Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the National Parks - Library Edition

by Mark David Spence, Kaipo Schwab (narrator)

National parks like Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Glacier preserve some of this country's most cherished wilderness landscapes. While visions of pristine, uninhabited nature led to the creation of these parks, they also inspired policies of Indian removal. By contrasting the native histories of these places with the links between Indian policy developments and preservationist efforts, this work examines the complex origins of the national parks and the troubling consequences of the American wilderness ideal. The first study to place national park history within the context of the early reservation era, it details the ways that national parks developed into one of the most important arenas of contention between native peoples and non-Indians in the twentieth century.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Environment, Indigenous, Nature, American History, Politics

Audio CD

First published January 1, 1999

Reviews

[Kathy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every sentence more damning than the last, my favorite kind of weaponized historical reconnaissance. This is an academic indictment of the willful political violence and performative negligence that allowed National Park commissioners in three "crown jewel" case studies (Yellowstone, Glacier and Yosemite NPs) to systematically strip Indigenous people of their homelands, all in the name of public interest. The manuscripts, letters, maps, and case law conspiring against "the Indian" in the false name of "wilderness protection" are all here. Even better, Spence doesn't stray from naming the specific racist, colonialist evil that is John Muir, the Sierra Club, George Catlin and all their "wilderness" loving (exploiting) contemporaries.

4.5. There were an astonishing amount of typos and this work is now dated by 22 years, but I highly encourage everyone I know to read this book. Message me and I'll send you my copy. This read recommended by Jolie Varela of @IndigenousWomenHike.

[Carrie D. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Really worth the read if you are interested in the detailed history of how national parks came to be. I learned a ton and it sent me on my own journey of trying to research national/state parks in my state. Somewhat a slog for me to read because I'm not used to academic writing, even though it's quite short.

[Tristan · Rating 5 out of 5]

A must read for anyone interested in the history of Indigenous Americans, the great outdoors and the conservation movement in the United States. This book has immense relevance to our present and future, where hopefully we can take the time to right some perpetuated wrongs and remember that we do not live apart from wilderness, but can create it and be a part of it.

Also, it is great to be able to read a thorough non fiction book in two weeks. This book is to the point and direct and does not go exhaustively into every possible case that could fit within its pages, but instead is focused and brings in just what is needed.

[JC · Rating 4 out of 5]

Comps reading. A fairly interesting book by Métis historian, Mark David Spence, about the history of national parks in the United States and their role in the militarization and enclosure of Indigenous land and ultimately Indigenous dispossession. Early colonial accounts perceived landscapes as inhabited by Indigenous nations, but these became replaced by notions of uninhabited wilderness that were realized through militarized colonial force. This book focuses on three national parks (Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Glacier) and consists of four main sections:

1. Ideology and historical processes that produced the simultaneous emergence of both national parks and Indigenous reservations after the Civil War (Chapters 1 & 2).
2. Yellowstone before the notion of wilderness and later as the first wilderness, which involved Indigenous removal from the area (Chapters 3 & 4)
3. Glacier National Park with the Blackfoot and their later exclusion (Chapters 5 & 6)
4. The Sierras and Indigenous nations of Yosemite, 1864-1916, which became the national park par excellence, 1916-1969 (Chapters 7 & 8)

I personally find this topic interesting because my own visit to Yellowstone, back during one undergraduate summer, was one of the most formative trips of my life. I read Annie Dillard’s book Pilgrim at Tinker Creek on that trip, and the otherworldly landscapes of Yellowstone remain the most memorable park experience of my life and was a catalyst for my growing interest in environmental issues. I had very little awareness of Indigenous issues more broadly at the time, nor was I remotely aware of how parks history intersected with colonialism. Though after Yellowstone I visited the Badlands, Black Hills, and that god-awful Rushmore monument. They had these t-shirts there that had an image of Chief Joseph, Sitting Bull, Geronimo, and Red Cloud standing in front of the monument with the line “Original Founding Fathers” which is perhaps one of the earlier provocations that compelled me to read more about Indigenous resistance to colonialism. A very weird way in. Anyway, I want to start with this opening paragraph from the book that mentions the Badlands and Black Hills:

“SHORTLY AFTER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF Badlands National Monument in 1929, the Oglala Sioux spiritual leader Black Elk expressed profound consternation with the idea of wilderness preservation. For him, the creation of the national monument adjacent to his home on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota seemed only to confirm a disturbing trend. Wind Cave National Park had already been established in the nearby Black Hills, and large areas of land surrounding the park had recently been incorporated into a national forest. Remembering his youth and the time he spent in these areas, Black Elk recalled that his people "were happy in [their] own country, and were seldom hungry, for then the two-leggeds and the four-leggeds lived together like relatives, and there was plenty for them and for us." Although a considerable portion of this Sioux country received federal protection, native peoples were largely excluded from their former lands. As Black Elk observed, the Americans had "made little islands for us and other little islands for the four-leggeds," and every year the two were moving farther and farther apart.2 In short, Black Elk understood all too well that wilderness preservation went hand in hand with native dispossession.”

