DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 4, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 136--------------------------------------------------
#7: "Bisons on the Great Plains" by Andrew Isenberg
and Brian Donahue, "The Rise and Fall of Mixed
By: TeacherRachel Date: January 16, 2019, 5:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please read:
"Bisons on the Great Plains" by Andrew Isenberg (pp. 51-59) (but
it's actually only a couple of pages, don't worry)
AND
Brian Donahue, "The Rise and Fall of Mixed Husbandry in New
England," from Reclaiming the Commons pp.109-117*,
*Stop at paragraph break.
Post, as always... Ask a question and answer a question.
#Post#: 137--------------------------------------------------
Re: #7: "Bisons on the Great Plains" by Andrew Isenber
g and Brian Donahue, "The Rise and Fall of M
By: Kasey Date: January 16, 2019, 5:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I found it interesting that throughout these readings Native
Americans and English immigrants were very dependent on other
animals. Native Americans nomads became dependent on horses and
brought them to become dependent on bison for hunting. Also, the
English became very dependent on cattle in Massachusetts. Soil
was being predominantly used for sustaining healthy cattle
rather than growing crops for humans to eat. Looking at this
connection, I recognize the process in which humans become
dependent on others and start to struggle to live without these
advancements they’ve discovered. Through what they become
dependent on, it affects the environment around them. Native
nomads become more common because they could easily raid
villagers and villagers were dying from diseases. Land with very
poor soil was adapted into grazing land for cattle and uses of
drainage in meadows helped grow grasses in areas of flooded
land. Families were being fed and were raised very healthy, and
generation after generation, lands were being tilled. As Native
Americans and the English adapted to new resources such as
horses and hunting materials and to the environment around them,
the environment was also adapting and reacting to the changes in
which humans created.
I am still struggling to understand why enclosing pastures was
good for grazing and more productive for cattle. How did that
come to be?
#Post#: 138--------------------------------------------------
Re: #7: "Bisons on the Great Plains" by Andrew Isenber
g and Brian Donahue, "The Rise and Fall of M
By: renee Date: January 16, 2019, 5:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It seems incredible to me that the Europeans were able to turn
unpredictable and infertile soil into lands thriving with
cattle, horses, orchards, and many more crops. The soil was “too
wet for the plow in some places, too stony in others, and sandy
and dry where it was plowable. The topsoil was thin, sour, and,
unless manured, easily exhausted of available nutrients” (110).
Previously, the Native American farmers had only worked each
field for one year before moving because of the unfertilized
soil. New England had never supported grazing animals before so
the Europeans, who wished to raise cattle, were up for a
challenge. They needed to grow enough grass in the region to
feed the cows year-round. The earliest established towns in New
England were settled close to wet places where there was an
abundance of grass. The location of the first towns in New
England were largely influenced by the natural landscape. As we
briefly discussed today, the existing environment creates clear
boundaries between people. If most of New England was covered in
grass then the earliest towns would be much larger and more
numerous than the few mentioned in the reading such as
Watertown, Concord, Dedham, and Sudbury.
From the description in the reading, I would think that the New
England landscape would seem too hard to improve for the
Europeans. Even the Native Americans were unable to improve the
soil.
If the Europeans could clearly see that the soil in New England
would be hard to work with and improve, why were they so keen on
settling and farming here? Was their determination based on a
desire to prove their “superiority” to the Native Americans who
couldn’t work the land for an extended period of time?
#Post#: 139--------------------------------------------------
Re: #7: "Bisons on the Great Plains" by Andrew Isenber
g and Brian Donahue, "The Rise and Fall of M
By: juliab Date: January 16, 2019, 6:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I am really interested in how the article focuses on locations
that we are familiar with. For me, one of the towns they talked
about the most was where I live (watertown). Seeing the author
talking about cows and other animals grazing. To me, Watertown
doesn’t seem like a place that ever had animals feeding off the
land, because it’s never felt like there was much land at all
aside from what’s been covered by houses. When I was in 3rd
grade, my best friend [who also lived in Watertown] had pet
chickens in her backyard, and at the time that seemed like the
most exotic thing to me. However I wasn’t all that far off,
because it wasn’t very easy for them to raise animals there. A
few years later they ended up moving to a farm in Lincoln. It
made it much easier for me to engage with the concept of
environmental history when I began thinking about my own town.
I’m surprised by myself and how this never came up in my mind
while reading it in the first place.
I wonder what the environmental history of Watertown will look
like in 50 or 100 years. So far, most of the history we’ve
covered has been so far back that our modern ways of living
don’t apply. I am curious to what the footprint will look like
with all of the electricity and water that we use and the waste
that we make in a city that is becoming more and more urbanized.
