Keepers of the Game: Indian-Animal Relationships and the Fur Trade

by Calvin Martin, Nancy Lurie (Introduction)

Examines the effects of European contact and the fur trade on the relationship between Indians and animals in eastern Canada, from Lake Winnipeg to the Canadian Maritimes, focusing primarily on the Ojibwa, Cree, Montagnais-Naskapi, and Micmac tribes.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, American

240 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1978

Reviews

[Gregory · Rating 4 out of 5]

Published in 1978 Keepers of the Game argues against the prevailing notion that the Native Americans joined the market culture of of the European colonists and killed wildlife to point of extinction to supply the fur market because they were awed by new goods, such as iron cookware, tools, and weapons, etc. Instead, Calvin Martin posits that their over-hunting in the colonial period resulted from the collapse of their religious cosmology, not materialism. In viewing nature as an interactive world of various beings (water, animals, species, trees, etc.) who could act aggressively against humans, Native Americans had a reason to restrict their kill. However, the introduction of new ideas, technology, and cultures by the Europeans undermined that view of nature and led to excessive hunting. Lastly, Martin argues against a contemporary trend among late 1970s environmentalists to hold up the example of the "Ecological Indian" as a model of ecology. According to his study, it was animism, not ecology, that drove Native American attitudes towards their environment, and this worldview cannot be translated into late twentieth (and early twenty-first) century culture. There is a lot more anthropological information in this book if you are interested in the Micmac and Ojibwa nations.

[Eric Graves · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this book to get a different perspective on the fur trade and while it made me think in the first few pages it quickly began to fall apart.

Martin writes in a way that at times is confusing. On multiple occasions he argued a point then either stated in the notes that there’s a chance he could be wrong or simply contradicts himself. Example one: in the prologue, he says that hunter-gatherers did not live in a “boom-or-bust” cycle when it came to food and yet in the first chapter says that they did. Example two: beginning on page 55 he begins quoting Le Clerq who himself is quoting an Indian who is lambasting the Frenchman on how the French people suck. Except at the end of two pages of text, in the footnotes, Martin admits that Le Clerq was possibly making up the whole incident up. Essentially, it was him criticizing the French behind a mask. Turns out, this was common in the 17th Century.

Through most of the book I was not able to challenge Martin’s ideas however when he moved into the Plains cultures I was able to make a much better challenge. He does not cover the Buffalo a lot but what he says is mostly wrong particularly when it comes to the impact of the horse. He states that it would have had no impact on the Buffalo whatsoever. To be fair to him, the scholarship today has uncovered much more of the details in the last 40 years. Today, the evidence shows that the arrival of the horse would be the doom of the Buffalo. Contrary to his argument that the Indians (at least in the East) managed their animals properly, without overkills, because of their religious beliefs, it was the Plains Tribes’ belief in “animism” that led them to kill all the Buffalo in the herd, if possible, so the survivors could not tell the others how they were hunted.

While his ideas MAY apply to eastern tribes, and maybe some scattering of tribes, it is clear that this cannot be applied across the continent.

One thing that Martin constantly argued was that the Indians were perfectly content to live within their means and environment. The problem with this is: how do you explain the rise of agriculture? If they were content to be hunter-gatherers, and nothing else, why would they ever have the need to grow crops? Then cities? Does this make the American Indians with cities “corrupted?”

Also, I’m not sure how modern American Indians would respond to the idea that everything about their traditional culture is corrupted beyond repair ever since the 16th century when the fur trade began. Seems like a bit of a touchy claim made worse by the fact that the evidence is questionable at best.

If you decide to read this, I suggest you also read “the ecological Indian” and “American Serengeti” they are more up to date on the scholarship and better written.

[Cordellya Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Martin tries to generalize one observation for a single indigenous group and say it applies to all Native populations. While interesting, the logic behind his argument is flawed.

[Mathew Powers · Rating 3 out of 5]

While well written and thought provoking, his arguments leave a lot to be desired. His premise is certainly not wrong, and has been argued by others, as well, but his notions of Indian revenge on the Beaver can only be believed if one refuses to look at his notes, which clearly show an utter lack of sources for the era with which he makes his case. The evidence, in my opinion, is lacking greatly and thus his argument is flawed. Still, there is quality in the book and it is an easy read -- and well written. And, if you are a historian, it is a good book to read, given it's significance, "historiographically speaking".

[Katie Wilson · Rating 5 out of 5]

The arrival of Europeans in North America disrupted the already present society in more ways than one. Martin explores the relationship between Native Americans and animals and how this relationship was irreparably damaged by the arrival of Europeans and the fur trade. A highly convincing read and unique look at the "contact zone"

[Karen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Martin certainly takes an interesting and highly controversial position in this work. Despite the potential flaws of his arguement, it certainly entices historians to examine the fur trade and the Native American pursuit of the Beaver in a whole different light.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very enlightening, but also very dry.