I visited San Francisco a number of years ago also and wanted to visit Yosemite, but it was a family trip and my mom is not an outdoorsy person so we didn't end up going. Anyway, the remainder of this reflection is just number of excerpts that I bookmarked, along with some comments.

I am very interested in what makes places special and worth commemorating within public history programming, and this includes what makes a place worth turning into a park. There is another question that is an inverse to that colonial question, which is: what makes a place sacred or worth defending against colonial incursion? Spence writes:

“This book is not just about the sacredness of certain places, however. It also addresses the rights and needs of native peoples to maintain their cultural distinctiveness through the exercise of treaty rights and the practice of certain skills that can take place only within a large national park. Recent concerns about hunting or gathering traditional food and medicinal plants on protected lands are frequently associated with a new round of cultural revivalism among various Indian groups, but these activities are rooted in a century of "illegal" and extralegal use of such areas. While these actions have presented a constant challenge to the idealization of pristine, uninhabited landscapes, they also contributed another "cultural construction" of wilderness—in this case, one in which concerns about subsistence gave way to concerns about cultural persistence and political sovereignty.”

This is an example of early colonial scientists describing landscapes as inhabited by Indigenous peoples, and not uninhabited as later descriptions would do. This is by Audubon, a pretty awful slave-owner and scientific racist who has a bunch of birding institutions named after him:

“Much has been written about Audubon's efforts to preserve wildlife, but scholars have paid scant attention to his concern about the demise of Native American societies. Like Catlin and Irving, Audubon's conception of wilderness and the landscapes he hoped to see preserved included native peoples. While on a trip to Labrador in the summer of 1833 to record specimens for his masterwork, The Birds of America (1827—1838), he repeatedly lamented the rapid destruction of the region and hoped that some "kind government" would intervene to stop its "shameful destruction." As things then stood, the destruction of deer, caribou, birdlife, and "aboriginal man" led Audubon to observe that "Nature herself seems perishing" and that there seemed to be no place left where one could go and "visit nature undisturbed…”

This is an interesting excerpt of working class mill workers who advocated for the protection of a large elm tree from being felled:

“Nevertheless, an appreciation for the Indian wilderness was manifest in the local concerns of easterners of all social classes. In New Hampshire in 1853, for instance, five hundred working men and women petitioned the Amoskeag Manufacturing Company not to cut down a stately elm tree during the construction of an additional mill. It was "a beautiful and goodly tree," they proclaimed, belonging to the time "when the yell of the red man and the scream of the eagle were alone heard on the banks of the Merrimack." The tree "belonged" in Amoskeag, which could not be said of more "giant edifices filled with the buzz of busy and well remunerated machinery," and every day the workers looked on the giant elm they felt "a connecting link between the past and the present." The mill workers could not travel to the West, but they shared the romantic concern about its destruction and could not bear to have what little of the Indian wilderness that remained in their lives cut out from under them.”

This was an interesting excerpt about how colonial military violence became inscribed in the names of places in the western US as frontier settler violence moved farther and farther west:

“Between the mid-1850s and the late 1860s, however, vigilante groups, local militias, and U.S. Army troops fought countless battles with native peoples throughout the West. In response to expected conflict, the army built at least six dozen military forts west of the Mississippi, and almost all were used in campaigns against Indian communities. Maps of the western United States reflected this new construction, and policy makers, overland travelers, and even casual newspaper readers became familiar with places like Fort Bridger, Fort Laramie, and Fort Kearny.”

This is about some of the colonial violence perpetrated at Yellowstone and the militarization of Indigenous lands there:

Already chafing under increased military supervision at Fort Hall, the Bannock headed east toward Yellowstone, where they were pursued by regular troops and the park superintendent's "party of some 20 well armed, mounted, and equipped, resolute and reliable mountaineer[s]."6 After raiding horses and frightening a number of tourists, the Bannock were attacked and subdued just cast of the park by a platoon of soldiers and Crow scouts under the command of General Nelson A. Miles. Yellowstone's "Indian troubles" would not go away, however, and the following year park officials braced themselves once again when the so-called Sheep Eater War broke out in central Idaho. Although this last conflict did not cross into the national park, fears that Yellowstone Tukudeka might become involved must have led many to believe that the "nation's playground" had become a yearly battleground.

