DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 4, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 118--------------------------------------------------
Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
DIR By: TeacherRachel
Date: January 14, 2019, 7:47 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. Rememebr that each person needs to answer
the question asked in the post before theirs, and must ask a
question for the next post to answer...
#Post#: 119--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
DIR By: liamf
Date: January 14, 2019, 12:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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?
I think the most important distinction between how Native
Americans and colonists view Ownership differently is when it
comes to what’s classified as one’s property. The reading refers
to Europeans practice of land ownership, and talks about how
most Native Americans believed only in territorial rights to the
land. In the eyes of the Native Americans, land could be
“owned”, but unique territories were mainly formed for the
hunting of animals. The Europeans, however, were either granted
their land by the English crown (with no consideration of prior
ownership), or they acquired it from the natives. I think this
difference heavily affected the relationship between the Native
Americans and the Settlers. The vast differences when it came to
what constitutes “ownership” of land according to both parties
created a massive divide between these groups of people. It
could be argued that these differences were responsible for
discriminatory events down the line such as the Indian Removal
act, and subsequently the Trail of Tears.
My question is, What are some of long term impacts that the
Native Americans faced as a result of these differences in what
constitutes “ownership”? In what ways are these impacts still
present today?
#Post#: 120--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
DIR By: ccogswell
Date: January 14, 2019, 12:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So, what’s in a name? More than I had previously thought, it
turns out. What and how we name land is rooted in the property
systems of the culture we live in. At first, it seemed like the
method of naming land differed among Native and English
communities, but the more I look at it, I think they’re actually
almost the same. Both Native and English name land based on
their property systems, or ultimately how ownership of land is
defined. Names in both cultures are used to dictate where
ownership lies, and the ownership is determined based on human
use of the ecological space within the property. Yes, English
names are weirder and often seem like they come out of nowhere,
but they still exist to define ownership of the resources in a
given space. The systematic difference in defining land proved
to be a complication when selling and purchasing land, as
“Indians, at least in the beginning, thought they were selling
one thing and the English thought they were buying another” (pg.
70). The confusion probably was not the sole reason for
jurisdiction to be passed to the English Crown, but was
definitely a major deciding factor in that (domineering)
transfer.
My question is this: Did Europeans and Native Americans truly
view ownership differently, or was this supposed difference a
result of variation in nomenclative expression?
#Post#: 121--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
DIR By: ccogswell
Date: January 14, 2019, 12:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: liamf link ---
>
> 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?
>
> I think the most important distinction between how Native
Americans and colonists view Ownership differently is when it
comes to what’s classified as one’s property. The reading refers
to Europeans practice of land ownership, and talks about how
most Native Americans believed only in territorial rights to the
land. In the eyes of the Native Americans, land could be
“owned”, but unique territories were mainly formed for the
hunting of animals. The Europeans, however, were either granted
their land by the English crown (with no consideration of prior
ownership), or they acquired it from the natives. I think this
difference heavily affected the relationship between the Native
Americans and the Settlers. The vast differences when it came to
what constitutes “ownership” of land according to both parties
created a massive divide between these groups of people. It
could be argued that these differences were responsible for
discriminatory events down the line such as the Indian Removal
act, and subsequently the Trail of Tears.
>
> My question is, What are some of long term impacts that the
Native Americans faced as a result of these differences in what
constitutes “ownership”? In what ways are these impacts still
present today?
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Uhhh oops Liam and I posted at the same time, so I'll answer his
question too!
One modern impact of this "ownership" situation that comes to
mind is something I learned about last mod in US Constitutions.
The Supreme Court case Carpenter v. Murphy deals directly with
how land was handled in the past and how this affects who has
legal jurisdiction over it today. So much of the records and
laws about the ownership, sales, and purchases of land belonging
to Native Americans is vague and flexible, which leaves a
frightening amount of room for indigenous communities to be
"legally" exploited.
#Post#: 122--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
DIR By: Casey A
Date: January 14, 2019, 5:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In response to ccogswell, I think there was an actual difference
in how Native Americans and Europeans viewed ownership. I think
a lot of what the Native Americans thought was that they nothing
was really owned; anything was for anyone who used it, which
compared to the European way of looking at ownership, is more
ethical. It seems to me that part of what may be supposed
variation in expression was justified by the European's as being
able to alter its meaning to what ever they wanted it to mean.
