A New Look at Native American Farming

Native American farming is nothing new.  In most American schools, we were taught that, in general, Native Americans were hunters and gatherers who hadn't "advanced" to the level of civilization where growing food and raising livestock were part of their culture.  Growing food and raising livestock may have been the culture for a few, however, not nearly for all.  That doesn't mean there was a lack in advancement of civilization for those who did not.  In fact, I would suggest that even those perceived to be hunters and gatherers were very mindful of the way they hunted and gathered. It is obvious in my mind that they made an effort to ensure a new crop, or herd, would be available for them each and every season, for whatever it was they were harvesting, by managing the land and using harvesting practices that would sustain themselves and future generations.  Isn't this the epitome of the farming mentality?

I think our educators only taught us one side (the white side) of the story regarding Native Americans and their food systems.  I believe their food systems were just as managed and just as bountiful as the European food systems.  It's just that their food system took on a different type of management, one that coincided differently with nature, and therefore wasn't as recognizable to the European and therefore not considered farming or agriculture.  In the little amount of study and observation regarding traditional and modern Native American food systems I have concluded that what they have done, and are doing, can aptly be considered farming and agriculture.

There are some exciting things happening in Native America, i.e. Indian Country, regarding food systems and sustainable agriculture.  This article will include some examples of those exciting things.  But first, before those examples are given, I'd like to explain what I feel is the motivation behind Native American food systems.  The motivational factor is sovereignty.  In other words, self-sufficiency, self-determination, and self-governance.  How can a nation remain sovereign if it is completely dependent on an outside entity to feed itself?  Answer:  it can't.  Without your own food system, there is no sovereignty, only servitude.  So it behooves a people, who wish to remain independent, and considered sovereign, to maintain their own food system, that is resilient to outside forces.

One of my favorite examples of contemporary Native American farming is found in the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin.  Called the Oneida Community Integrated Food Systems (OCIFS), it is a full circle food system, where food is grown, processed, distributed, sold/purchased, and consumed locally near Green Bay, WI.  A closed loop food system that combines modern and traditional farming practices in in order to sustain the people physically and culturally.  Traditionally, the Oneidas were farmers who, along with others in the Iroquois Confederacy, grew corn, squash, beans, and other fruits and vegetables.  There is even a story illustrating the fact that the Oneida are long-time farmers.  That story was during the Revolutionary war were Oneida people saved American soldiers from starvation by feeding them corn.  I was at a New Partners for Smart Growth conference in Seattle, WA last February and had the opportunity to listen to a presentation by John Breuninger, Planning Department Director, for the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin.  His presentation (skip to page 50 in slideshow) included his description of the OCIFS and the important role it plays for the Oneidas of Wisconsin.  Bottom line for them is self-sustainability and food security.

Another good example of Native American food systems is found with the Muscogee (Creek) Nation in Okmulgee, OK.  Called Mvskoke Food Sovereignty Initiative (MFSI), they seek to provide for their physical needs now and in the future.  However, the name of the organization alone would suggest a deeper purpose for their work - sovereignty.  The underlying motivation behind Native American food systems is very evident with MFSI.  For you historians, the Muscogee are descendants of the Mound Builders who dwelt along the major and minor southern tributaries of the Mississippi River.  The Mound Builders were very apt farmers so it is no surprise that their descendants would carry on the tradition, with a modern twist.  In addition to maintaining a food system, the MFSI also focuses on general health and well-being of community members, which is evidence that Native Food systems go beyond food, and are part of a Native American life system, founded on, you guessed it, sovereignty.

There are more examples out there, and there will be more coming.  I just wanted to present a few examples of how Native American farming is growing and expanding.  There are also some resources available for native communities by native non-profits.  These non-profits are also focused on maintaining and enhancing tribal sovereignty.  They are (but are not limited to):  Honor the Earth, Seventh Generation Fund, and First Nations Development Institute.    

I believe a New American farmer and a Native American farmer share somewhat of a common ideal that would be described by the terms: sovereignty, independence, health, sustainability (the real kind not the fake globalist kind), and stewardship of the land.  It would seem that a relationship between Native Americans and New Americans, especially in regards to our food systems, should be fostered whereby we work together to maintain a happy and healthy lifestyle.  This relationship would form a very powerful bond that would withstand any outside force set on attacking food security and independence.  This relationship would also form a very powerful way of life, a way of life I would call, sovereign abundance.

Abundance and Scarcity: Two Opposing Cognitive Forces Driving the Way We Live and Farm

When it comes to farming, there are one of two thought processes, or belief systems, governing the mode of operation for each and every farmer and each and every farm (big or small).  One is abundance and the other is scarcity.  The dominant thought process, or belief system, maintained on the farm will be made evident by the farming practices on the farm.  Same goes with orchards, gardens, ranches, or any of other words and phrases from the agricultural vernacular used to describe the places where food comes from.  No matter where you farm or what you farm, the way you farm is dependent upon the way you think and believe.  So, let's review the two ways of thinking.

Scarcity is a belief system based on the idea that there is not enough to go around; not enough hours in a day, not enough money, not enough play time, not enough of anything.  Someone has to go without.  Something has to be sacrificed.  Someone must pay.  In order to get by, you have to stay ahead of the game or stay on top of the heap.  Snooze you lose.  Only the strongest survive.