In many respects, park management in the late 1870 resembled that of a small western military installation. The construction of the first park headquarters in 1879—a heavily fortified blockhouse—wholly reflected concerns about further Indian "depredations." Located on an isolated hill that offered the "best defensive point against Indians," the headquarters building was designed to provide emergency protection for official documents, park personnel, and tourists.9 Superintendent Philetus Norris, who oversaw the construction of the headquarters and managed the park's defenses during the Bannock War, believed the best course of action lay in convincing "all the surrounding tribes . . . that they can visit the park [only] at the peril of a conflict with . . . the civil and military officers of the government.””

This excerpt describes how General Sheridan advocated bringing Yellowstone under military management:

Upon returning to Washington in the fall of 1882, the general [Philip H. Sheridan] first appealed to eastern sportsmen and asked them to press the government for greater protection of the park. He quickly garnered the support of several influential senators, who vigorously championed a proposal to bring the park under military management. Sheridan's ideas also received a good deal of coverage from journals such as the Nation and Forest and Stream, which soon inspired numerous petitions from state and territorial legislatures, sportsmen's groups, and concerned individuals. This widespread support quiclky led to the adoption of stronger game rules in 1883 and pushed Congress to authorize the secretary of War to dispatch "the necessary details of troops to prevent . . . [destruction] of the game or objects of curiosity" in the park. Preservationists did not claim success, however, until the military took over complete management of the park three years later…”

“By die time Yellowstone received the protection of the U.S. Army in June 1886, the Shoshone, Bannock, and Sheep Eater once again headed the list of perceived threats to the national park. Defining the value of wilderness in terms of animals and trees led advocates of preservation to view Indians as inherently incapable of appreciating the natural world. Hardly a key component of the wilderness condition, native peoples instead represented the one great flaw in the western landscape. According to the complaints of outdoor enthusiasts in the late nineteenth century, it seemed a wonder that any forests or animals remained in North America since Indians practically based their entire existence on the destruction of wilderness. As early as 1879, sport hunters and settlers complained to the commissioner of Indian Affairs about native hunters who "wantonly destroyed game" throughout the Rocky Mountain region. Even worse, they lit fires "in order to obtain dry fuel for winter use, or to drive the deer to one place where they might be easily killed . . . [and thus] large tracts of valuable timber were burned over.””

This was also a really interesting excerpt on mining operations on Indigenous land, something ongoing in Ontario as Asubpeeschoseewagong First Nation (Grassy Narrows) has been resisting the Ford administration, who have been handing out mining licences on Indigenous land without Indigenous consent. In the case of the Blackfeet, what were perhaps short-term leases of mineral rights became interpreted as full land cession:

“Blackfeet oral history even suggests that the land cession agreement may have been little more than a short-term lease of mineral rights. If mining operations proved successful, the Blackfeet would lose access to a good portion of the so-called ceded strip. Otherwise, they believed the agreement placed no restrictions on their ongoing use of the area. In later years, some Blackfeet would describe the 1895 agreement as the selling of "rocks only," while others recalled that tribal leaders had negotiated for a recession of all lands after fifty years…

The Senate ratified the land cession agreement within nine months, but the government could not fully survey the ceded area and open it to mining claimants until April 1898. Still, prospectors trespassed on the reservation in growing numbers, and both Grinnell and his friends in the U.S. Geological Survey worried about the effects of miners' fires on the forests and watersheds of the Glacier area. Consequently, Grinnell worked to have the ceded lands included within a proposed forest reserve that Gifford Pinchot, John Muir, Charles Sargent, and others were then surveying on the western side of the Continental Divide. His efforts succeeded, and on February 22, 1897, President Grover Cleveland signed a proclamation establishing the Lewis and Clark Forest Reserve at the headwaters of the Missouri, Columbia, and Saskatchewan rivers. In doing so, the president made special note that Blackfeet "rights and privileges . . . respecting that portion of their reservation relinquished to the United States . . . shall be in no way infringed or modified”

Also later Indigenous peoples were excluded from national parks through different mechanisms, namely not performing their Indigeneity to the satisfaction of the settler gaze:

“Native people who did not look appropriately "Indian" presented a unique problem for park officials. On the one hand, they bolstered easy assumptions about vanishing or assimilating peoples, but on the other hand they disappointed tourists who wanted to see picturesque communities. Native people who attempted to practice older traditions, however, were somehow out of place because they had also adapted to new conditions and no longer seemed appropriately aboriginal. This apparent cultural disjunction had troubled tourists for some time, as well as the Army superintendents of the national park, but it apparently never concerned the men who managed the valley and Mariposa Big Tree Grove for the State of California. With the incorporation of these two areas into the national park in 1906, however, these concerns became the cornerstone of federal park policy toward the Yosemite Indians for decades to come.”