Of course Europeans did not have to pretend to alter the meaning
as they could really do what ever they wanted regardless of what
the Native Americans said, but the use of the excuse of a
variation in word meaning by the Europeans is to present the
facts as more ethical. Which I think is at the core of this
article, how can you do what ever you want to do, in a way that
seems ethical? The way this article presents it, it is
unethical and to for the Europeans to make it seem ethical makes
it seem even more unethical.
Okay, now time for my question, in what ways is America after
the Europeans arrived a translation of Europe itself?
#Post#: 123--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
DIR By: Tommy Is The Person Who I Am
Date: January 14, 2019, 5:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Casey A link ---
>
> Okay, now time for my question, in what ways is America after
the Europeans arrived a translation of Europe itself?
>
--- End Quote ---
This particular reading discusses how English settlers from
different regions of England viewed land ownership differently
in America. Cronon mentions settlers in places such as Rowley or
Sudbury, who were not extremely determined to gain new land
because they had come from a system in which peasant farmers
shared common lands. He also mentions others in towns such as
Ipswich or Scituate who were more used to owning land and thus
more determined to acquire more once they came to America. This
demonstrates that European systems did carry over into America.
Owning land privately proved to be the more popular model in New
England, demonstrating that though systems might come over from
England, certain ones would prove to be more successful in this
new land.
English settlers may have come to a new land, but it is
important to point out that they were still under the command of
England. In 1717 the Connecticut Court declared, "That all lands
in this government are holden of the King of Great Britain as
the lord of the fee: and that no title to any lands in this
Colony can accrue by any purchase made of Indians" (71). Such a
declaration may have primarily served to undermine the control
Indians had over their land, but it also demonstrates that
English colonists still acted based on the English king. Of
course, it's not extremely groundbreaking to say that English
colonists existed in an English colony, but it is important to
remember when considering the translation of English systems to
America.
In short, I believe that English settlers began to impose
English systems onto America as soon as they arrived, being used
to an English way of live and being under the country's command.
Over time, white American and English existence began to
diverge. For example, even in the 17th century, immigrants to
America began to view land and property as equivalent to money,
and over time develop the ideas of commodity and profit. Such
shifts may have also begun to occur in England, but it is
interesting to consider that at that point in time there would
not be a simple "translation" of beliefs to America, as English
settlers had already established themselves in the New World and
begun to develop new systems.
My question for the next person — How does the logic that
concluded that Native Americans were weak and not native to
their own land parallel the logic described in this piece, which
was used to conclude that Native Americans did not rightfully
own their land?
#Post#: 124--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
DIR By: renee
Date: January 14, 2019, 6:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In response to Casey’s question…
(whoops I didn't see Tommy's response until after I posted this)
The Europeans had a huge impact on restructuring America.
Individual towns established in America behaved differently
depending on where in England those inhabitants came from.
Rowley and Sudbury, for instance, were settled by colonists
coming from open-field areas where there was little enclosed,
private land. However in Ipswich and Scituate, closed-field
systems were recreated with private property and an early
development of real estate. The closed-field system later became
more popular in New England towns.
The Europeans also quickly mirrored their social hierarchy in
America. The amount of land an individual could own was only as
big as they could care for and “improve.” People with many
servants and animals could “improve” more land than someone else
with fewer. Therefore, larger plots of land were given to the
more wealthy. Europeans established a social hierarchy based on
wealth, one that is unfortunately still upheld today.
The Europeans hardly paid any attention to how the Native
Americans lived and imposed their own social and governing rules
onto the land. Instead they simply translated their own rules
and ideals onto the new land.
My question is: How does the European's idea of owning land and
having strict boundaries contrast against the Native American's
idea of sharing land?
#Post#: 125--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
DIR By: Shi Shi
Date: January 14, 2019, 6:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I find it very interesting to view America's progress from
European settler's perspective. In both instances, I think
Europeans simply didn't, or even couldn't, understand their
influences on other cultures. I would like to compare their
experience in Europe to the idiom of living in a bubble.
Europeans were unaware of what was happening in other parts of
the world. They developed their own ideas, and because they had
minimal contact with undiscovered cultures, ideas, etc., they
automatically understood their conclusions as the correct
solution and answer. This idea, I think, translates over to
European's understanding of property. They were familiar with
only one (the crown's) interpretation in relation to how
property and land should be defined as. I think they struggled
with understanding the idea that there is no single "right"
definition to a term, which is why they monopolized (i don't
know if that's the word to use??) land in order to implement a
system to which they were used to. European Settler's failed to,
or perhaps even chose not to, understand Native American's
system of land usage and idea of property. Relating back to the
idea of racial inferiority, I suppose this notion goes hand in
hand. Europeans believed that their systems and hierarchies were
superior solely due to a lack of understanding; their history
was so self-focused that it failed to recognize other factors
which could be "correct", but still different.
