands an apparent solution. It did not seem to matter that the lands were sparsely occupied by other humans, because they had low population densities, did not have modern weapons, and they turned out to be vulnerable to European diseases. Establishing an invasion on the East Coast of North America, and in several regions of the Caribbean and South America proved relatively easy. The migration of poor, indentured, and slave persons for labor, was gradually followed by others seeking opportunities not available in the European world. (The migration of Asians was very different.) The emphasis on farming had no place for range animals, and Europeans had no knowledge of or interest in consuming buffalo. Buffalo had no value for the new population.
Like beaver, otter, fox, and other fur animals, the hunting was initially for specific use in limited applications. But the buffalo also represented a key vulnerability for the plains peoples who were resisting European expansion. The narrative strongly suggests that eliminating buffalo was part of the strategy of controlling the native resistance. After the Civil War a wholesale slaughter began when hides were used for the transfer belts in industrial machines. And later the remaining bones were ground for fertilizer. The fundamental understanding is that Europeans viewed the animal species (and plant species like giant redwoods) as PRODUCTS. They were important only based on market value, or as obstacles to producing products that were of market value. This seems obvious to any person of European descent, but represents a very different conception of human/animal relationships to native peoples. This issue is not limited to the buffalo, as depletion of seafood creatures for their market value has also been extensive, and threatens the loss of sea foods. The example of the whale is most obvious, as these enormous creatures were hunted and killed for their fat to make oil for lighting households! They were saved by the discovery of oil and gas as an alternative lighting source! (Whales are still threatened today when killed as a food source by certain countries.) The difference between the native view of animals and the European view is the difference between dependence and exploitation. Native peoples recognized their dependence on Nature and natural substances for survival, and that these were limited and could be over utilized and lost. Europeans viewed these new resources as available for exploitation, and so plentiful that they could be consumed without concern for depletion. It is difficult to know whether this reflects a difference in experiences or a different way of relating to the natural world. The fact that Europeans were intent on discovering new lands to supplant their dwindling home resources is epitomized in the British efforts to build an extensive colonial empire managed by the East India Company and other corporate interests. Similar efforts are noted in Spanish, Portuguese, French, and other European colonization. New lands were viewed as solving the economic problem of scarce resources in the homeland. So the resources of the new lands were to be exploited as needed. The buffalo had no place in this scheme. No Europeans ate buffalo or used its resources until minor uses were discovered. It is very dangerous for an animal or plant to be of value to Europeans (even more so for certain minerals!), but even more dangerous to have no value at all! This is the lesson of the buffalo.
If there is an important role for indigenous culture in the future of American society it is to revise the relationship to the natural world. The American obsession with fossil fuels, especially oil, has created a society in which pollution, excessive travel at high speeds, and disregard for local community are consequences. And the pressure to consume this energy source only speeds toward its depletion. The pattern of the buffalo is repeated over and over. "Conservation" is really about people learning to balance their lifestyle with the available resources for an extended future.
The buffalo narrative also gives a message about the relationship of human and other animal species. We are not friends. Some animals can be domesticated to a limited degree and used for labor and food. Most are wild creatures that require their own habitats that are not suitable for most human occupation. This requires separating the earth into human-suitable and wild animal-suitable habitats, with inevitable overlap. (Zoos were once useful for educating people about animal existence. They are now just a form of economic exploitation of animals. The informing can be done better with wild photography.)
The buffalo story is a wonderful example of how to learn about a way of living that has been forgotten in many human cultures. It does not say that all humans should return to indigenous ways of living. But it tells us that we cannot view Nature as an inexhaustible resource. We must learn to live with Nature in a balance of consumption and replenishment. And this balance may change with changes in climate, and the number of humans supported at any given time may change dramatically.