Debates between park administrators and colonial bureaucrats centered around how Indigenous peoples should live their lives:

“In the summer of 1914, Acting Superintendent William Littebrandt urged the secretary of the Interior to bring the Bureau of Indian Affairs into a plan that would make the Indian village into "one of the features of the Valley, by attempting to reproduce a village or camp such as the Indians originally built."53 The notion of constructing an "authentic" village for tourism was opposed by C. H. Asbury, a special agent for Indian affairs in the region, who strongly recommended against "establishing an Indian camp in the Valley, for exhibition purposes." As he noted in a letter to the commissioner of Indian Affairs, "The Indians . . . are there for the purpose of making their living at honest labor . . . and should be encouraged to make their own living, rather than become members of an aboriginal show.””

Anyway, a fairly interesting book for people into the environmental history of national parks in the so-called United States and the important role it played in perpetrating colonial violence and Indigenous dispossession.

[Thelma I · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wanted to learn more about the history of national parks, ahead of my visit this summer to my second one, and this book came up somehow. On first listen, I was concerned about the clinically cold voice of the narrator, but the author's intent and incisive critique shone through. This telling of how the history of the indigenous folks ties to the land was shaped by tourism and racist naturalists and national agents' ideals of how native people fit and do not belong in nature is honest and accurately brutal.

[Paul O'Donnell · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's not an easy read having such a historic and legal subject matter but it is well done and well researched and overwhelmingly relevant to understanding the idea of "Wilderness" in the American mind and in NPS management.

[Joy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Important read esp for anyone who spends time in the national parks about how the erasure of indigenous influence began particularly in the late 19th c and continues through today.

[Courtney Mosier Warren · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good read for those wanting to know about the complicated history of our National Parks and the way in which much of America’s ecology has evolved in parallel with Native peoples.

[Francesca Calarco · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you are looking for a great source on the National Park Service's history with Native American groups, then I highly recommend Dispossessing the Wilderness.

In this volume Mark David Spence works from the conviction that, "wilderness is both a historical and cultural construct" (5), and expands on how these ideas have been used to disenfranchise the indigenous people who actively shaped the land and made it as we see it today. Rather than embracing Native American perspectives of the land, sadly, false notions of pristine, untouched land is a visage so prevalent, it is thoroughly integrated into the country's sense of national identity.

Along with an overview of America's westward expansion, this history also outlines the changing perspectives of people and nature over time as seen with prominent figures like George Catlin, John Muir, artists of the Hudson River School like Thomas Cole, and early American authors like Henry David Thoreau. Each of these thinkers and cultural icons helped to shape American perspectives and expectations of what the 'wilderness' entailed.

After exploring how early iterations of U.S. policy and the National Park Service interacted with Native American people living within the boundaries of different parks (as they had for centuries beforehand), it also explores three case studies at Yellowstone, Glacier, and Yosemite National Parks. Each situation did not end great for N.A. stakeholders, and they highlight an unsettling historical pattern, which entails that parks 'protect' natural resources by removing the people who culturally engage with them.

It's hard not to agree with Spence's final musing, "Rather than idolize the wilderness as a nonhuman landscape, where a person can be nothing more than 'a visitor who does not remain,' national parks might provide important new lessons about the degrees to which cultural values and actions have always shaped the 'natural world'" (139).

The history is hard to take in, but I am nonetheless optimistic that parks can work together with Native American groups to oversee the stewardship of America's heritage. Sitka National Historical Park just compacted with the federally recognized Sitka Tribe of Alaska to manage the interpretation of the park. I would hope that this is a sign of better things to come.

Overall, I really liked this book. If you know of similar sources, please leave any recommendations you may have in a comment!

[William Lawrence · Rating 3 out of 5]

“A basic argument of this book is that uninhabited wilderness had to be created before it could be preserved, and this type of landscape became reified in the first national parks. In particular, I focus on the policies of the Indian removal developed at Yosemite, Yellowstone, Glacier national parks from the 1870s to the 1930s. These parks are especially relevant for three reasons: first, each supported the native population at the time of its establishment; second, the removal of Indians from these parks became precedents for the exclusion of these native peoples from other holdings within the national park system; and third, as the grand symbols of American wilderness, the uninhabited landscapes preserved in these parts have served as models for preservationist efforts, and native dispossession, the world over.”

