DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 4, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 100--------------------------------------------------
Reading 5: Joyce Chaplin
By: TeacherRachel Date: January 11, 2019, 5:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please read pp. 60-64*; 70-83, Joyce Chaplin, "Natural
Philosophy and Racial Idiom: Comparing English and Indian
Bodies"
* Stop at paragraph break
Please post your thoughts/responses to the article, but also
please respond to each other...
#Post#: 101--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 5: Joyce Chaplin
By: Reed Date: January 12, 2019, 11:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The thesis of this paper seems to be that racism against native
Americans developed in part from how they much they died from
old world diseases, which the white people eventually concluded
came from some sort of racial failing to adjust to their
environment. However, most of the racist discourse I encounter
is the coupling of ideas about bodies with ideas about morality,
and that The Different Races™ have certain moral and personal
inclinations that make them inferior and worth being hated. At
this place and point in time, the biggest source of moral and
personal direction white colonists had was the bible.
I’m uncertain as to whether it’s valuable to put significant
stock in the development of racism against native Americans from
the differences of the disease-fighting capabilities of white
versus native people, and what that might’ve said to white
colonists about who was the best suited for the American
environment (although it could certainly be important). Rather,
in the context of an environmental history class, I’m more
inclined to think that a lot of racism developed from ideas
about how native land management was inferior because it wasn’t
christian-- in particular the justification for taking native
land as part of manifest destiny later on. The genocide really
heated up when white colonists decided that native people were a
threat to their christian values, though there were plenty of
bloody conflicts beforehand. Judgements about people based on
their immunity don’t seem nearly so relevant to many areas of
life as judgements about people based on how unchristian they
are. There is tons of evidence pointing to the development of
racism from interpretations of Genesis 9-10, and from the
countless examples of righteous violence that you can see in
christian theology and history. I want to see how christian
ideas of land use and personal ownership-- in contrast to native
ideas about land use and collective ownership-- created bigotry.
#Post#: 102--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 5: Joyce Chaplin
By: Shi Shi Date: January 12, 2019, 3:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Reed link=topic=6.msg101#msg101 date=1547315140]
The thesis of this paper seems to be that racism against native
Americans developed in part from how they much they died from
old world diseases, which the white people eventually concluded
came from some sort of racial failing to adjust to their
environment. However, most of the racist discourse I encounter
is the coupling of ideas about bodies with ideas about morality,
and that The Different Races™ have certain moral and personal
inclinations that make them inferior and worth being hated. At
this place and point in time, the biggest source of moral and
personal direction white colonists had was the bible.
[/quote]
I, too, was intrigued by the religious perspective European
colonists continuously returned to when discussing issues of
race and inferiority. While I agree that the English may have
interpreted the Native People's land management as inferior due
to their lack of Christian belief, I also believe that part of
their interpretation circulated back to the idea that European's
physiology was just "better-suited" to America's environment
because of God Himself. Chaplin wrote that "Scholars have
pointed to English statements that the Indians' afflictions were
providential, supernatural mandates against natives and in favor
of the invaders..." (244). She later points out a quote from
John Smith illustrating a similar idea which believed that
Native American's afflictions were a gift of some sort from God
to the European settlers.
#Post#: 103--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 5: Joyce Chaplin
By: Shi Shi Date: January 12, 2019, 4:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think that I was most interested in the idea that Native
Americans weren't actually native to America. The two groups,
Native Americans and Europeans, both shared the same
environment, however, one group survived better than the other.
The English people's perspective saw Native people's mortality
as a form of overall racial weakness in comparison to
themselves. I just found it striking how Europeans came to such
a generalized conclusion. Their speculations that "Indians had
originated outside America suggested that they had earlier
proved unfit in yet another region. The English believed that
America had been the scene of repeated invasions and that they
were only the most recent wave of colonists" (249). Chaplin also
wrote that "Reports that Native Americans were not only recently
arrived, but also continually wandering supplied more evidence
of their unsettled nature" (250).
It was interesting to view this topic from a different angle.
The English really did think from a different perspective at
that day in age and viewed themselves as more native to America
than Native Americans. I found this particular statement really
upsetting. Of course, I can understand, to an extent, what the
thought process was, but it's just so self-righteous! Did they
just not consider the degree to which their cultural claim over
the New World affected its indigenous people? Were they aware of
their actions? or were they just so focused on their own
progress that they failed to recognize others progress? Was this
power dynamic inevitable or could it have been avoided?
#Post#: 104--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 5: Joyce Chaplin
By: Casey A Date: January 12, 2019, 7:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I find it interesting that the start of racism was credited by
this article to be accidental. I never considered that in the
past, so it is hard to say if I thought that was the case before
reading the article. At one point the author describes what
lead into racism as a mutation. I like this word because it
signifies the start of a bad thing that was unintentional. Not
to say that racism is not our fault, because it is our fault.
What started off as false theories of the differences between
races later turned into providing disadvantages to people of
different races. New technology was created and only whites
were allowed to obtain the full benefits of some of these. Now
I am connecting racism to the idea that we saw people of
different races as animalistic and that they were not supposed
to obtain all of the abilities that humans should have.
#Post#: 105--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 5: Joyce Chaplin
By: Casey A Date: January 12, 2019, 7:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In responce to Shi Shi, I agree, it does present the Europeans
as “self-righteous” and weird of how they can come to America
and see others there and think that they are the true natives.
It’s like pushing someone of a chair and saying that they sat in
it first. I wonder if why so many people believed this was due
to the human nature of finding it hard to think for ourselves.
