DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 4, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 74--------------------------------------------------
Reading 4: New England...
By: TeacherRachel Date: January 10, 2019, 4:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Read
"A Hideous and Desolate Wilderness," Bradford
"Potential of the New English Canaan," Morton
"Fate of the Abenaki in the Colonial Ecological Revolution,"
Merchant
"Eden," Krech
Head's up: This is a longer reading. It's in 2 parts, and the
first part does not need to be read actively, while the second
part does.
Part I: "A Hideous and Desolate Wilderness" by William Bradford,
"Potential of the New English Canaan" by Thomas Morton, and
"Fate of the Abenaki in the Colonial Ecological Revolution" by
Carolyn Merchant (pp. 44-47)
Part II: "Eden", from Shepard Krech III's The Ecological Indian:
Myth and History (pp. 84-97)
Please post your ideas and responses. Share the ideas that you
develop on your own, but also be sure to respond and discuss
each other's posts.
#Post#: 75--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 4: New England...
By: kellyf Date: January 10, 2019, 4:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
History is difficult. Reading through these essays, especially
Eden, brought more questions than answers. The most interesting
question I have is: Is there always ultimately going to be
environmental consequences of historical progress? Is it always
worse? Krech’s deep dive into the horrifying spread of disease
amongst Native Americans, coupled with the state of the American
environment today, leads me to believe it is always worse.
Before Europeans, Native Americans were changing the land
through deforestation and general depletion of resources. (pg.
86) And then after Europeans came, they continued the depletion
of resources. (pg. 97) And even still today. So what do you
think: Is it always worse? (Back to the depressing aspect of
environmental history)
#Post#: 76--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 4: New England...
By: ccogswell Date: January 10, 2019, 5:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, that was extremely and unequivocally upsetting. I, too, am
left with questions. This reading is making me think more about
the human cost of “progress” - but what is progress? And how do
we measure it? Because if the landscape of an entire continent
is changed in a process that kills tens of thousands, is that
really progress at all? Kelly mentioned historical progress and
how it always seems to worsen the environment, but that's where
I disagree. I believe the progress currently being made is not
worsening the environment. It's not making it better, nor is it
working towards a solution/reversal for the damage humans have
been causing for centuries. But I think our current progress is
going in the right direction because it is, for the first time
in history, conscious of how we are destroying the environment
and working towards a way to be better. After all, 2019 isn't
the year of the vegan for no reason, y'all.
Additionally, I’m confused why Europeans in America did not face
a like threat of disease. Was it because syphilis and
tuberculosis existed in Europe, and they were not completely
unexposed to the germs? I know tuberculosis reached epidemic
proportions eventually, but does this have any connection to the
environment? Also, how did the bubonic plague get carried to
America in the 1600s? I wouldn’t expect anyone to be actively
carrying the disease, at least not outside of the 1350s. I think
the main issue here is my lack of understanding concerning the
transfer of disease and how that works, but still.
#Post#: 77--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 4: New England...
By: Cale is not me. Date: January 10, 2019, 6:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=ccogswell link=topic=5.msg76#msg76
date=1547164003]
Additionally, I’m confused why Europeans in America did not face
a like threat of disease. Was it because syphilis and
tuberculosis existed in Europe, and they were not completely
unexposed to the germs? I know tuberculosis reached epidemic
proportions eventually, but does this have any connection to the
environment? Also, how did the bubonic plague get carried to
America in the 1600s? I wouldn’t expect anyone to be actively
carrying the disease, at least not outside of the 1350s. I think
the main issue here is my lack of understanding concerning the
transfer of disease and how that works, but still.
[/quote]
If you mean why were the Europeans not affected by the diseases
they brought over I might have an answer. Keep in mind that I am
not an expert and that I don't know tons about how diseases work
but my understanding was that the Europeans had built up more of
an immune system to the specific disease from being around them.
Of course, many were still deadly to them but think about how
much worse it would be to a group of people who have never even
encountered it. At least that's the explanation I've been told.
I'm sure there were other reasons like perhaps they didn't know
how to deal with the diseases once they had them since they had
never encountered them. There's also the fact that on some
occasions the Europeans intentionally gave blankets with
smallpox to the native Americans so there could have been other
times when the spreading of disease was intentional.
