DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 4, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 110--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 5: Joyce Chaplin
By: juliab Date: January 13, 2019, 11:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What I found interesting about this reading was how intensely it
seemed the Europeans were looking for any reason to place the
Native Americans “below” them. I had never thought about the
origins of racism in the ways that this article argued. I
noticed that in a few places they were talking about how they
were switching between attempting to differentiate between each
other by culture and by physical traits. Though the majority of
the reading focused on the physical differences of the English
settlers and the Native Americans, the author also quoted Roger
Williams as having said that “Nature knowes no difference
between Europe and Americans in blood, birth, and bodies” (76).
I guess I’m just kind of confused as to what they really
believed.
I was also interested in this quote :“To distance themselves
from the natives, the English explained that America’s effects
on them were cultural rather than physical.” (75) Does this mean
that they were being affected by the cultural norms in America?
If so, which aspects of the culture were they picking up?
Because it seems to me that they are trying to find any way that
they aren’t the same.
#Post#: 111--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 5: Joyce Chaplin
By: Kasey Date: January 13, 2019, 2:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I see how Europeans may have thought highly of themselves
because they didn’t die of any diseases once they reached the
New World and many Native Americans did. I can see how they
thought they were thriving and growing with this new discovery
of land, immunity to diseases, and the more “advanced”
technology they had compared to Native Americans. I guess what I
struggle with understanding is that even though they were doing
well in those categories, they were still struggling to get
water and eat certain foods from the New World. Did they
consider that their food and water was better in Europe and
disregard the fact that their bodies couldn’t handle some of the
resources in the New World? It seems as that the English wanted
to conform America and turn the land into England, hence the
name they gave it “New England.” They saw the land in America
unable to grow what was be grown easily in England, so maybe
they saw American land as less advanced helping them feel even
more superior.
What I wonder is: these inabilities to drink water and eat
certain fruits and grains in America as the English could have
been taken in two ways: they are so much more advanced than the
New World or they are not able to do such simple tasks to
fulfill their basic needs in America making them not superior.
Why did the English take it as if they were superior? Was it
because they were optimistic? Or had already felt so proud of
themselves for finding the New World?
Responding to Shi Shi’s post: I also found it interesting on the
way the English viewed themselves and others. The idea of
“themselves as more native to America than Native Americans,”
(Shi Shi) was very odd to me, and I don’t understand why they
saw themselves as so superior when they too struggled with the
land. The question “were they just so focused on their own
progress that they failed to recognize others progress?” I think
is very interesting. I guess that with successfully surviving in
a completely new land that they had found made them think very
highly of themselves and did not take time to recognize the
advancements of the Native Americans and how nature in America
affected them.
#Post#: 112--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 5: Joyce Chaplin
By: renee Date: January 13, 2019, 3:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
One of the things I found interesting in this reading was how
reluctant Europeans were to adapt to America. They feared that
“mere birth in America produced children different from old
World children or even that acclimation of adults created
essentially different beings” (73). They clearly did not want to
undergo any physical changes, even if it meant having a higher
chance of survival in a foreign land. Europeans faced many
dangers coming to a new country; they had to be careful drinking
water and eating certain foods. If they were scared of adapting
to the environment, did they just not mind the fact that they
had to avoid water and certain foods? Obviously, the Europeans
did change physically as they became able to drink and eat
without worrying about getting sick. However, they tried to
cover up these physical changes as cultural in order to
distinguish themselves from the Native Americans.
Adding to Kasey’s post, why didn’t the Europeans accept these
physical changes to survive in a new environment? Did they feel
that these changes would make them more like Native Americans,
and therefore “inferior”? Kasey asked why the Europeans even
felt superior since they had a hard time adapting to life in the
New World. I think that in comparison to the deaths of Native
Americans the Europeans seemed much healthier and felt
“superior”.
#Post#: 113--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 5: Joyce Chaplin
By: Tommy Is The Person Who I Am Date: January 13, 2019, 6:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In discussions of modern immigration into the United States,
people often point out that we are a “nation of immigrants,”
with Native Americans being the only people that are truly
native to the country. I had always figured that that belief had
been the consensus for a long period of time, and that more
recently people had chosen to ignore it. Thus in reading
Chaplin’s essay I was surprised to learn that centuries ago
European colonists developed the belief that they were the
rightful inhabitants of America. The concept that the Indians
they encountered were not aboriginal, but rather a wave of
colonists. The idea that there had previously been a group of
“original and highly civilized residents of America” (81) was
new to me. I find it intriguing that these ideas, which appear
to have been integral in European treatment of Native Americans,
are not widely discussed today.
Furthermore, I found it interesting how these theories and
others were based on flawed logic and little evidence. For
example, John Lawson concluded that Native Americans had arrived
recently based on biblical history and what might have been
ancient iron tools. I find it intriguing, though also
concerning, that a group of people could have the seizure of
their homeland be justified by such incomplete evidence. At the
same time, Europeans were apprehensive to find differences
between themselves and Native Americans in certain regards until
they could come up with (often pseudo-) scientific theories to
justify them.
