Deep Ecological Insights: Environmental Wisdom in Indigenous Narratives

Forkan Ali

Abstract:

This is a study of the role of environmental wisdom in Indigenous literature within the process of learning from and harmonizing with nature. Indigenous literature presents alternative perspectives on living harmoniously with nature, a realm that has regrettably received limited attention. Hence, this essay explores the interwoven connections among communities, spirituality, and nature as portrayed in the beliefs and practices of Canadian and Australian Indigenous communities. Drawing on the idea of Deep Ecology, this essay employs an encompassing critical-environmental approach, seeking to uncover how the literature of Canadian First Nations and Australian Indigenous narratives offer innovative alternatives to prevailing environmental ideologies particularly those that prioritize humans over nature. In so doing, this critical-culture-based investigation sheds light on the inadequacy of popular ideologies such as anthropocentrism in addressing today’s ecological challenges. Through this approach, this study not only offers an alternative framework for (indigenous culture-based) ecological criticism but also provides a holistic perspective rooted in traditional Indigenous knowledge and cultural practices, while promoting sustainable coexistence with the environment.  A profound understanding of ecology drawn from Indigenous literature can foster inclusive environmental narratives, enrich contemporary ecocriticism debates, and contribute to environmentalism that respects all Indigenous cultures on Earth.

Keywords: Deep Ecology; Anthropocentrism, Eco-criticism, Environmentalism, Sustainability.

Introduction

The earth and myself are of one mind. The measure of the land and the measure of our bodies are the same.

 —Chief Joseph (Wilson, 1998)

Destroy us, land and forest take forever from your children. Walk the circle of life. Have no fear. Together, let us love and protect our children, respect the land and forest, giving back what we have taken.

― Frederic M. Perrin, Rella Two Trees - The Money Chiefs (Perrin, 2013)

Our spirituality is a oneness and an interconnectedness with all that lives and breathes, even with all that does not live or breathe… … Indigenous spirituality is the belief that all objects are living and share the same soul or spirit that Indigenouss share. — Us Mob (Mudrooroo, 1995)

Our world becomes confined within a system that erodes the entirety of the natural environment. Because it is situated within the pervasive global cultural landscape of industrial capitalism, characterized by its relentless expansion and profit-oriented ethos. Surpassing reverence for life and nature, this system exploits the natural world. The transformation of forests, oceans, animals, plants, and every species, including humans, into commodities for consumption is seen everywhere. These resources are manipulated and harnessed for economic gains and material growth. Within this tightly regimented and suffocating technocratic framework, the very ecology of life is being eroded. This profit-driven capitalist system, coupled with the ever-expanding industrial trajectory, compounds the global environmental crisis, presenting an imminent peril to the planet’s existence. To address this pressing environmental crisis, various measures have been discussed to date. Many ideological environmental movements (for instance, environmentalism, ecocentrism, and conservatism) have emerged. These movements collectively strive to nurture environmental preservation, and optimal ecological well-being, and safeguard all species from human-induced extinction. However, certain challenges perturb environmental scholars who contend that these environmental movements and ideas are relatively inadequate for offering different views regarding environmental challenges and lack practical efficacy in many instances (Gottlieb, 2005). Thus, the emergence of environmental ethics and philosophies has sought to reinvigorate the discourse (Clarke, 2017). Scholars take divergent revolutionary approaches to environmentalism, often categorized as either radicalism or conservatism (Taylor, 1974). These scholars are committed to reconfiguring and proposing a reformation of ecological paradigms. Within this context, radical environmentalism or ecological radicalism emerges as another form of environmental activism advocating the need to reevaluate prevailing popular environmental paradigms (Mareš, 2008). However, what has been left out of these mainstream environmental paradigms, radical environmental thoughts and other environmental movements is the exploration of Indigenous knowledge structure which has been founded by their traditional way of living with mother nature.