When somebody makes a claim and it is supported by other people,
such as scientists, we don’t stop to question it or explain to
ourselves why it is that way. I think that’s what happened back
then.
#Post#: 106--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 5: Joyce Chaplin
By: Cale is not me. Date: January 12, 2019, 9:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have a few questions and a few disconnected thoughts about
this reading.
1. On page 72 as well as a few other places it is mentioned that
the Europeans thought that the syphilis they brought to be an
"Indian Disease". As far as I understand syphilis had been
around in Europe for quite a while so why did they not recognize
it for what it is? Is it connected to how they viewed the new
nature to them would change their physicality?
2. It was interesting and really really important to see how
this racism developed. I have often heard that there always has
been racism meaning it probably won't ever go away. Clearly
based on the reading and prior knowledge this isn't the case. I
think people have a tendency to look at the past with too much
of lense from the present and that was especially clear in the
differences between modern-day highlighted in the reading.
3. The idea that a location can physically alter you is
something I had never heard of but clearly connects heavily to
topics of race. Again, it's a case where I think people look
into the past expecting it to be too similar to the present and
that's why I haven't heard of this.
Ok, goodnight.
#Post#: 107--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 5: Joyce Chaplin
By: mayafb Date: January 13, 2019, 9:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As a current reader of this text looking back upon this time
period, it is very hard for me to separate my scientific views
and understanding of epidemiology to not clutter my view of this
reading. I can understand why the colonists saw themselves as
bodily superior to the Native Peoples because of their ability
to survive these disease, but I cannot understand how the
colonists saw the Native peoples as inexperienced and unseasoned
to the land. From what I understand about history, the colonists
often asked Natives for help with farming and food (really
something about Plymouth Plantation makes me think this). So if
this group of people was able to assist the colonizers in their
adjustment to this "new world," how would they have less of a
stake on the land then those who have this knowledge. I suppose
that I am simply trying to point the flaws out in this notion
that the colonists had with my own understanding. That
supposedly is not truly fair to the colonizers because I have
greater access to knowledge then they did. However, that does
not mean that I am understanding of their ideas. When did the
idea "first come, first serve" that we learn in preschool become
something commonly understood? If someone gets to the snack
station first, they get a snack first. If someone raises their
hand first, they get called on first. So when did this become a
common practice and why didn't the settlers think this way?
#Post#: 108--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 5: Joyce Chaplin
By: mayafb Date: January 13, 2019, 10:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Shi Shi link=topic=6.msg102#msg102
date=1547328419]
[quote author=Reed link=topic=6.msg101#msg101 date=1547315140]
The thesis of this paper seems to be that racism against native
Americans developed in part from how they much they died from
old world diseases, which the white people eventually concluded
came from some sort of racial failing to adjust to their
environment. However, most of the racist discourse I encounter
is the coupling of ideas about bodies with ideas about morality,
and that The Different Races™ have certain moral and personal
inclinations that make them inferior and worth being hated. At
this place and point in time, the biggest source of moral and
personal direction white colonists had was the bible.
[/quote]
I, too, was intrigued by the religious perspective European
colonists continuously returned to when discussing issues of
race and inferiority. While I agree that the English may have
interpreted the Native People's land management as inferior due
to their lack of Christian belief, I also believe that part of
their interpretation circulated back to the idea that European's
physiology was just "better-suited" to America's environment
because of God Himself. Chaplin wrote that "Scholars have
pointed to English statements that the Indians' afflictions were
providential, supernatural mandates against natives and in favor
of the invaders..." (244). She later points out a quote from
John Smith illustrating a similar idea which believed that
Native American's afflictions were a gift of some sort from God
to the European settlers.
[/quote]
I think that this comes from a lack of understanding about how
germs and immunity work. If both Jane Molding and I were asked
to pick up the same box, but she couldn't and I could, then I
would assume that I was stronger than her. Although similar to
immunity, strength is gained, if I did not understand that, then
I would think that I was inherently better than Jane Molding
because I was able to do this when she couldn't. So adding the
religion piece into it, if I thought that my strength that
allowed me to pick up that box was given to me by God, I think I
would feel chosen or special. God would have specifically made
me this strong and therefore proves that I am favorable to Him.
#Post#: 109--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 5: Joyce Chaplin
By: alaina.h Date: January 13, 2019, 10:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This reading was quite intriguing for me, thinking about the
upcoming of racism through the environmental history lense was
something I’ve never thought about before. The fact that a
factor for the inferiority of the Natives was because of lack of
ability to fight off diseases in comparison to European was
super interesting to me. On page 64, the author writes about the
identity and racial identity, “the body was a site for the
construction of identity; racial identity was a logical if
unintended outgrowth of earlier understandings of corporeal
differences among people.” The main word I focused on here was
“unintended,”which did confuse me a bit. I guess people were
beginning to notice bodily differences when relating to disease
and such, but I still don’t understand how the idea of racism
grew from that to such large proportions. To me it seemed as
though Native people had a strong grasp of their environment and
had great survival skills, so in that manner I would think that
others wouldn’t see that as a weakness.
This reading had a focus on the human to human environmental
aspects according to a idiom that was brought up on page 62,
“the significant human variation in North America was not due to
external environment but instead lay within the bodies of its
European and Indian peoples.” It was different to think about
how humans affect humans as they move to new locations.
What Cale brought up about location and how it affected how
people’s physical appearance was something that I also found
interesting. It was by the physical location that children and
families were changing as they moved to this land. I almost
don’t believe it. Maybe it was just because in my head I was
thinking about a smaller timeline, but I’m unsure.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page