I also have a question! Why if the Native Americans were so
susceptible to diseases from Europe why was the opposite not
true? One might think that any diseases that the Native
Americans had grown used to would kill the Europeans in a
similar way when they arrived yet I haven't heard of something
like that happening.
#Post#: 78--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 4: New England...
By: juliab Date: January 10, 2019, 7:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Cale is not me. link=topic=5.msg77#msg77
date=1547168189]
Why if the Native Americans were so susceptible to diseases from
Europe why was the opposite not true? One might think that any
diseases that the Native Americans had grown used to would kill
the Europeans in a similar way when they arrived yet I haven't
heard of something like that happening.
[/quote]
I think that this is talked about in Diamond's essay. My
understanding of the situation was that 1. The population was
not as dense in the Americas, making it harder for diseases to
sustain and spread, and 2. many epidemics developed from
diseases that came from domesticated animals that people in
europe had common contact with. because the americas range from
north to south rather than east to west, the climate varies
greater from place to place. this made it harder to domesticate
species because they could not spread far without their living
conditions changing rapidly.
#Post#: 79--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 4: New England...
By: Cale is not me. Date: January 10, 2019, 7:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=kellyf link=topic=5.msg75#msg75 date=1547160867]
History is difficult. Reading through these essays, especially
Eden, brought more questions than answers. The most interesting
question I have is: Is there always ultimately going to be
environmental consequences of historical progress? Is it always
worse? Krech’s deep dive into the horrifying spread of disease
amongst Native Americans, coupled with the state of the American
environment today, leads me to believe it is always worse.
Before Europeans, Native Americans were changing the land
through deforestation and general depletion of resources. (pg.
86) And then after Europeans came, they continued the depletion
of resources. (pg. 97) And even still today. So what do you
think: Is it always worse? (Back to the depressing aspect of
environmental history)
[/quote]
It seems inevitable that the more people and more technology
there is nature will always suffer. I do however think that
progress is not always so linear and there are ways civilization
could progress that could minimize how much nature is damaged.
This won't solve everything though.
#Post#: 80--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 4: New England...
By: Shi Shi Date: January 10, 2019, 7:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=ccogswell link=topic=5.msg76#msg76
date=1547164003]
Kelly mentioned historical progress and how it always seems to
worsen the environment, but that's where I disagree. I believe
the progress currently being made is not worsening the
environment. It's not making it better, nor is it working
towards a solution/reversal for the damage humans have been
causing for centuries. But I think our current progress is going
in the right direction because it is, for the first time in
history, conscious of how we are destroying the environment and
working towards a way to be better.
[/quote]
[quote author=kellyf link=topic=5.msg75#msg75 date=1547160867]
The most interesting question I have is: Is there always
ultimately going to be environmental consequences of historical
progress? Is it always worse? Krech’s deep dive into the
horrifying spread of disease amongst Native Americans, coupled
with the state of the American environment today, leads me to
believe it is always worse.
[/quote]
I agree with Christine's ideas on historical progress and how it
has become more aware of the Earth's current state. Hopefully,
this newly acquired recognition of environmental degradation
will work towards creating a more cohesive and clean
environment. However, I also agree with Kelly's thoughts which
reflected on historical process's past consequences. From what
was being said in the Eden reading, there were a Lot of
unfortunate and severely damaging occurrences.
When I think about the definition of progress, I think of it in
two ways: 1) as a movement through time, and 2), as a movement
towards a specific goal. From what Kelly was getting at, I
thought ideas correlated more with the "movement through time"
definition, while Christine's related to the "movement towards a
specific goal" definition. From my interpretation of their two
quotes, I found it interesting to examine how they understood
the idea of "progress" differently. I found myself agreeing with
both of them because I cannot simply choose only one
explanation. I am finding it harder and harder to do so the
further I go throughout this course.
On a different note, I was interested in the topic of population
that was addressed towards the end of the Eden reading. I feel
like a lot of the writing talked about how greater population
equals higher demand for resources. The main portion of Eden
felt written from an angle where different factors affected
other factors in a more "chronological order", which I found
both extremely satisfying but also upsetting. The end of reading
introduced a different stance which I found related to some of
Merchant's values that we read about the other night. On page 97
(original pg number), it says: "Christine Padoch, an
anthropologist... suggested that population density alone can be
a 'poor predictor' of transformations in today's ecosystems, and
other social scientists would agree. ... the social,
political-economic, and cultural causes of environmental change
are incredibly complex". I find myself being consistently drawn
to this idea of intersection and interdependence. I don't know
why, but perhaps it's because I have difficulty with
thinking/believing in one particular way. However, the ambiguity
of this conclusion does not supply me with the same degree of
fulfillment as the "chronological order-esque" approach.