The confluences among First Nations cultures, oral traditions, Australian Indigenous[1] narratives, and their beliefs about nature and culture not only articulate a mutual perspective of interconnection between members of community, their sense of spirituality, and the environment but also present an alternative knowledge framework for addressing ecological challenges inclusively. For instance, Indigenous cultures and traditions in Canada and Australia have long upheld such practices that emphasize the interconnectedness of all life forms on Earth. Importantly, they have translated this ethos into practical action since the very inception of human existence on this planet. The epigraphs chosen, for example, sourced from Canadian Indigenous writer Frederick M. Perrin, Chief Joseph of the American Native tribe, and Australian Indigenous writer Mudrooroo, underscore this comprehension and illustrate how Indigenous peoples across distinct regions hold reverence for the atmosphere around them. Their perspective on their lands, waters, oceans, forests, animals, and other natural entities is interwoven with their sense of community and (religious) spirituality. Additionally, the societal fabric of Indigenous communities relies on their natural entities (such as lands, rivers, seas, and forests), culminating in an ecological equilibrium of harmonious coexistence with all-natural facets and resources. It is an outlook that contrasts with the idea of anthropocentrism which believes human beings are the central or most significant entities in the universe (Norton, 1984).  Aware that an ecological collapse would ensue without symbiotic cohabitation with nature, Indigenous communities embrace every aspect of nature; they vehemently oppose any threats to this equilibrium. In Rella Two Trees—Money Chiefs, a story by Canadian Indigenous writer Perrin, a twelve-year-old girl named Rella Two Trees and her people expressively exemplify harmonious cohabitation with natural world. However, their peaceful existence is jeopardized when colonial forces, represented by the Money Chiefs, arrive to exploit oil and gold resources. Similar narratives resonate across various indigenous literary works globally, including those of influential authors like Mudrooroo and Grey Owl, as well as in popular films like James Cameron’s Avatar.[2]

Indigenous narratives represent cultures and traditions that are rooted in a societal ethos that places nature at the forefront. These narratives emphasize the value of and responsibility for safeguarding natural resources and the intrinsic values they embody. A cadre of Indigenous intellectuals, philosophers, and writers champion an essential environmental paradigm aligned with Indigenous philosophy, which prioritizes learning from and harmonizing with nature. Notable figures such as Deloria Jr. (Lakota), renowned for his contributions to Indigenous rights, spirituality, and environmentalism as evidenced in his work Custer Died for Your Sins, underscore the significance of Indigenous perspectives in environmental stewardship. Similarly, Robin Wall Kimmerer (Citizen Potawatomi Nation), an accomplished botanist, author, and professor, intertwines Indigenous wisdom with scientific knowledge in Braiding Sweetgrass, elucidating the interconnectedness between humans and the natural world. Furthermore, figures like Winona LaDuke (Anishinaabe) advocate for Indigenous rights and environmental justice by emphasizing the symbiotic relationship between Indigenous cultures and the land, promoting sustainable practices and renewable energy. Glen Coulthard (Yellowknives Dene), a political theorist and author, delves into Indigenous resurgence, decolonization, and environmental justice in Red Skin, White Masks, challenging Western liberalism and advocating for Indigenous self-determination.

Similarly, Deborah McGregor (Anishinaabe) specializes in Indigenous environmental governance and legal traditions, shedding light on Indigenous perspectives regarding land stewardship, sustainability, and the protection of sacred sites. Similarly, Daniel Wildcat (Yuchi member of the Muscogee Nation of Oklahoma) emphasizes Indigenous environmental philosophies and sustainable development in Red Alert!: Saving the Planet with Indigenous Knowledge, stressing the importance of Indigenous perspectives in addressing environmental challenges. Additionally, Gerald Vizenor (Anishinaabe), a prolific writer and scholar, integrates themes of environmentalism and Indigenous resilience in his works, highlighting the interconnectedness between humans and the natural world. All these intellectuals, philosophers, and writers collectively draw upon Indigenous traditions, knowledge systems, and worldviews to advocate for environmental stewardship, underscored by the imperative of living in harmony with nature and learning from Indigenous approaches to sustainability. Within this backdrop, this essay focuses on the role of Indigenous environmental wisdom—the holistic understanding and responsible stewardship of natural resources and ecosystems to ensure their sustainability for current and future generations—in Indigenous literature within the process of learning from and harmonizing with nature. The study specifically offers an alternative intellectual community of fiction writers who depict an Indigenous community grappling with and overcoming challenges posed by profit-driven modern civilization, eschewing complex and artificial dynamics in solving environmental problems.