(I forgot to mention that I was responding to Tommy's post!!!
Sorry!)
My Question is: From both the European settler's and the Native
American's perspectives, how fair do you think it is for grants
to be revoked from individuals lest there be no substantial
"improvement" in the land?
#Post#: 126--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
DIR By: Cale is not me.
Date: January 14, 2019, 6:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Tommy Is The Person Who I Am link ---
>
> [quote author=Casey A link=topic=7.msg122#msg122
date=1547507053]
> Okay, now time for my question, in what ways is America after
the Europeans arrived a translation of Europe itself?
>
--- End Quote ---
This particular reading discusses how English settlers from
different regions of England viewed land ownership differently
in America. Cronon mentions settlers in places such as Rowley or
Sudbury, who were not extremely determined to gain new land
because they had come from a system in which peasant farmers
shared common lands. He also mentions others in towns such as
Ipswich or Scituate who were more used to owning land and thus
more determined to acquire more once they came to America. This
demonstrates that European systems did carry over into America.
Owning land privately proved to be the more popular model in New
England, demonstrating that though systems might come over from
England, certain ones would prove to be more successful in this
new land.
English settlers may have come to a new land, but it is
important to point out that they were still under the command of
England. In 1717 the Connecticut Court declared, "That all lands
in this government are holden of the King of Great Britain as
the lord of the fee: and that no title to any lands in this
Colony can accrue by any purchase made of Indians" (71). Such a
declaration may have primarily served to undermine the control
Indians had over their land, but it also demonstrates that
English colonists still acted based on the English king. Of
course, it's not extremely groundbreaking to say that English
colonists existed in an English colony, but it is important to
remember when considering the translation of English systems to
America.
In short, I believe that English settlers began to impose
English systems onto America as soon as they arrived, being used
to an English way of live and being under the country's command.
Over time, white American and English existence began to
diverge. For example, even in the 17th century, immigrants to
America began to view land and property as equivalent to money,
and over time develop the ideas of commodity and profit. Such
shifts may have also begun to occur in England, but it is
interesting to consider that at that point in time there would
not be a simple "translation" of beliefs to America, as English
settlers had already established themselves in the New World and
begun to develop new systems.
My question for the next person — How does the logic that
concluded that Native Americans were weak and not native to
their own land parallel the logic described in this piece, which
was used to conclude that Native Americans did not rightfully
own their land?
[/quote]
In response to Tommy's question, the logic behind the
justification of the inferior was due to their weakness. When in
their own habitat the Native Americans did not survive (little
did the English know it was their fault) while the colonists
thrived and utilized all the resources they found. The Native
Americans, from the view of the English, did not make the best
of the land. According to the text: "To European eyes, Indians
appeared to squander the resources that were available to them."
From the modern perspective, we have we know that they were
using the resources just in a different way. To the Europeans at
the time though it likely added to the case/justification that
they couldn't properly survive or thrive on their own land. They
both added it to the lists of reasons they thought the natives
were inferior as well as using it as a reason to let themselves
take the land.
Question time:
The section about the names of locations and how it acted as a
map relative to other locations was really interesting and not
something I had heard over before. Is/was this used in other
cultures or places that you know of? How was this system put in
place?
#Post#: 127--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
DIR By: juliab
Date: January 14, 2019, 7:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In answer to Cale's Question:
I have seen this naming tactic broadly in other countries. For
example, Tajikistan means “The land of the Tajiks” and this
applies to all of the different countries with the suffix
“-stan” (Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan,
Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan) because this suffix means “the land
of”. It doesn’t speak specifically about the ecological content
of the land but it does speak about the cultural and ethnic
composure of the country. Another closer example to what is
written in the article are names on the cape. For example, my
family lives on a river in Orleans with the name “Namequoit”,
which means “at the fishing place” which came from Native
American origins. However I do not know where these naming
processes came from, I just have to assume it something that
developed along with the etymology of the rest of our language.
My question: How do the definitions of ownership of land in this
article translate to our definition now? Or how has it changed?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page