DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 4, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 84--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 4: New England...
By: alaina.h Date: January 10, 2019, 7:22 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]
In response to Kelly’s question, I think I’d have to agree that
there is always going to be consequences throughout history. As
we’ve seen in the Eden reading, there were many diseases that
completely wiped out populations. As well as in general, there
always seems to be some kind of downfall of the human race, and
mostly because of the environment that we are in. I feel as
though the environment has slowly been crumbling by the faults
of humans and also because of this we face the consequences of
that.
#Post#: 85--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 4: New England...
By: mayafb Date: January 10, 2019, 7:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So I thought that the "Eden" reading could have been shortened
to the last few pages. After taking U.S. Native Americans last
mod I am quite confused. The information that I learned in this
class has directly contradicted the information that I learned
in that class. It seems that the author insinuates the main
factor for Native American populations decline is the disease.
However, Jordan says that the epidemic is often blown out of
proportion and that the main cause of death was, in fact, the
murder of the indigenous peoples by the white settlers. Through
this reading, the main point was the density of the people and
the abundance of resources. All of the points were about numbers
of population and how that impacted the resources. Specifically,
the Native American peoples, not just the Europeans, exhausted
and impacted the lands. Contrary to the belief that I was raised
on, understanding that there has always been, and always will be
a "negative?" impact on the land.
Now that brings me to another point. How do we know that the
"virgin lands" are good? The implications of the word virgin
lend itself to purity and innocence that is also associated with
goodness. Therefore, the land was inherently bad when the
settlers subjugated. So if the land was spoiled, then it has
lesser worth?
I am digging myself into a spiral
8)
#Post#: 86--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 4: New England...
By: mayafb Date: January 10, 2019, 7:38 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]
In response to the questions about progress, I just want to say
that I am also struggling with these. If progress is toward good
and away from bad. And if that connection is set up (which is
how I at least think of it), then the natural world is backward
in progression? That means that the human progress is aimed at a
greater good, and if I think like Kelly (which I am not sure
that I do), then the progress is also harming the earth. So all
of this leads me to believe that the supposed "virgin" land is
bad and the supposed land after "progress" is bad.
(Of course what the meaning of bad and all that should probably
be defined but I am using it more general... (sorry Sam Simpson,
you would so challenge me on that)
And some of us can't be vegan because they are borderline
anemic... honestly still mystified how you are healthy but
amazed.
8)
#Post#: 87--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 4: New England...
By: juliab Date: January 10, 2019, 8:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I found this reading to be very challenging. I often felt like I
was going in a circle just constantly reading about the same
thing. One thing that stood out to me though was the language
that the author used [in Eden] about the relationship between
the Native Americans and their land. I was surprised to see the
relationship painted in such a destructive way, for in all of
the lessons I have been taught before about Native Americans I
was told that they had a spiritual connection with the land
around them. Maybe I've been taught wrong, but it just seemed a
little aggressive to me. I would have at least thought it would
be represented that the land was treated as a part of the
community and though they had to use it's resources to live off
of, it was something that was held more respect.
Also, in a response to what christine said: I think that though
we are becoming increasingly aware of how humans have damaged
the planet and the severity of it, it is not so easy to reverse
that (though you did say we aren't exactly going in that
direction either). I still think that more awareness needs to be
made. I think that it would take a major cultural shift for us
just to stop the changes where we are now. And I know it seems
like everybody's super aware I think that might also be
partially because of the community we are a part of. But I may
be wrong, there's a country that's become Carbon negative, and
if a larger country releasing more pollutants could find a way
to do that it'd be pretty cool.
#Post#: 88--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 4: New England...
By: Casey A Date: January 10, 2019, 8:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Okay, so I have made it through a good chunk of the reading and
I think now would be a good time to post. The Eden section
seems very repetitive talking about how beautiful everything is
for the first few pages before becoming many pages talking only
about illness. This makes me wonder, what is the author’s
purpose in this. I feel like we the audience may not understand
the true exstensity of the wrath of the illness that plagued
Native Americans, so the author wants to elaborate as much as
possible as to help us understand more of how bad it actually
was. Also the contrast between beauty and illness might be made
to highlight how we think of this time period without fully
knowing all of the spiders that hide under the rug. And I also
found an inconsistency that I have a question on. It is said
that there was a plan to give smallpox infected blankets to the
Native Americans, but then on page 86, the author writes
“No one involved—not Indians, not white
people—wished to see smallpox spread. Someone please
explain to me this contradiction."
#Post#: 89--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 4: New England...
By: liamf Date: January 10, 2019, 8:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 3, “Eden”, acted as an interesting crossover between
Environmental History and American History, while clearing up
some misconceptions that I had relating to how the first people
in America actually treated their land. I had always thought
that the first people in America didn't really affect the
natural world mainly because their populations were so small,
but I learned this this was not the case. Before reading the
chapter, my mind had Environmental History kind of separated
into two different groups: The people, and the environments.
What I realized after reading was that it’s not just people as a
whole that determines the History of our Environment, but rather
how smaller cultures/ groups of people during different time
periods interacted with the environment, and how their actions
built up over time.