The ecological ideology, placing nature and its resources at the heart of all, resonates within Indigenous societies and spiritual practices, diverging from popular environmental concepts like anthropocentrism, speciesism, and human chauvinism. Within the subsequent discourse, this essay feels the need to reexamine the ties between Indigenous cultures and ecological criticism, underscoring how concepts like anthropocentrism inadequately address and resolve contemporary global environmental crises. Such concepts disregard the essence of harmonious collaboration with nature as a central tenet, undermining human communities when prioritizing animals and plants, consequently contesting prevailing popular environmental ideas. This study explores the interplay between community, spirituality, and nature within the beliefs of First Nations and Indigenous peoples. This culturally-grounded textual analysis also seeks to discern how literature from Canadian First Nations and Australian Indigenous narratives not only rejects mainstream ideas such as anthropocentrism that undermine mother nature but also sheds light on the notion that these ideas remain incomplete without an integrative amalgamation of human society, spirituality, and nature. In doing so, the essay spotlights less-represented cultures that deeply rooted in ecological equilibrium and the ideologies of Indigenous peoples, as depicted in chosen texts: Alexis Wright’s Carpentaria (2006), Kim Scott’s That Deadman Dance (2010), Eden Robinson’s Monkey Beach (2000), and Jeannette Armstrong’s Slash (1985). Within the brief but rationally applicable analysis of the select novels, a distinctive knowledge paradigm for ecological criticism, one that examines the interdependence of community, spirituality, and nature, is delineated. The reason of choosing these number of texts lies at the heart of showing the similarity of richness of ecophilosophical thoughts in dissimilar texts.  This comprehensive approach acknowledges the ongoing debate surrounding the limitations of established environmental concepts, while simultaneously offering a more expansive perspective through the interpretation of the aforementioned texts and relevant examples. Particularly, it substantiates how these writers’ works brim with the ethos of the idea of Deep Ecology.

Built upon the concept of Deep Ecology, therefore, this essay employs an inclusive critical-environmental methodology. It reveals how the literature of Canadian First Nations and Australian Indigenous narratives presents innovative alternatives to prevailing environmental ideologies, particularly those that prioritize human interests over the natural world. This critical inquiry highlights the shortcomings of widely accepted beliefs like anthropocentrism in effectively addressing today’s ecological crises. Through this approach, not only an alternative framework for ecological criticism is put forth, but also a comprehensive viewpoint grounded in traditional wisdom and cultural customs is emphasized. It underscores the interdependence between humans, nature, and spirituality, while advocating for sustainable synchronicity with the environment. Consequently, a profound comprehension of ecology derived from indigenous literature can foster comprehensive environmental narratives, enrich ongoing debates in contemporary ecocriticism, and contribute to environmentalism that honors almost forgotten Indigenous traditions.