#Post#: 140--------------------------------------------------
Re: #7: "Bisons on the Great Plains" by Andrew Isenber
g and Brian Donahue, "The Rise and Fall of M
By: kellyf Date: January 16, 2019, 6:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=renee link=topic=8.msg138#msg138 date=1547683007]
From the description in the reading, I would think that the New
England landscape would seem too hard to improve for the
Europeans. Even the Native Americans were unable to improve the
soil.
If the Europeans could clearly see that the soil in New England
would be hard to work with and improve, why were they so keen on
settling and farming here? Was their determination based on a
desire to prove their “superiority” to the Native Americans who
couldn’t work the land for an extended period of time?
[/quote]
You are getting at the Cronon reading dissecting ownership. The
Native's hunting and gathering served as a "justification for
expropriating Indian land," as the Europeans did not see
'improvement.' (56) John Winthrop (the colonial theorist)
justified the colony as, "they inclose noe Land, neither have
any setled habytation, nor any tame Cattle to improve the Land
by, and soe have noe other but a Naturall Right to those
Countries." (56) Which we know the Europeans considered less
legit. And while I am extrapolating, it does not seem
far-fetched for colonists to take on the task of 'taming the
land' so they can justify their habitation. Thus, colonists put
more work into maintaining permanent farming as that is what
they know to be 'better', even if it is less effective in the
moment.
#Post#: 141--------------------------------------------------
Re: #7: "Bisons on the Great Plains" by Andrew Isenber
g and Brian Donahue, "The Rise and Fall of M
By: Tommy Is The Person Who I Am Date: January 16, 2019, 6:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
(Note – I have only read Isenberg’s passage so far)
I found it interesting that I noticed more parallels between the
European immigrants and Native Americans who had acquired horses
than other Native American groups discussed in earlier readings.
In Cronon’s Changes in the Land, he discusses Marshall Sahlin’s
quote that “Wants may be ‘easily satisfied’ either by producing
much or desiring little” (80), explaining that New England
Native Americans often took the second approach. This in turn
explains why Indians may have been less incentivized by money
and commerce. Isenberg explains that one reason for Native
Americans to transition to nomadic living was a “rational
economic adjustment,” suggesting that this group would in fact
be ‘incentivized by money and commerce.’ I also found it
intriguing that European traders had an easier time interacting
with these nomadic groups, as the groups had begun to form their
own intertribal trade network. The implication that one culture
could become more similar to another largely due to an animal
from the second culture being introduced to the first has made
me further consider the greatly important effect even one
component of the environment can have on the structure of the
society.
After several readings, I have begun to notice that nearly all
of the environmental changes and cultural interpretations
discussed have had largely negative results, such as the
transfer of disease and the loss of Native American land. Even
in this reading, while the introduction of horses may have
brought more power to nomadic Native American tribes, Isenberg
makes a point of emphasizing the danger of their having
abandoned an ecological safety net. This of course is influenced
by our readings focusing on Indian-European relations, which in
broad terms has not been an especially bright portion of human
history. I wonder — will major, human-incited changes to an
environment always have a significant negative result? What does
this say about humankind’s ability to shape the world around us?
#Post#: 142--------------------------------------------------
Re: #7: "Bisons on the Great Plains" by Andrew Isenber
g and Brian Donahue, "The Rise and Fall of M
By: Cale is not me. Date: January 16, 2019, 7:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The fact that the earliest native Americans came across from
Asia in a small group meant that they didn't bring smallpox or
other diseases is pretty interesting but I have a few possibly
dumb questions. Back at that time was smallpox even such a
prominent thing though? I would have thought It would be pretty
different so long ago. Did the cold have to do with why smallpox
didn't make it? Why was the group crossing to America "small"? I
think that to a modern reader such as my self this migration of
a people crossing continents in this way is not commonly
encountered so I find it interesting to think about as well as
how the groups would change slowly as they got to America.
[move]Im sleepy[/move]
#Post#: 143--------------------------------------------------
Re: #7: "Bisons on the Great Plains" by Andrew Isenber
g and Brian Donahue, "The Rise and Fall of M
By: Shi Shi Date: January 16, 2019, 7:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Tommy Is The Person Who I Am
link=topic=8.msg141#msg141 date=1547683935]
After several readings, I have begun to notice that nearly all
of the environmental changes and cultural interpretations
discussed have had largely negative results, such as the
transfer of disease and the loss of Native American land. Even
in this reading, while the introduction of horses may have
brought more power to nomadic Native American tribes, Isenberg
makes a point of emphasizing the danger of their having
abandoned an ecological safety net. This of course is influenced
by our readings focusing on Indian-European relations, which in
broad terms has not been an especially bright portion of human
history. I wonder — will major, human-incited changes to an
environment always have a significant negative result? What does
this say about humankind’s ability to shape the world around us?