“Yellowstone, Yosemite, and glacier are more representative of old fantasies about a continent awaiting “discovery“ than actual conditions at the time of Columbus’s voyage or Lewis and Clark’s adventure. For the most part, these romantic visions of primordial North America have contributed to a sort of widespread cultural myopia that allows late-twentieth-century Americans to ignore the fact that national parks enshrine recently dispossessed landscapes.”

“Ultimately, an understanding of the context and motives that led to the idealization of uninhabited wilderness not only helps to explain what national parks actually preserve but also reveals the degree to which older cultural values continue to shape current environmentalist and preservationist thinking”.

[Billy Marino · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of my favorite books in recent memory, in part because he uses ideas from a couple of my favorite mid-twentieth century historians, Roderick Nash and Henry Nash Smith. Not stuck in that time though, Spence develops a fantastic theory about the simultaneous creation of national parks and reservations, and follows the various ways that American Indians were dispossessed of their land to create Yellowstone, Glacier, and Yosemite national parks. He thoroughly differentiates the various groups of interconnected people that lived in each area, and how changing ideas about what wilderness actually is was reflected into how those Indians were treated, ultimately being removed, yet sometimes still retaining some control over aspects of their homeland. I can't say enough how much I enjoyed Spence's writing, especially after a summer of some rough reads. He's clear and concise while dealing with some potentially difficult to understand theories, and he keeps a book that looks at complex histories in three different regions at under 200 pages. This is how history should be written, and it is a fine example for a history student looking for direction on how to improve their writing.

[jayde · Rating 3 out of 5]

UNINHABITED WILDERNESS NEEDED TO BE CREATED BEFORE IT COULD BE PRESERVED yes
thANK YOU. Indigenous people had carefully cultivated relationships with the land FOR MILENNIa before colonialism

ideas of conservation and preservation are basically just extensions of class and race warfare, and this book touches on that, as well as the erasure of Indigenous history in order to create national parks.
overall i liked this book, because it offered a great insight into this issue, but this book is a bit older, and in terms of environmental and indigenous histories there's been great leaps forward, so take care when you read this and be attentive to the fact it is a non indigenous person telling indigenous histories. spence does a fine, and okay job, and like i said, really introduces the reader into the realm of conservation as a tool of indigenous erasure. 3.5 stars

[Simon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Realities of power can upend even the most well-intentioned of humanitarian goals. In a settler-colonial context, where good intentions can never be taken for granted, this risk verges on inevitability. So it goes in Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the National Parks, Mark David Spence’s informative account of how an expanding America’s commendable desire to preserve swathes of its natural landscape went hand-in-glove with the displacement of the indigenous communities who had long made use of those same lands. Not content merely to problematize our conception of the national park system’s inherent righteousness, Spence carefully recounts the legal, diplomatic, and administrative milestones of this “history of conflict and misunderstanding” between Native tribes and American authorities in order to show both the roots and the possible ways out of this conflict.

Spence locates the origins of this humanitarian-colonial dialectic with the Romantic intellectuals of the first half of the nineteenth century, whose idealized notion of a pristine American hinterland untouched by the corrupting influence of modern civilization also posited the Native Americans as an essential element of this virgin wilderness. As Euro-American settlement expanded inexorably westward, there grew a concomitant desire to preserve the natural landscape from the worst excesses of industrial and agricultural development that eventually led to the establishment of national monuments in locales such as Yellowstone and Yosemite. This dovetailed with the federal government’s preference for removal of troublesome Native Americans to private reservations, which often had porous borders with the new adjacent monuments. The earlier, somewhat patronizing Romantic conflation of the country’s natural landscape with its indigenous populations, however, gradually gave way to the social Darwinian expectation that forcing Natives into smaller reservations would cause them to abandon their backwards nomadic lifestyle, take up farming, and eventually assimilate into White society. Though their population numbers did indeed dwindle from lost access to hunting and gathering grounds, Native Americans stubbornly refused to consent to cultural annihilation and continued their periodic migrations onto protected federal land. As a result, there developed among Euro-Americans the notion of a historical duty to protect national monuments from encroaching natives who refused to respect the new lines on the map.