Deep Ecology and Indigenous Novels

Deep Ecology (otherwise known as ecosophy or wisdom of ecological philosophy) is an environmental philosophy that emphasizes the intrinsic value of all living beings and advocates for a harmonious, interconnected relationship between humans and the natural world. Scholar Aldo Leopold recognized the importance of ecology as “the outstanding discovery of the twentieth century,” but it was not until the 1960s, with the emergence of the Age of Ecology, that the broader public grasped its significance for environmental issues, leading to what G. Tyler Miller described as “the most all-encompassing revolution in the history of mankind” (Perley, 1973). Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, coinciding with a rising awareness of pollution and environmental degradation, marked the beginning of this ecological revolution, challenging anthropocentrism and questioning humanity’s ability to control nature. The conservation efforts initiated by the Kennedy administration in the early 1960s, as outlined by then-Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall’s The Quiet Crisis, also reflected the growing environmental awareness but predominantly adhered to an anthropocentric “resource” approach. Lynn White, Jr.’s 1967 article, “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” initiated interest in Deep Ecology by critiquing the dominant Judeo-Christian perspective of man versus nature. The influx of Eastern spiritual traditions into the West since the 1950s, represented by figures like Alan Watts and Daisetz Suzuki, offered an alternative man/nature vision, influencing Deep Ecology. In the late 1960s and 1970s, a growing exploration of Eastern and Western philosophies, as seen in works by Fritjoff Capra, Joseph Needham, and Huston Smith, contributed to a renewed interest in relating the environmental crisis to values within the Western paradigm and seeking guidance from Eastern philosophies (Sessions, 1987, 25). In 1975, John Passmore advocated for a new metaphysics that transcends anthropocentrism, marking a pivotal task for philosophy. The emergence of ecophilosophy (occurred in Norway) can be traced back to Peter Zapffe in 1941, gaining momentum in the 1960s with protests against river damming (Naess 1973). Arne Naess, a prominent philosopher, defined the Deep Ecology movement and argued for a transformative shift in human thinking, emphasizing ecological perspectives, normative values, and the need for an ecophilosophical approach, as outlined in his major work, “Ecosophy,” published in 1976 and only now gaining recognition beyond Scandinavia.

To differentiate shallow anthropocentric and technocratic environmental protests from deep, long-range ecological ones, Norwegian Philosopher Arne Naess coined the term “Deep Ecology” in his article “The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement” as such:

Ecology is a limited science which makes use of scientific methods. Philosophy is the most general forum of debate on fundamentals. ... The significant tenets of the Deep Ecology movement are clearly and forcefully normative. They express a value priority system only in part based on results (or lack of results) of scientific research.... It is clear that there is a vast number of people in all countries... who accept as valid the wider norms and values characteristic of the Deep Ecology movement. (Naess, 1973, 99)

Shallow environmentalism severs the human-nature bond, prioritizing humans as the source of all value and controllers of nature, fostering ecological disasters. Conversely, Deep Ecology perceives humans as an integral part of the interconnected natural environment, rooted in norms andspiritual awareness.

Centering only on human interests to the detriment of other species places the planet in jeopardy. The current ecological crisis, coupled with radical transformation and global violence, prompts a crucial question about humanity’s role alongside other living beings on Earth. Does the planet require humans for its survival? The answer is surprisingly straightforward: no. In our absence, the Earth would thrive even more successfully. Conversely, it is believed, if a single insect were to disappear, the planet’s demise would soon follow. Through economic, industrial, and technological advancements, humans have left an indelible mark on the Earth’s geological history, positioning themselves as “geological agents” (Chakrabarty 2009, 197). The Anthropocene epoch, intertwining geological and human history, has emerged (Chakrabarty 2009, 197). We are now acutely aware that our actions, impacting Earth’s health and species, are intricately tied to our own well-being and that of future generations. As a result, notions such as anthropocentrism and speciesism, which assert human dominance over nature, are under scrutiny.

