DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 4, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 128--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
DIR By: Kasey
Date: January 14, 2019, 8:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Answering Shi Shi's Question:
Disclaimer: I start of by thinking out my ideas of property and
land. Then I continue on to use what I concluded to answer Shi
Shi's Question.
I think this idea of property is very interesting and what is
considered property or gives someone the right to this property?
Europeans saw property as area used for farming, cattle, and/or
shelter, and they couldn’t see how anyone would have property
that wasn’t used for those needs. With this perspective and
definition, they were able to justify their reasoning for their
right to the land that Native Americans were not using for
crops. My contrasting beliefs are people are just people and
shouldn’t we want diversity and to coexist with one another? But
I see that people are different and want to be with others that
are similar and know what they know and live the way they live.
I think I would draw the line by stating that Europeans and
Native Americans should give each other space to live on land
they find which is not being used in any sort of way by each
other, if this becomes complicated be civilized and respectful
and ask the other if they can use this land. For example, if
there was land being used by Native Americans for hunting and
Europeans wanted to use this land as well, Europeans could
simply find a way to ask them if they could use the land without
interrupting the Native Americans way of life. I guess this is
my ideal process of how Europeans and Native Americans should
have went about discovering whose property is whose, but people
naturally want justification for what they believe which brings
the question to who really owns property and what is property.
With this being said, I do not see why one’s point of view of
“improvement” could give them enough power to revoke grants
because improvements can be so many different things based on
whose perspective it is. If one is using land, I think that is a
good enough reason to continue on with what they are using the
land for. I don’t see why someone else could keep one from using
land, as long as they are not negatively interfering with
someone else, based on their interpretation is of an
improvement.
My question is: How would you define property? Can someone ever
own property or have a right to a piece of land? Could you
relate this to everyday life now?
#Post#: 129--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
DIR By: kellyf
Date: January 14, 2019, 8:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Cale is not me. link ---
>
> 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?
>
--- End Quote ---
While I cannot answer your question, as I do not know where else
this system was used, I do want to further explore the idea of
names and maps. Christine had a really good argument likening
the way Native Americans and the English use names to show
ownership, though I am not fully convinced. (Which Casey then
touched on, so I am adding on.) I think the fundamental way
Native Americans named land does not show ownership, (individual
or shared) instead it shows ecological/environmental phenomena
(as we see with Pokanoket meaning 'at or near the cleared lands'
(pg. 65)) and political boundaries (for example:
Chabanakongkomuk meaning 'boundary fishing place (pg. 66). Which
are not the same as English names used to mark ownership. We
know the Duke of Buckingham owned Buckingham Palace (and the
land it sits on) because he named it after himself! Whereas,
Native land names do not show ownership but sovereignty, as
people owned "not the land but the things that were on the
land." (pg. 65) How could the Native names show ownership if
land could not be owned? I guess the point I am really arguing
against is, "ownership is determined based on human use of the
ecological space within the property," as I don't believe that
is how Native people determined ownership. (Since there is no
'ownership' of land) Which leads me to an overarching question:
What is the difference between sovereignty and ownership? (For
example: does a Native tribe 'own' the land they occupy? Why or
why not?)
Also, sorry Cale for not even attempting to answer your
question...
#Post#: 130--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
DIR By: alaina.h
Date: January 14, 2019, 8:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm jumping back to Cale, just saw the other posts..
In response to Cale’s question, I am not 100 percent sure as to
where this was used but it makes complete sense to me that
people would makes maps with this strategy. I can imagine that
in even ancient civilizations that they used terminology that
could describe the land for others when there was even less
technology. People usually look for ways to makes things easier
for people to understand so not much can get mixed up so
therefore I think that these names would come in handy in that
aspect. This simple tactic doesn’t need complicated maps or
drawings, you just need to be able to see to find what the name
entails. Though I can’t give a specific or correct answer for
you my assumptions lead me to believe that these names were a
common strategy for other cultures as well.
My question is… What do you think is the main factor that
created the tension and need for grants and such for ownership
with the Natives and then for the Europeans?
#Post#: 131--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
DIR By: kellyf
Date: January 14, 2019, 8:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Kasey link ---
>
> I don’t see why someone else could keep one from using land,
as long as they are not negatively interfering with someone
else, based on their interpretation is of an improvement.
> My question is: How would you define property? Can someone
ever own property or have a right to a piece of land? Could you
relate this to everyday life now?
>
--- End Quote ---
Whoa, big thoughts. I too find it hard to fully understand
English justification for inhabiting America, though I think
that is just it: justification. I don't want to spend too much
time on that though, because your question is killer. Being a
citizen of what has come to be the United States of America, I
understand property as something (objects, writings, land, etc.)
that belongs to a person. And thinking specifically about land,
property is a piece of land that has been legally agreed upon to
be owned by a person. The legal process being the 'unique
claims' as Cronon describes, meaning if I legally own land, I
have some 'bundle of rights' over that stretch. (pg. 58) This
phenomena happens every single day, for example: the Cambridge
School of Weston sits on legally owned property. But who knows?
