DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 5, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 326--------------------------------------------------
Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
By: TeacherRachel Date: February 20, 2019, 10:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Reading from Cronon's Changes in the Land.
*What does it mean/matter if colonists and Native Americans view
ownership differently? Do you think it actually has any bearing
on the outcome of their interactions, in the long run? Why/why
not?
*What's the value of a name?
*Extrapolating some from this article, how would mapping fit
into the conflicts around land use and ownership? Why?
The first person posting should feel free to choose one of these
questions to answer. AND each person afterwards needs to answer
the question asked in the post before theirs, and must ask a
question for the next post to answer...
#Post#: 327--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
By: ngood Date: February 20, 2019, 2:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[Using pass #1]
#Post#: 328--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
By: ebartel2020 Date: February 20, 2019, 2:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
*Extrapolating some from this article, how would mapping fit
into the conflicts around land use and ownership? Why?
Mapping would fit into the conflicts around land use and
ownership because when the British came over, they took over the
land and mapped it the way they wanted too. But this was not
their land and was not their say which caused conflict because
people got angry. Also, creating the map, they could do it how
they wanted to and could say which land was theirs and was not.
You also see this with the Uganda issue when their land got
mapped differently from how they thought it was. During the
time, mapping and the way the world looked was very up in the
air and nobody knew for sure so what gives certain people the
right to make the map how they think it actually is?
For the next person: *What's the value of a name?
#Post#: 329--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
By: samfarley Date: February 20, 2019, 2:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The value of a name is inherent to the misunderstanding between
the English and the Natives when it came to land and land use.
As described in the article, these two groups used naming for
different purposes: the natives named places after the resources
that could be found in the places, while the English named
places in more arbitrary ways, oftentimes after towns they had
known in England or after people who owned the land and held
control over it. The natives thought of places as commodities
that could be bought and sold, and maybe this is why they often
granted them names that were not as clear or defined as the
natives and the names that they had chosen. On the other hand,
the natives named places after resources because this is what
they viewed land as primarily: a place for hunting, fishing, or
gathering, not just land that one owned forever. If places were
named after the resources that were abundant there, this
promotes the practice of recognizing lands as shared places,
locations that were important for what existed within them as
opposed to just the place itself.
Does it matter that the natives and the english viewed land in
different ways?
#Post#: 330--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
By: amacdonald Date: February 20, 2019, 4:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information provided in this passage, I believe
that it did matter that colonists and Native Americans viewed
property ownership differently. One of the main differences in
their beliefs is that colonists believed that the most land
should be given to the person who can make the most out of it.
For example, “a person with more servants and cattle could
‘improve’ more land than one who had few, and so was granted
more land” (73). This is very different from the Natives who
believed that everyone (within respective village territories)
had the right to profit off of the land.
Mapping would fit into conflicts around land use and ownership
in different ways for the colonists and the Native Americans.
For the Native Americans, I am going to focus on the ecological
uses of the land since that is where it seems designated areas
were marked. For example, Natives needed “no special private
right” to collect things like wild plants, wood, fish, and other
resources that were generally attainable in nature. Natives
viewed trapping in a different way. Although they were spread
out and had designated pieces of land to trap animals on, this
was implemented to maximize the yield of prey rather than for
personal gain. Also for Natives, there is a lot of value in a
name. For example, “Chabanakongkomuk” could be read as “you fish
on your side, I fish on my side, nobody fish in middle - no
trouble” (66).
#Post#: 332--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
By: jbass Date: February 20, 2019, 5:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think the veiw of ownership of the land is very important. It
is the backbone of all conflicts and therefor growth of the
natives and colonists. The debate of who owns the land was
persistant as the colonists spread and ran into more people. As
the colonists saw the natives unfit to control the land seeing
how primitive they were. This casued disputes between the
natives and the colonists due to the natives not seeing it the
same way. This back and forth forced both people to grow as
societys and to develop to control the land. This is something
we see all over the world at many different points in history. I
think in the long run we will see the struggle for land become
more of an issue and due to the native people not having the
technology or the civilility to fight back they are pushed back
into very small specific points of land.
#Post#: 333--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
By: asantello Date: February 20, 2019, 5:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I texted Alex asking for a question and he said: How did the
ownership of land from the Native Americans to the Colonists
change the use of the land and the resources?
When the Natives used the land and they had an understanding of
what was public and what was private, it allowed for more people
to benefit from it, and only for specific uses. The English
taking control made the land less accessible to people. What is
really frustrating is that they focused on how much land they
had more so than the resources. They would then use the
resources to profit off of rather than use them for the larger
benefit of the people. I wonder if the colonists would purposely
give people different pieces of land based on their trade. If so
then they would be able to maximize it best. For example if a
fisherman wason a lake then they would be better at using the
lake as a resource. Also something I didn’t understand was if
people’s properties were 100% theirs, if the town owned them of
the british government? Did the Natives also automatically stop
using the land, because with the purchases being so unclear I
wonder if for a while they continued to hunt and make use of
the resources before the colonists pushed them away.