Anthropocentrism, prevalent in the European environmental and social philosophy model, prioritizes human interests above all (Catton and Dunlap 1978). However, this perspective has been increasingly challenged, with scholars seeking a more holistic reevaluation (Gardiner and Thompson 2015; Domanska 2010; Shoreman-Ouimet and Kopnina 2015). On the other hand, speciesism, akin to anthropocentrism, biases in favor of one’s own species, leading to unfair treatment of others (Kopnina et al. 2018). Moreover, the anthropocentric approach wrongly assumes that all of humanity adheres to this ideology, disregarding Indigenous societies like Canadian First Nations, Australian Indigenous communities, and Native Americans, which are not inherently anthropocentric. In contrast to anthropocentrism, ecocentrism, closely tied to Deep Ecology, rejects human supremacy and advocates for a relationship between humans and nature based on ecological realities (Nelson et al. 2016). This perspective values biodiversity, animal welfare, and overall ecological balance, resembling aspects of biocentrism (Bekoff 2013). Unlike subjective anthropocentrism, objective ecocentrism prioritizes naturalism and perceives humans as “memberless fact,” devoid of exceptional status (Hoffman and Sandelands 2005). What is substantial from this critical discussion is to identify the complexity lies within the different environmental concepts. The goal should be very simple: to let nature flourish, let not the human to suppress it. Thus, the need for inclusive environmentalism and multicultural ecocriticism arises, one that embraces traditions, beliefs, and communities, intertwining them with nature’s interconnectedness. This integrated approach resonates well with the notion of Deep Ecology, prioritizing human-environment relationships and emphasizing ecological balance and ecosystem security (Morton 2010, 1; Tallis and Lubchenco 2014, 27).

The concept of Deep Ecology and Indigenous novels share a strong connection as they both emphasize a holistic and interconnected worldview that aligns with the values and perspectives of many indigenous cultures. Deep Ecology, a philosophical and ecological ideology, advocates for a profound shift in human consciousness towards recognizing the intrinsic value of all living beings and their interconnectedness within the ecosystem therefore, “there are deeper concerns which touch upon principles of diversity, complexity, autonomy, decentralization, symbiosis,

egalitarianism, and classlessness” (Naess, 1973, 95). Moreover, “ecological knowledge and the

life-style of the ecological field-worker have suggested, inspired, and fortified the perspectives of the Deep Ecology movement” (98). Indigenous Novels, on the other hand, often reflect symbiosis, egalitarianism, and classlessness with the deep spiritual and cultural connections that indigenous communities have with the natural world. Deep Ecology’s emphasis on ecological interconnectedness and the recognition of nature’s intrinsic value resonates with the way many indigenous societies such as Canadian First Nations and Australian Indigenous view their environment. Indigenous cultures often hold beliefs that consider the land, animals, and plants as integral parts of their identity and spirituality. This spiritual connection goes beyond a utilitarian view of nature and re-emphasizes a harmonious reconciliation with the environment.

In Indigenous novels, the interconnectedness and reverence for nature are frequently depicted through storytelling, where landscapes, animals, and natural elements are personified and given agency. The Indigenous literature often portrays a deep understanding of ecological balance and the interdependence of all elements in the ecosystem. This also resonates with Deep Ecology’s call for “wider norms and values” as well as a fundamental reevaluation of human-nature relationships (Naess, 1973. 99). Moreover, both the idea of Deep Ecology and Indigenous novels challenge the anthropocentric worldview that has led to environmental degradation in many ways. They propose a shift towards desired ecological balance, where the focus is on the well-being of the entire ecosystem rather than just on human interests.

This essay re-explores this discussion examining how Indigenous cultures have lived in harmony with their environments for generations, often following sustainable practices that align with the principles of Deep Ecology. The study further reveals how the connection between Deep Ecology and Indigenous novels therefore lies in their shared values of interconnectedness, diversity, ecological harmony, and the recognition of nature’s intrinsic worth. Both views offer alternative perspectives to the dominant anthropocentric ideologies, emphasizing a spiritual and respectful relationship with the natural world. By integrating the insights from Indigenous novels with the principles of Deep Ecology, there is a potential to cultivate a more profound understanding of ecological stability and inspire sustainable actions for the benefit of both nature and humanity.

Works Cited:

Adams, William Bill, and Martin Mulligan. Decolonizing nature: strategies for conservation in a post-colonial era. Routledge, 2012.