The heart of Spence’s book examines how these competing preservationist and colonial impulses played out at the three “crown jewels” of the national park system – Yellowstone, Glacier, and Yosemite National Parks. Contrary to the self-serving assumptions of the white authorities, Native groups such as the Shoshone, Blackfeet and Yosemite had long made use of all three regions for both religious and practical purposes. Treaty agreements had given Natives reserve lands while also theoretically allowing them to share neighboring territory with Whites; in practice, however, Natives were increasingly restricted from the latter, leading to greater military and law enforcement intervention, and occasionally violent confrontation. How this conflict played out in the three parks differed somewhat according to local circumstances, ranging from outright expulsion to the temporary erection of small live-work camps for Natives employed by the park service, or even pseudo-authentic Indian villages for the amusement of visiting tourists. In each case, however, a running theme was the abrogation of earlier agreements made with Native communities and post hoc legal justifications for the same. Cognitive dissonance for American authorities was avoided through the ongoing belief that they were preserving the natural landscape from intruders who had no historical or moral claim to the lands under federal protection. In all three cases, the establishment of the national parks came at the long-term cost of permanent displacement for the majority of members of the Native tribes who stood in the way.

Spence concludes his work on a more slightly more optimistic note, as he provides an overview of late twentieth-century developments in the relations between Native tribes and federal parks authorities. Notable among these are certain land-use concessions made to Alaskan tribes, allowing them limited rights to use federal land in ways consistent with long-standing community practice. However, Spence notes that these are less of a breakthrough than a return to the type of more permissive usufruct agreements that existed in the nineteenth century in places like Glacier National Park. He also describes recent efforts to undertake co-management between Native tribes and federal authorities in parks such as Death Valley and Glacier, though he describes the concrete results as modest so far. One wishes that this final portion of the book had been more detailed, as the initiatives it describes constitute a potentially important evolution in the conception of how preservation efforts could “revolutionize the way all Americans experience the wilderness” and “lead tourists to see themselves as visitors in Indian country and not simply as pilgrims at an American shrine.”

[Andrew Wehrheim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mark David Spence provides a compelling account, as the name of the book indicates, of the relationship between Indian Removal and the creation of National Park in the United States. In fact, Spence argues, based on clear historical evidence and primary source information, that the creation and maturation of the National Parks was predicated on Indian removal and is still today predicated on the restriction and control of Indigenous rights within the parks. In his analysis Spence focuses on Yellowstone, Glacier, and Yosemite which he argues are the "crown jewels" of National Parks and stand as geographic and environmental symbols of American exceptionalism. His adjacent argument is that the idea of uninhabited wilderness in America is more myth than reality and had to be created within the National Park. And one way wilderness was created was by removing those Indigenous nations who had long inhabited, managed, and used the lands that comprised the National Parks.

The book is concise which I both appreciate and regret. I appreciate his strategy in choosing the three well-known symbolic parks in order to present a clear argument that is readable and easily digestible. But I am left feeling that there are so many more examples that are worthy of scholarly analysis and exploration. Spence himself hints at this in his conclusion when he touches briefly on the Havasupai and Grand Canyon National Park. But when reading a book I would rather be left wanting more rather than feeling like I've gained nothing.

I think one of the most important contributions of this book is Spence's analysis of the Supreme Court Case Ward v. Race Horse (1896), issued just weeks after Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which asserted Congress's plenary power over Indian Affairs by asserting that Congress could abrogate and supersede treaty stipulations via new legislation. This case echoes the argument first made in United States v. Kagama (1886), but made famous in the Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1906). Ward v. Race Horse (1896) serves as an important historical link between Kagama and Lone Wolf and reveals the evolution of the Supreme Court's ideas and assertions about Congress's plenary power over Indian affairs.

Another important contribution of the book is Spence's presentation of Iktomi Lila Sica's idea of placing National Parks and Forests under the control of those Indian Nations traditionally connected to the area. In a day and age where the federal government is cutting National Park funding and where Indian tribes and reservations are still in need of economic diversification while digging deeper into language revitalization and traditional culture, Indigenous control of the parks create an opportunity for tribes to have a new and consistent stream of revenue as well as allow them to manage the lands they have traditional relationships to. Such an idea could truly be a win/win for Indian tribes, the environments and lands of the National Parks, and the general American public.