[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]
To answer your question Kelly, I do think that the general trend
we see throughout history points towards the idea that it has
just gotten worse and worse. After the Native American's poor
environmental practices, came the Europeans, who were just as
bad if not worse. Further down the line, we saw more long term
environmental damage from the Industrial Revolution, which still
affects us today. Before the Industrial Revolution in the 19th
century, the global average CO2 emission were roughly 1.96
billion tonnes per year, but in 2013, we reached over 35 billion
tonnes per year, (source:
HTML https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions),<br
/>and it’s growing almost exponentially still. The people
colonizing America had poor environmental practices, but it
pales in comparison to the practices today. Hopefully in the
future we will see better emission practices throughout the
world, but it won’t be an easy task.
#Post#: 90--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 4: New England...
By: Casey A Date: January 10, 2019, 8:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Response to juliab, Yes, I also felt that I was going in circles
while reading this text, I think the multitude of information in
this reading was the author's attempt at getting us to grasp the
extent of how much of a problem illness was, as commonly we are
taught that we originally got along with the Native Americans
and that they were resourceful. I think the amount of
information is used to try to shift some of those myths.
#Post#: 91--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 4: New England...
By: renee Date: January 10, 2019, 8:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=mayafb link=topic=5.msg85#msg85 date=1547170233]
Now that brings me to another point. How do we know that the
"virgin lands" are good? The implications of the word virgin
lend itself to purity and innocence that is also associated with
goodness. Therefore, the land was inherently bad when the
settlers subjugated. So if the land was spoiled, then it has
lesser worth?
[/quote]
I think what they were trying to say about virgin land is that
it is land that appears to have been untouched by humans.
However, this does imply purity which would then have to be
ruined once the Europeans subjugated it. What the Europeans did
not know at the time, was that the land was actually “widowed.”
Native Americans had previously transformed the land for
agricultural purposes but the land was able to recover and
restore itself to to appear untouched once the Native Americans
either moved or died. I find it interesting that the Europeans
assumed they were the first ones to claim or tame the land. They
had encountered Native Americans already in their colonization
but the settlers seemed to think the Native Americans had not
been able to transform their “Eden.”
The question of virgin land reminds me of our class discussion
today about what is natural. In this case, the natural thing for
the land was to recover and erase any signs of human influence.
This raises the question of is burning, clearing, and planting
on the land unnatural? Maybe at one point in time it was, but,
as we discussed in class, the definition of what is natural is
constantly changing. What does it take for the definition of
nature to change?
#Post#: 92--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 4: New England...
By: jterry2020 Date: January 10, 2019, 8:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
After reading Eden, the question of “Was the disease epidemic
inevitable?” arose for me. It seems as if it was bound to happen
because the Native Americans would never have been exposed to
the European diseases, and therefore unable to withstand them.
Although some aspects of the disaster were preventable (blankets
used as a biological weapon, rapid spreading of the disease
through trains and boats), it seems as if it would happen
whenever the Europeans arrived. Unless the Native Americans were
able to develop their own medicines (which I don’t know how they
would do due to their lack of knowledge of various diseases)
before the Europeans arrived, or make a plan to stop the
spreading of the diseases (plausible but difficult), it would be
hard to avoid such a situation. Was it inevitable?
#Post#: 93--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 4: New England...
By: Tommy Is The Person Who I Am Date: January 10, 2019, 8:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Casey A link=topic=5.msg88#msg88 date=1547172134]
Okay, so I have made it through a good chunk of the reading and
I think now would be a good time to post. The Eden section
seems very repetitive talking about how beautiful everything is
for the first few pages before becoming many pages talking only
about illness. This makes me wonder, what is the author’s
purpose in this. I feel like we the audience may not understand
the true exstensity of the wrath of the illness that plagued
Native Americans, so the author wants to elaborate as much as
possible as to help us understand more of how bad it actually
was. Also the contrast between beauty and illness might be made
to highlight how we think of this time period without fully
knowing all of the spiders that hide under the rug.
[/quote]
I am also in the midst of reading Eden, and I agree that much of
it is quite repetitive, as others have pointed out. Perhaps it
is because this source is meant to serve more as a reference,
allowing readers to get an overview of the topic and to be
exposed to a wide variety of sources that they could investigate
further themselves.
[quote author=Casey A link=topic=5.msg88#msg88 date=1547172134]
And I also found an inconsistency that I have a question on.
It is said that there was a plan to give smallpox infected
blankets to the Native Americans, but then on page 86, the
author writes “No one involved—not Indians, not white
people—wished to see smallpox spread. Someone please explain to
me this contradiction."
[/quote]
I believe that that quote (I think it's on 82) is in reference
to the 1837 epidemic specifically, not the one in 1763 caused by
the infected blankets. The author points out that in the 1837
case, no one wanted to cause the epidemic. It has been traced
back to an American Fur Company steamer, and a company would not
gain anything from killing all of its customers. This is quite
different from Sir Jeffrey Amherst's plan to disperse
smallpox-infested blankets, as they were intended as a
biological weapon and I imagine that Britain stood to gain from
the weakening of Native American groups.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page