Andrews, Jennifer. “Rethinking the Canadian Gothic: Reading Eden Robinson’s Monkey Beach.” Unsettled Remains: Canadian Literature and the Postcolonial Gothic (2009): 205-27.

Armstrong, Jeannette. Slash. British Columbia: Theytus Books (1985).

 Bekoff. Marc ed. Ignoring Nature No More: The Case for Compassionate Conservation, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013.

Birgit Däwes. “Back to Nature? Conservatism and First Nations Cultural Ecologies.” Zeitschrift für Kanada-Studien 34, no. 1 (2014):46-61

Bowler, James M., Harvey Johnston, Jon M. Olley, John R. Prescott, Richard G. Roberts, Wilfred Shawcross, and Nigel A. Spooner. “New Ages for Human Occupation and Climatic Change at Lake Mungo, Australia.” Nature 421, no. 6925 (2003): 837-840.

Brewster, Anne. “Whiteness and Indigenous Sovereignty in Kim Scott’s That Deadman Dance.” Journal of the European Association of Studies on Australia 2, no. 2 (2011): 60-71.

Brewster, Anne. “Indigenous Sovereignty and the Crisis of Whiteness in Alexis Wright's Carpentaria.” Australian Literary Studies 25, no. 4 (2010): 85-102.

Burgmann, Verity. “The Green Bans Movement: Workers’ Power and Ecological Radicalism in Australia in the 1970s.” Journal for the Study of Radicalism 2, no. 1 (2008): 63-89. doi:10.1353/jsr.2008.0027.

Catton, William R., and Riley E. Dunlap. “Environmental Sociology: A New Paradigm.” The American Sociologist 13, no. 1 (1978): 41-49.

Chakrabarty, Dipesh. “The Climate of History: Four Theses.” Critical Inquiry, 35, no.2 92009): 197–222.

David Wells, “Radicalism, Conservatism and Environmentalism,” Politics 13, no. 2, (1978): 299-306, DOI: 10.1080/00323267808401670

Domanska, Ewa. “Beyond Anthropocentrism in Historical Studies.” Historein 10 (2010): 118-130.

Foltz, Richard C. “Does Nature Have Historical Agency? World History, Environmental History, and How Historians Can Help Save the Planet.” The History Teacher 37, no. 1 (2003): 9-28.

Gardiner, Stephen Mark, and Allen Thompson, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics. Oxford University Press, 2017.

Gardiner, S. M., & Allen T. (2015). Anthropocentrism: Humanity as Peril and Promise. The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics. Oxford University Press.

Gleeson-White, Jane. “Capitalism Versus the Agency of Place: an Ecocritical Reading of That Deadman Dance and Carpentaria.” Journal of the Association for the Study of Australian Literature 13, no. 2 (2013): 1-12.

Gottlieb, Robert. Forcing the Spring: The Transformation of the American Environmental Movement. Island Press, 2005.

Hodne, Barbara, and Helen Hoy. “Reading from the inside out: Jeannette Armstrong's Slash.” Journal of Postcolonial Writing 32, no. 1 (1992): 66-87.

Hoffman, Andrew J and Lloyd E. Sandelands. “Getting Right with Nature: Anthropocentrism, Ecocentrism, and Theocentrism.” Organization & Environment 18, no. 2 (2005): 141-162.

Kopnina, Helen, Haydn Washington, Bron Taylor, and John J. Piccolo. “Anthropocentrism: More than just a misunderstood problem.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31, no. 1 (2018): 109-127.

Lamb, Hubert H. Climate, History and the Modern World. Routledge, 2002.

Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac. (1949). Oxford University Press, 1968.

Mareš, Miroslav. “Environmental Radicalism and Extremism in Postcommunist Europe.” Journal for the Study of Radicalism 2, no. 1 (2008): 91-107. doi:10.1353/jsr.2008.0033.

McLaughlin, Paul. “Remarks on Ecological Radicalism.” In Environmental Political Philosophy, pp. 29-50. Routledge, 2017.