[/quote]
Aha! I think that Tommy's questions connect well with one the
previous reading's forum discussion (I forget which one
specifically though). I remember Kelly and Christine both
writing responses relating to the idea of "progress", and it
seemed that both of them grappled with what exactly "progress"
was. I would like to revisit this complicated idea of progress:
How do environmental progress and human progress differ? Where
do they overlap? Do they overlap? Will they ever overlap?
More specifically in response to Tommy's questions, I believe
that humans are simply unaware of their actions, or maybe they
are so focused on their own progress and advancements that they
fail to notice the degradation of other groups/cultures...is
that the same thing? I think that survival is a key element to
consider when examining the events discussed in tonights
reading. I don't necessarily believe that New Englanders were
being greedy farmers who wanted land; instead, I would like to
look at their choices as an act of pure survival. New Englanders
were forced out of their yeomen ways due to limitations of
environmental resource supplies. They took to commercial farming
simply as a way of "staying afloat". They needed food, and to
get the food they needed money, and to get the money they needed
to sell. It seems amidst these events, New Englanders realized
their actions on the land too late, which then caused them to
become self-focused again and again and again. I keep finding
these recurring themes of progress and self-focus in all of
these readings, and I think they both boil down to the
overarching concept of survival. However, my chain of thought
now circulates back to the questions I asked above.
Will there ever be a time where humans and nature live in
harmony? Will nature and human progress ever overlap? What is
progress?
#Post#: 144--------------------------------------------------
Re: #7: "Bisons on the Great Plains" by Andrew Isenber
g and Brian Donahue, "The Rise and Fall of M
By: Tommy Is The Person Who I Am Date: January 16, 2019, 7:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Cale is not me. link=topic=8.msg142#msg142
date=1547686861]
The fact that the earliest native Americans came across from
Asia in a small group meant that they didn't bring smallpox or
other diseases is pretty interesting but I have a few possibly
dumb questions. Back at that time was smallpox even such a
prominent thing though? I would have thought It would be pretty
different so long ago. Did the cold have to do with why smallpox
didn't make it? Why was the group crossing to America "small"? I
think that to a modern reader such as my self this migration of
a people crossing continents in this way is not commonly
encountered so I find it interesting to think about as well as
how the groups would change slowly as they got to America.
[move]Im sleepy[/move]
[/quote]
If a sparse enough population can rid a group of smallpox,
measles, and other diseases, I imagine that the "success" of
such diseases is closely linked to the density of the population
they appear in. This leads me to believe that smallpox would not
have been such a prominent thing at the time, as populations
would not be dense enough at the time for there to be a
widespread outbreak of the disease (though the population would
be dense enough for the disease to continue to exist). (As for
smallpox's disappearance having to do with the cold — my guess
is that population sparsity would be the more important factor,
as smallpox's survival probably depends on a human's internal
temperature, which wouldn't be able to change much without
endangering the person. Of course, this is just speculation.
Perhaps I will look into this further later.)
I can't seem to find the group crossing the Bering Strait being
referred to as "small" in the reading. Nonetheless, I imagine
that any group of humans from so long ago, especially a nomadic
one, would be considered "small" when compared to the size of
our communities today, ranging from thousands of people to
billions depending on how that "community" is defined.
#Post#: 145--------------------------------------------------
Re: #7: "Bisons on the Great Plains" by Andrew Isenber
g and Brian Donahue, "The Rise and Fall of M
By: alaina.h Date: January 16, 2019, 8:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In response to Shi Shi’s questions…. Will there ever be a time
where humans and nature live in harmony? Will nature and human
progress ever overlap? What is progress?
I think that it would be quite impossible for humans and nature
to ever live in harmony. The amount of damage that humans have
done to damage our environment is too much to ever reach
harmony. When I think about harmony, I’m thinking of being in
that “natural” state like what we were talking about last week
of what natural is. I think of harmony as humans and nature are
equal and living within the nature, and letting the environment
influence them instead of humans having the power over the
environment.
This idea of progress is very interesting, yet confusing to
think about. To answer the second part of Shi Shi’s question, I
think that human and nature progress are two seperate things and
therefore uncomparable. As humans, we’ve separated ourselves so
much from nature that our level of this so called progress is
not in reach of nature. At this point, humans have the power
over nature in a way. We are expanding technology wise and
creating more things that could destroy our environment even
more, so we are the ones that are slowing down any progress that
could occur.
There was a part of the reading that mentioned people beginning
to strive more for individual family success rather than as a
community regarding “material prosperity,” (pg 114) so I was
wondering: why did people begin to separate themselves from
working as a community and turn to family labor? I would think
that community work would support people better unless people
were looking for profit?
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page