Eric Stoll - The Practice of the Wild #1

Gary Snyder mentions an instance in which the American Indian Movement attempted to block the expansion of mining into lands in the Black Hills that were not only located within U.S. Forest Service land, but were also considered to be sacred by the traditional Lakota inhabitants. This example Snyder uses leads me to ask what I feel is a valid question: what gives a place the distinction of being sacred? Snyder suggests that the Native Americans have sacred lands as a result of their cultural tradition of connecting religion to the landscape. Snyder believes this connection between native religion and the landscape to be “virtually incomprehensible to Euro-Americans.” (Snyder, 87). I disagree with Snyder’s explanation of what constitutes a sacred landscape and furthermore his generally low opinion of the non-native population, which according to his writings, has little ability to develop a spiritual connection with the land. My argument is that the definition of a “sacred landscape” is not solely determined by the religious traditions of the native population, but it is also developed by the personal experiences of the individual. A childhood experience may lead me to consider an ordinary field or patch of woods to have great significance. While my individual experiences may lead me to consider a landscape to be sacred on a personal level, the lack of religious tradition surrounding it may rule it out of such a distinction in Snyder’s opinion. While I may feel Snyder’s concept of a sacred landscape may be too one dimensional for my liking, I certainly will not discredit the Native American’s tradition of connectedness between religion and nature. I do find it unfortunate; however, that a location in which I consider to be sacred due to personal reasons is more likely to be bulldozed and turned into a strip mall, than a Indian burial site is likely to be mined.