McLaughlin, Paul. Radicalism: A Philosophical Study. Springer, 2012.

McMichael, A. et al. “Climate Change and Human Health: Present and Future Risks.” The Lancet 367, no. 9513 (2006):  859-869.

Methot, Suzanne. “Spirits in the Material World: Haisla Culture Takes Strange Shape in Eden Robinson’s Monkey Beach.” Quill & Quire 66, no. 1 (2000): 12-13.

Morton, Timothy. The Ecological Thought. Harvard University Press, 2010.

Mudrooroo. Us Mob. Sydney: Harper Collins, 1995.

Naess, Arne. “The Shallow and the Deep, Long‐Range Ecology Movement. A Summary.” Inquiry 16, no. 1-4 (1973): 95-100.

Neal, Fw. “Radicalism”, in J. Gould and W. L. Kolb (eds.), A Dictionary of the Social Sciences, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1964.

Nelson, Michael Paul Nelson, Jeremy T. Bruskotter, John A. Vucetich, and Guillaume Chapron. "Emotions and the Ethics of Consequence in Conservation Decisions: Lessons from Cecil the Lion." Conservation Letters 9, no. 4 (2016): 302-306.

Perrin, Frederic M. Rella Two Trees. Sydney: Ankh Publishing, 2013

Radha, M. Narratives of Denial Accusation and Confession in Canadian Indigenous Women Writers. Doctoral Thesis, Madurai Kamraj University, 2008: 1-237.

Robinson, Eden. Monkey Beach. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2000.

Rowland, Lucy. “Indigenous temporality and climate change in Alexis Wright’s Carpentaria (2006).” Journal of Postcolonial Writing 55, no. 4 (2019): 541-554, DOI: 10.1080/17449855.2019.1598472

Shoreman-Ouimet, Eleanor, and Helen Kopnina. Culture and Conservation: Beyond Anthropocentrism. Routledge, 2015.

Scott, Kim. That Deadman Dance. Pan Macmillan, 2011

Sorensen, Kelsey. "Preservation of Oral Tradition-Why Monkey Beach Isn't a Gothic Novel." MacEwan University Student Research Proceedings 4, no. 1 (2019): 1-5.

Stokols, Daniel. “Establishing and Maintaining Healthy Environments: Toward a Social Ecology of Health Promotion.” American Psychologist 47, no. 1 (1992): 6-22.

Tallis, Heather, and Jane Lubchenco. “Working Together: A Call for Inclusive Conservation.” Nature News 515, no. 7525 (2014): 27-28.

Taylor, Gordon Rattray. Rethink: Radical Proposals to Save a Disintegrating World. London: Penguin, 1974.

Van Styvendale, Nancy. “The trans/Historicity of Trauma in Jeannette Armstong’s Slash and Sherman Alexie’s Indian Killer.” Studies in the Novel 40, no. 1/2 (2008): 203-223.

Varrone, Kristiina Varrone, “Alexis Wright’s Carpentaria from an Ecological Perspective.” International Journal of Arts & Sciences 8, no. 2 (2015): 69-74.

Wilson, James. The Earth Shall Weep: A History of Native America. Grove Press, 2000.

Wordsworth, William.  Poems in Two Volumes. Longman, Hurst, Rees, and Orms, 1807. Accessed on 29 August 2019.

Wright, Alexis. Carpentaria. Giramondo Publishing, 2006.

Npotes:

[1] Australia’s Indigenous peoples consist of two distinct cultural groups: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Within these groups lies significant diversity, highlighted by over 250 different language groups spread across the nation (See AIATSIS at aiatsis.gov.au). The Canadian Constitution recognizes three distinct groups of Indigenous peoples: First Nations, Inuit, and Métis (see, Indigenous peoples and communities, Government of Canada at https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100013785/1529102490303).

[2] This film is often interpreted through the lens of the white savior trope but the significance of protecting natural habitats with the indigenous ways portrayed in the film has gained universal appeal.