I was also surprised to learn that during the Revolutionary War
there was greater acceptance of white Europeans and Native
Americans marrying due to the desire to separate from England
and have more support in the revolution. Essentially, my main
takeaway from this reading was that beliefs that we may take for
granted can be very liable to shifting, and may be based on very
flawed reasoning.
#Post#: 114--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 5: Joyce Chaplin
By: jterry2020 Date: January 13, 2019, 7:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
While reading the section, I was interested in the Engish’
process regarding their “scientific” discoveries and
conclusions. Initially, their motives were to reassure
themselves that their English bodies would not be ruined by the
American climate, and then to prove to the people back in
England that America was a desirable place to live/colonize.
Later, the motive evolved to finding justification to take the
land as their own. Eventually, they (or at least one of them)
decide that “‘God had laid this Country open for us, and slaine
the most part of the inhabitants by civill warres and a morall
disease’” (75).There is an interesting contrast between the two
motives as the results of the first would, in theory, impact the
English’ decision to colonize (although the conclusion now seems
inevitable), while the second was purely one of justification.
This process fits into a weird area of “science” in which the
people taking the data, making conclusions, and making decisions
with these conclusions all fall within the same group that
benefits from the scientific conclusions being incorrect (and
there is no consequence for wrong science). This is apparent in
the lack of effort put into finding real data to back up their
claims besides anecdotal evidence.
#Post#: 115--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 5: Joyce Chaplin
By: ccogswell Date: January 13, 2019, 7:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I’m quite lost after this reading. I was unfamiliar with the
fact that Europeans didn’t believe native Americans were, well,
native and American. That was new to me, and I don’t really know
what to make of it. Now, I understand (somewhat) the European
thought process that led to their belief that native people were
not as suited to the American climate as they were - due to a
lack of science and perhaps common sense, the Europeans weren’t
able to recognize European diseases in the natives, nor did they
know it was their presence in America that was causing
widespread illness in native communities. If one group is
experiencing this horrific disease, and another isn’t, obviously
something is different between them, and I can see why they
would not immediately think this might have something to do with
their environment. I can see why they would believe there is a
physical difference between the two groups. What I can’t see is
how an inability to fight disease indicates physical
inferiority. Physical weakness? Maybe? But white people got
diseased all the time! And correct me if I’m wrong, but white
people died from the plague, they weren’t seen as inferior, just
unfortunate. Beyond that, how does physical inferiority
surrounding illness turn into racism? I think I understand what
is trying to be said, I just don’t really feel like the point
has convinced me.
#Post#: 116--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 5: Joyce Chaplin
By: liamf Date: January 13, 2019, 8:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I thought the most interesting idea in the reading was About how
the English settlers used the Native Americans as reason for
their troubles in America. “Mather deplored that the climate
could "Indianize" the English by making them lazy and
disrespectful of authority, though presumably not dark of
complexion or otherwise changed in body.” (75) I found this
interesting because it shows how deeply rooted Racism is in
American History. Starting, quite literally, with the first
English settlers in North America. Additionally, Disease that
were present in England that were brought over by the settlers
and spread to the Natives were denied to be English born
diseases as a result of the settlers. This idea is furthered on
page (76), which talks about “When Squanto, ally of the Pilgrims
at Plymouth, died from what seems to have been a European
malady.” Instead of taking responsibility, Settlers “categorized
it as "an Indian fever" in the same way Smith assumed that the
syphilis at Jamestown had to be an Indian disease and not
something the English had brought.” (76) I found this to be
really interesting, as it seems as though it was the begging of
Native discrimination in the United States. It makes me wonder
how much different our nation would be today had we decided to
work with the natives as opposed to blame them and not take
responsibility for our actions.
#Post#: 117--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading 5: Joyce Chaplin
By: JTodd Date: January 13, 2019, 9:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This text doesn't feel like news to me.
The naïvety of Europeans for colonizing and exploring the
Americas is no new concept. In the case of the British in North
America, on which the scope of the article is focused, the
British needed a justification for their actions and claims of
superiority over Native Americans. There was no way race
wouldn't be involved in this explanation. Race had to be
involved because, to the British, race was the most obvious of
what they would consider a fundamental difference between the
two peoples. It is no profound revelation that Europeans went
with the easiest answer, one which also happened to be the
sloppiest and least considerate answer. That answer also laid
the foundation for discrimination and mistreatment of native
peoples for centuries more to come.
I relate these concepts back to the Krech reading where the
question of why Europeans described an abundance of everything
from fish to timber while there was an undoubted presence of
environmental degradation and alteration by native peoples that
was in no way unnoticeable. The reason Europeans did not include
these alterations and were so hasty to skip any chance at
cultural respect and understanding was that of the vast,
seemingly bottomless, cornucopia from which Europeans saw fit to
draw resources from in order build lives and wealth for
themselves. The British wouldn't have cared about native peoples
because the natives didn't have enough guns, germs, or steel
(s/o to my guy Diamond) to pose as a barrier between colonizers
and the resources over which the entirety of Europe salivated.
European greed is also no new concept, but I believe it is at
the heart of this issue.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page