In order to solve the world's problems with a mentality of scarcity, one must learn to be efficient.  They must learn to do a lot with a little, which falls in line with the kill-two-birds-with-one-stone idea.  Everything is gauged by how feasible the solution is to the problem.  Stick with a single crop, or animal, so as not to complicate the operation.  Soon the issue of economies of scale comes into play.  The producer then decides how large their single crop operation needs to be in order to provide for themselves and their family based on the market value of their product. Assuming the market is a free-market and the value, or cost of the product, is based on the producer's willingness-to-sell price vs. the consumer's willingness-to-buy price, then the producer would most likely find the size of operation that is optimal for their welfare and most likely the welfare of others around them.

However, the markets are not free and if there is anyone that believes the markets are free and void of manipulation and price fixing, then I've got an underwater potato farm I'd like to sell them off the coast of Greenland.  The markets are rigged (or at least overly managed) and are based on a relatively small group of people's belief system of scarcity, where there is not enough to go around in the world and they are the ones who will determine who gets what and when.  They make most of the commodity purchases and sales (or broker them) which determines the market price of each and every commodity.

This puts the producer at odds with the consumer, or at least makes the relationship much more distant.  The agreed upon price between consumer and producer is based on someone elses' determination.  The producer has a harder time figuring the optimal size of their operation and either decides to go big or decides to go under.  The consumer, who is usually the last person to touch the product and contemporaneously speaking is usually the 6th person to touch it, is stuck deciding on which product is cheapest, because they too are conducting feasibility studies when they prepare to make purchases.  Especially since their resources are scarce and they too are most likely living with a mentality of scarcity.  The system of scarcity rarely leads to a happy ending for all. 

The real products in a life based on scarcity are:  fear, skepticism, frustration, dependence, manipulation, competitiveness, exploitation, high amount of credit/debt, decrease in number of producers, increase in number of consumers, market destabilization, and ecological imbalance.

Abundance, on the other hand, is a belief system based on the idea that there is more than enough to go around; 24 hours in a day, enough money to suit your needs, plenty of play time (distinction between work and play becomes unclear), and more than enough of everything.  No one has to go without.  Nothing has to be sacrificed, but if it is, it is rewarded.  Payment is reciprocated.  In order to get by, you have to share and cooperate.  Snooze, try again.  The strongest and weakest survive.

In order to solve the world's problems with a mentality of abundance, one must learn to be effective at cohabitation and cooperation.  They must learn to do a lot with a lot, which falls in line with the use-two-birds-to-make-six-birds idea.  Everything is gauged by how functional the solution is to the problem.  Maintain a multi-specied environment so as not to disturb the natural order of the operation.  Soon the issues of multi-use, multi-purpose, and multi-function come into play.  The producer decides what they need to learn about the ecology of their operation in order to shepherd the natural processes that will benefit themselves, their family, and their co-inhabiting species.  Whether the market is free or not, they are more free-er.  The size of their operation will be in direct proportion to their will, their abilities, their cooperation with nature, and their cooperation with their fellow man.

This puts the producer and consumer on even ground and brings the relationship closer.  The agreed upon price between the consumer and producer is more likely determined by the consumer and producer.  The producer has an easier time maintaining their existing size of operation and usually decides to find new uses for their farm, thereby diversifying their land use.  The consumer is usually one of the first people to touch the product and is left with many options as to which product to purchase, and at what price.  They are less worried about what is feasible and are more concerned with what they want, regardless of price constraints.  They are also more inspired to be a producer themselves, and therefore more likely to become a producer, thereby increasing the number of producers, which increases the amount of overall production.

The real products in a life based on abundance are:  faith, trust, happiness, independence, nonintervention, cooperation, decency, low amount of credit/debt, a balanced number of producers and consumers, market stabilization, and ecological balance.

These two opposing forces that drive the way we live and farm are nothing new.  They have been around forever and they will be used to bring about much happiness or bring about much sadness.  On the global scale the happiness and sadness will be mixed, where, some will be happy and some will be sad.  At the individual scale it is not mixed.  Either we will be happier or we will be sadder, based upon which belief system we choose to live by.  I would hope we choose wisely and discover how an abundant life will make us happier.  Forever.

Popularity of farming is increasing

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2010/08/02/popularity_of_farming_soars_in_massachusetts/

This isn't unique to Massachusetts.

From the article:

"After decades of decline, farming is resurging across the state. New farmers are graduates fresh out of college, immigrants with farming backgrounds, or former professionals starting second careers. Many begin as part-timers while hanging on to day jobs to supplement their incomes... Those looking to make a new living from tilling the soil begin at training programs run by the state, universities, or nonprofit organizations — and the skills they learn have as much to do with running a business as with harvesting a crop."

I find this extremely fascinating and encouraging.  It would seem a spirit of producerism is beginning to eclipse the modern spirit of consumerism.  Or at least balance the latter out.  This is a must.  We must have balance in our lives if we are to live well.  A production/consumption balance is ideal.  I know there's a Consumer Reports magazine currently.  One day, there should be a Producer Reports magazine. 

I would hope, through this resurgence of farming that new ideas emerge, and that farming practices begin to mimic nature, where the farm is no longer an ecological desert but an multi-specie edible oasis.  The farm becomes as diverse as the jungle and the farmer as omnipotent as the jungle allows.