The Earth has been here for longer than CSW, so maybe it is not
owned? Just some more thoughts to add to your already big
thoughts.
#Post#: 132--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
DIR By: alaina.h
Date: January 14, 2019, 8:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Because I feel as though I didn’t do the best job of answering
Cale’s question, I want to take a quick stab at Kelly’s. I think
of sovereignty at its most basic definition as holding power
over a certain place and self controlled. Ownership is a more
physical binding thing in my eyes. If a tribe owns something,
others know not to touch it or else there will be issues. But,
ownership in the sense of a Native tribe doesn’t always connect
to location, but to that power aspect. I guess that is where the
sovereignty jumps in because these tribes are looking for more
resources and more land, and the best land. That may not always
be in their exact locations. I think that groups want to own
things only for when they’re useful. During this time you needed
to find what could support your tribe, so as long as you can
claim certain resources, you’re good until they’re gone.
So, I do agree with Kelly, there is more to ownership and
sovereignty than you first think and I’m still trying to figure
it all out in my head.
#Post#: 133--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
DIR By: Reed
Date: January 14, 2019, 8:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Responding to Alaina's question: What do you think is the main
factor that created the tension and need for grants and such for
ownership with the Natives and then for the Europeans?
The entire european system of land ownership centers around a
strong understanding of the complicated concept of property.
Property is sort of like a contract that everyone has to sign
off on to be real. It doesn’t matter if you say that you own
something if other people don’t treat you and your object or
property as yours, and requiring your permission to use, and
being protected by certain laws and expectations, and, most
importantly, in this case, that the property has the potential
to be bought and sold. In order for all of these things to be
kept straight, and in order to ensure that everyone complies,
there have to be laws about property, and written documents
about what sort of property different people have acquired and
what value it has and what they or anyone else is allowed to do
to it. The main factor that created the tension, then, is
probably that creating such a mass of documents made profiting
off of land that much easier: “More than anything else, it was
the treatment of land and property as commodities traded at
market that distinguished english conceptions of ownership from
indian ones.” (75) which also probably contributed to racism,
because if you’re that intensely capitalist, you probably have a
lot of disdain for people who aren’t capitalist.
My optional question is: What could the natives have conceivably
done to protect their land use and way of life from the english
settlers without resorting to any major paradigm shifts?
#Post#: 134--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
DIR By: jterry2020
Date: January 14, 2019, 8:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In response to Reed’s question: What could the natives have
conceivably done to protect their land use and way of life from
the english settlers without resorting to any major paradigm
shifts?
It's a tough question because the two cultures were extremely
different, and they English were more greedy and ruthless, so it
might have been inevitable that the natives would at some point
have to give up their land and/or drastically change their way
of life. Theoretically, they natives could have tried to not
sell any of their land, but it seems like they tried and the
rules of initial sales were unclear enough so that the natives
didn’t know how much they were giving up. Another option
(although this might be a paradigm shift) would be to sell a
large part of land to the English to divide up themselves, and
set a precedent that the rest of the land was for the natives to
do as they please. This scenario is unlikely, though, as the
natives had no incentive to forever part with a large part of
their land and give it to new settlers. Again, the result seems
unless there was a significant change in way of life in either
population. Also, once the English established a form of
government and felt America was a desirable place to live, their
settlements will only expand, pushing the natives further and
further away.
Question: An earlier essay mentioned a motivation to come to
America was to escape the restricting nature and pressures of
the city. Did they English not believe America would eventually
turn out the same? Or would that scenario develop after their
lifetimes? Or was America too big for that to happen?
#Post#: 135--------------------------------------------------
Re: Post #6: Cronon's Changes in the Land
DIR By: mayafb
Date: January 14, 2019, 9:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Question: An earlier essay mentioned a motivation to come to
America was to escape the restricting nature and pressures of
the city. Did they English not believe America would eventually
turn out the same? Or would that scenario develop after their
lifetimes? Or was America too big for that to happen?
Woah. I think that originally the colonists did not know the
size of America and therefore I cannot say, with faith, that the
size played into their beliefs about restriction. From my own
colonial based knowledge and understanding, the colonies were a
strategic move to gain more land in the world and to, therefore,
assert dominance. That, however, is from the more higher up
political side and not truly the side of the actual immigrants.
I feel it would be dishonest to make assumptions on the
motivations for coming to the colonies and beyond without having
more knowledge. However, I will try (?). I think there was a
push to escape the life in much of England. But from my own
education, I am lead to believe that is was much more of an
economic move that it was a personal health move. In terms of
the whole "after their lifetimes" part of this question, as my
understanding of the whole "linear time" theory it would make
sense if they did not truly think more than 3 generations into
the future. I really feel like I need more research to actually
answer this question.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page