[Liam · Rating 4 out of 5]

In his monograph Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the National Parks, Mark David Spence offers us a view of the history of the National Parks not from a view of conservation, but as a view predicated on the dispossession of Indigenous tribes from land that was, in large part, their homeland, and that this removal was necessary for American conservation policy.
His Historic intervention revolves largely around the ways in which the Dispossession was necessary for a conservation policy and conceptualization of wilderness that was shifting throughout the early American Environmental movement and the early stages of the development of the National Parks Service; and Spence accomplishes this by focusing on the relationship between Native people and the “Crown jewels” of the National Parks System: Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Glacier National Parks. He builds on the work of William Cronon, namely his article “The Problem with Wilderness”; as well as numerous books dealing not only with the National Parks system, but with land management practices, such as Melissa Meyer’s The White Earth Tragedy: Ethnicity and Dispossession at a Minnesota Anishnaabe Reservation, 1889-1920. Pence also puts his work in conversation with Karl Jacoby, who discusses in his work the ways in which the creation of national parks not only aided in the dispossession of Native people, but how the acts of conservation also turned them into criminals.
Further, Spence also ties into Richard West Sellars’ Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History, which allows for a history of preservation of the National Parks as the title suggests. While mention of Native American impacts upon the National Parks is mentioned with Sellars’ work, Spence’s work complements and contradicts Sellars by showing another view of the National Parks, built upon dispossession. Finally, Spence builds upon the literature of Native American history by uncovering the ways in which archaeological finds tie Indigenous cultures to lands now occupied by the National Parks.
In sum, Dispossessing the Wilderness broadens our view of the history of the National Parks by pulling in Environmental Political, and Native history to offer a succinct narrative surrounding the formation of the Crown Jewels of the National Park System. This book would fit well in both Graduate and Undergraduate survey courses dealing with Environmental and Native history.

[Joe · Rating 3 out of 5]

Upsetting history of three of the most beloved American national parks: Yellowstone, Glacier, and Yosemite. The book starts by explaining that popular conceptions of the national parks as eternally "natural" areas that have been untouched by man are wrong. American Indians lived on these lands and were forced out. This book tells how that happened.

It starts with early conceptions of national parks, starting with the earliest voice for them, George Catlin. His idea for national parks included American Indians in them. Visitors could observe how American Indians hunted for elk, for example. The author describes this proposal as a "monstrous combination of outdoor museum, human zoo, and wild animal park."

As the Civil War ended, Yellowstone and Glacier were two early examples where Americans wanted their parks to be uninhabited. The Indians there were slowly forced out. Yosemite took much longer. The Yosemite Indians remained well into the 20th century. For many, they were part of the park's attraction (meet Indians, buy a basket from them, watch them dress up and sing and dance). As the Yosemite Indians assimilated more into American culture, they weren't seen as "real Indians" anymore, and public opinion turned against them. They were eventually pushed out.

The author makes a good case that we should reconsider our national parks, and how we think about the overlap between nature and culture. As I read the book, I just thought that there are no "untouched" places. It's a legal construct to make something look and feel "untouched." I'll still enjoy the beauty of American national parks, but after reading this book, I can't imagine that I could visit them without recalling the people who used to live there.

[Brooke · Rating 4 out of 5]

343:2025
I love the national parks so much. And this book tempers that enchantment, because I really knew next to nothing about indigenous peoples' removal from national park lands. American lands in general, of course, but not the NPS. In my visits to dozens of parks, I've seen lots of history and information surrounding the tribes that were residents of the area, but not that the US government basically formed the parks by taking lands from them. sigh. :( I'm not shocked, but I am sad about it. Also, once again an example of adulthood that it sure seems like there are no real heros. John Muir was a rockstar for persevering nature, he was a -$$-°|€ ....
While it's more than kind of a bummer, it's good reading for anyone who loves and appreciates our park system and/or wants to be informed about indigenous history in the US.

[Ben Clemens · Rating 4 out of 5]

The removal of indiginous people from then new, now famous, US National Parks
is a fascinating subject, as it brings the strategic genocide
closer to our present society,
rather than being portrayed as a "cowboys & indians" affair
in a land before time.
Spence's examination utilizes court documents,
correspondance between governement officials,
and first hand accounts to plainly illustrate the prevailing attitudes of
settlers. Noteable are the officials who try to treat the native people fairly,
and are replaced by more pliable subjects.
A subtext is the development of conservation principles,
and in turn the modern environmental movement.
There is much food for thought in how our method of "wilderness preservation"
compare to the daily lives of indiginous people.

[Eileen Breseman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hard look at the US's track record via scholarly work on the removal of native peoples for the benefit of colonizers' esthetic of what "wilderness" is, for the sake of turning them into national parks in the late 1800s into early 1900s. Specific work is on 3 parks - Yellowstone, Glacier and Yosemite, but the conclusion chapter includes information on several others, including the different handling altogether of Alaskan Native claims.
Important work that should be part of every high schooler's education in the USA.
This was published in 1999. I would be very interested in progress of native people to reclaim land, traditions and languages in the past 25 years.

[Lynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really important perspective on the founding and management of national parks and where they intersect with usufruct rights, traditional land use, and american conceptions of wilderness.
Very specific in scope of looking at Yellowstone (Shoshone, Bannock, Mountain Crow), Glacier (Blackfeet), and Yosemite (Sierra Miwok-Ahwahneechee) without as much info on other parks.
Honestly I wish the conclusion section was 6 distinct chapters on the Grand Canyon (Havasupai), Death Valley (Timbisha Shoshone), Alaska parks (Alaskan Natives/Eskimo/Aleuts), Black Hills/Wind Cave (Sioux), the Everglades (Miccosukee), and Kaloko-Honokohau (Pai’ Ohana).
But for the goal of the book—describing the history of native removal from National Parks to create the “ideal untouched wilderness” this book covers those three parks really well.

[Maggie Broderick · Rating 4 out of 5]

this was good. my two issues are that 1) i had to read a digital copy and personally i hate reading on my laptop and 2) i didn't have to write a paper on the book and therefore i didn't think as critically.

but it was cool to see the growth of national parks and sad to see that it is inherently connected to the suppression of native americans. made me philosophize into ethnical consumption and the future of conservation efforts. as someone with a cabin in yosemite, that was bought legally from the government the same time they legally pushed out natives from yosemite, i'm gonna be thinking about this book for a while.

[Jacklyn W · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you are researching the making of National Parks or how wilderness ideals lead to the dispossession of Native Americans from their land I would highly recommend this book. It is incredibly rich in information and would make a great source to cite.

If you are just a hobby reader interested in the topic, it will probably be a difficult read. I found it hard to follow at some points, but I also felt like the book was important for me to read because I had never learned about the National Parks in this way.

[Daria · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book presents a history of the American idea of wilderness, which is inseparable from the construction of national identity and the displacement of Indigenous peoples. The most valuable for me was the argument on how fundamental the construct of the wilderness was for the creation of American historical consciousness of the self. This argument is backed up by meticulous research. The chapters on Yosemite, Yellowstone and Glacier national parks are full of interesting (and frustrsting!) details but are quite difficult to read. It took me months to get through this book. I wish there was a bit more of storytelling to anchor the research and help with focusing attention. Still, the knowledge and insight of this book is worth all the hard reading labour.

[Moth · Rating 5 out of 5]

In my opinion this book is a must read. The history of national parks and aims to commit indigenous American genocide is intrinsically linked, and I think that understanding this is highly important. National parks occur globally, and although we love their beauty, we have to acknowledge the horrific roots and take active steps to restore the land to those who it belongs to.

I would recommend this book to everyone. It explains this history so brilliantly. It’s to the point, filled with detailed examples, and is explained clearly. A harrowing but very important book.

[Erin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oh, this was wonderful. AND written by a (former) Knox professor, thus making this book all the more wonderful.

Want to think about national parks, their displacement of indigenous people, and the myth of "wilderness"? This is your book. And given that more and more people are traveling to national parks this year (2021), it seems all the more important to understand their history in order to recognize the present. LOVED this book. (Mighty academic, not a light read).

[Laurel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This short book contains a very difficult and complicated history that I would need to read at least twice more to fully understand. Sad to say, I had never considered the impacts of preservation and conservation on indigenous people and the NPS does not look good in these accounts. This is important reading for people doing cultural work with living communities of all backgrounds today so we can break the cycle of these power dynamics for the good of everyone involved.

[Jack · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good read, and everyone who’s very into National Parks or outdoorsy stuff should read it. I learned a lot, but I only rated this four starts because there wasn’t anything that stood out to send this over the edge to five stars (though that’s likely because I’ve read other stuff from Spence, including about Glacier National Park, so this was not new to me).

[Tamgrade · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really interesting and thought provoking book that examines how deeply intertwined the mythology of national parks as preserves of "untouched wilderness" is with the historical reality of Indian removal from those very lands. It made me question a lot of assumptions I had about conservationism.

[Karen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this book for my Sorosis paper. Puts the creation of National Parks in perspective. Will need to read a second time before writing my paper as there are so many details and nuances associated with the different parks and tribes.

[Dan · Rating 5 out of 5]

An eye-opening and nuanced book about how the American definition of wilderness was developed to specifically ignore and exclude the native people, the way tribes occupied and used what was to become park lands, and how and why they were removed.