#Post#: 81--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 4: New England...
By: Kasey Date: January 10, 2019, 7:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
While reading Eden, I found it very interesting that “American
Indians” and mainly native farmers would like most farmers were
transforming the environment around them by burning and clearing
forest and by domesticating crops. Wood was such a useful and in
such high demand as well as fertile soil or any resource that
would help increase their farming; therefore, when there were
insect infestations or infertile soils, the farmers would move
their village like the Iroquoian people who moved every ten to
twelve years. I think this is a perfect example of Worster’s
definition of environmental history being humans affecting
nature, which is in this case, humans are changing the
environment by farming and clearing out trees, and nature is
affecting humans as well such as farmers needing to move their
village like the Iroquoian people. I think this shows much as
does the rest of text that as humans continued to progress and
go along with change and create change, it did not necessarily
create an increase or a positive impact on the relationship
between humans and their environment.
#Post#: 82--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 4: New England...
By: Kasey Date: January 10, 2019, 7:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=ccogswell link=topic=5.msg76#msg76
date=1547164003]
Well, that was extremely and unequivocally upsetting. I, too, am
left with questions. This reading is making me think more about
the human cost of “progress” - but what is progress? And how do
we measure it? Because if the landscape of an entire continent
is changed in a process that kills tens of thousands, is that
really progress at all? Kelly mentioned historical progress and
how it always seems to worsen the environment, but that's where
I disagree. I believe the progress currently being made is not
worsening the environment. It's not making it better, nor is it
working towards a solution/reversal for the damage humans have
been causing for centuries. But I think our current progress is
going in the right direction because it is, for the first time
in history, conscious of how we are destroying the environment
and working towards a way to be better. After all, 2019 isn't
the year of the vegan for no reason, y'all.
Additionally, I’m confused why Europeans in America did not face
a like threat of disease. Was it because syphilis and
tuberculosis existed in Europe, and they were not completely
unexposed to the germs? I know tuberculosis reached epidemic
proportions eventually, but does this have any connection to the
environment? Also, how did the bubonic plague get carried to
America in the 1600s? I wouldn’t expect anyone to be actively
carrying the disease, at least not outside of the 1350s. I think
the main issue here is my lack of understanding concerning the
transfer of disease and how that works, but still.
[/quote]
To discuss some of Christine’s questions about why Europeans did
not face the same struggle in new diseases when arriving to
America like the Native Americans did once the Europeans
arrived. I believe the reasoning is Europeans had stronger
immune systems compared to the Native Americans because that
were taking care of domestic animals for quite a long time which
is what Jared Diamond explained. Europeans also lived in areas
with higher populations compared to Native American, so the
spread of germs between many more people was much more common.
I’m not positive that this is the best reasoning, but I think
this is why Europeans did not get diseases from America since
their tolerance was already very high.
#Post#: 83--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 4: New England...
By: alaina.h Date: January 10, 2019, 7:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
When reading these essays, mainly the one by Kretch, the
overarching issue I got was obviously diseases and how they
destroyed hundreds and thousands of people. It just seems that
there is a lot of negative events related to environmental
history. The Cronon reading did try to fight that, but it's
sometimes hard to believe.
Moving on to near the end of the readings, I thought that the
idea that population growth is a “prime transforming agent”
within an environment was really interesting and it makes sense
(97). The size of a population affects everything like amount of
food, water, clothes, materials to build and so on. This means
that more is needed for these bigger populations and that can
change the whole rationing of resources in a community. Robert
Kates writes that population growth “has been the first-tier
driving force of environmental change throughout the history of
humankind” (97). More and more, I am seeing that the subject of
environmental history is noticing human actions and pulling that
into the definition more. Humans have fully changed the
environment and continue to do so over short periods of time
which makes the definition of environmental history and what’s
within it have to change at the same time.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page