My Question
Based on Sahlins quote, “Wants, may be ‘easily satisfied’ either
by producing much or desiring little”(Cronon, 80), do you think
if the British had understood that they would have been more
likely to understand and/or respect how the Natives used the
land? Or if you don’t think this quote is an accurate
representation of how they viewed their land, why not?
#Post#: 334--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
By: afreitag Date: February 20, 2019, 7:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
*I began writing when Sam’s was the only one posted, so I’m
answering his question “Does it matter that the natives and the
english viewed land in different ways?”, which I interpret as a
simplified “What does it mean/matter if colonists and Native
Americans view ownership differently? Do you think it actually
has any bearing on the outcome of their interactions, in the
long run? Why/why not?” from Rachel’s post
Constructing working definitions of Native American vs English
property ideology to establish meaning:
Defining colonists’ idea of ownership: permanent (unless sold)
private control over “an abstract area whose bounds in theory
remained fixed no matter what the use to which it was put”(p 68)
Defining Native Americans’ idea of ownership: it was not control
of the land but the right to use the resources on that land;
property rights were limited to a period of use and “shifted
with ecological use”(p 63)
Why does this matter?
An example the text gave (p 66-67) stuck out to me as a perfect
display of why an understanding of their differences is
necessary. Based on their standing ideas of ownership, Native
Americans went into a property deal believing it applied only to
very specific uses of the land and had “more to do with sharing
possession than alienating it”. The English idea was “to possess
the land as a tradable commodity”. This was a misunderstanding
never clarified between them that resulted in a land deal that
spelled out different rules to the two sides, which I can
imagine resulted in confrontation - an unfortunate outcome of an
interaction based on opposing ideas of ownership. And, of
course, it was unfair to the Native Americans.
*A page was missing from my print out and I did not get to
finish reading the last 2 pages
A question - How do you think the colonizers could have used
this misunderstanding to their advantage in property deals? Do
we think that ever happened?
#Post#: 335--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
By: Ahmed_A Date: February 20, 2019, 7:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
My response to Addie's question is: No I believe that the
Colonists’ understanding of Indiana's concept of ownership would
not change a thing in the course of history. I hate to
generalize the attitude of one people as the evil side, and the
others as victims, but frankly, this is the case here. It is
clear that the English were using their flawed logic merely as
justification to their greed-driven seizure of American lands.
They reasoned: Indians ruined their environment, and we shall
improve it by cultivating it. They thought that they were
improving the land by claiming its ownership. Even when Roger
Williams pointed out the flaw in their reasoning - he argued
that Indians used used it for hunting, much like how they would
use it for agriculture, therefore, it belongs to the Indians as
they were there first - they dismissed his argument however
convincing it sounded. Additionally, by following Huntington
Cairns’ definition of ownership, if A is more powerful, then C's
opposition of A's ownership of B does not matter, for the people
in A confirm their ownership of B with each other, regardless of
how the people in C think. It's quiet a confusing conjecture,
but the result of it was that English people kept generating
theories about why they should invade America, and found
themselves convinced by their own ideas.
My question:
Through a contemporary lense, do you view an uncultivated land
as a waste of resources? If so, how would you go about taking
advantage of the resources in those two cases:
a) The land is empty (unpopulated)
b) The land is populated by people who are ignorant of our
modern technologies.
[font=georgia][/font]
#Post#: 336--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
By: smartins2019 Date: February 20, 2019, 8:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is a good question. I know that I would like to say that if
I found a plot of uncultivated land, before I did anything I
would try and figure out if it belonged to anyone, but I can’t
say that that’s what I’d do fore sure (which makes me feel
pretty terrible). I know that that would be the right thing to
do, but when I think about it, it’s easy to get caught up. If
you see a plot of land not being used to its advantage (whatever
that may be in your opinion) and seemingly this land is unused,
who wouldn’t want to take it for their own? If the land was
empty and I had an idea to utilize it in a way that seems
productive to not only me but a greater community, I would try
and consult the people or organization that owns the land and
talk to them about my idea. If I got approval for my proposal, I
would then start making plans on how I would accomplish what I
ultimately wanted to do. If not, (depending on the
circumstances) I may be upset, but I would respect that I don’t
have permission to carry out my idea. I might try to convince
them a bit at first, but ultimately, I know that it is not my
decision. If the land was already populated but inhabited by
people who are ‘ignorant’ or ‘ ignorant of our modern
technologies’, I would absolutely respect the people in their
living space. I might ask if they are interested in learning the
way that I work or the technologies we have, but if they don’t
want to, I would never force something onto someone else that
they don’t want to do.
My question: *What does it mean/matter if colonists and Native
Americans view ownership differently? Do you think it actually
has any bearing on the outcome of their interactions, in the
long run? Why/why not?
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page