Posted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 1:33 am Post subject: Whose West is It?
Mark David Spence, from Dispossessing the Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the National Parks (pp.264-272).
U.S. Environmental History - HIST 316 - 1 MOD 4
Assigned: 1/20 Due: 1/21
In your post, please write one thoughtful question about the reading and answer the thoughtful question posed by the post that preceeds yours.
For the first post, here's the question that you must answer (and don't forget to also ask your own question for the next person): Based on the readings in this class, what was the "the West" - a place, a goal, a dream, the future, a geography, a myth... or none of these? Why?
The west was all of those things, goal, destination, obstacle, dream, etc. Because Americans did not look at what it was, but what they wanted it to be.
The water demands of cities in the West is draining the water for extended areas around the city, and are extremely complicated. The large system we read about for Tuesday could (and does) grind to a halt after a relatively minor error in the system. In the case of a much more extensive difficulty, such as an earthquake, the population is unsustainable. This can be readily seen in Port Au Prince in Haiti. They are currently trying to quell riots caused by lack of water. There is less water in the west, and there are more people. This situation arose because the settlers in the west refused to acknowledge the lack of water (as stated in previous reading).
This refusal to acknowledge the truth, and instead pursue an ideal was a major theme in tonights reading. Yellowstone officials outright denied the presence of Native Americans using their "preserved" land, and eventually took action to forcibly remove them. There was no attempt to understand the area, the Americans just decided what it should be.
The American habit of ignoring the truth, for the sake of a greater ideal is why the west is so confused in our mythos. On one hand, we have extreme difficulty living there, on the other hand, we imagine it to be the place of our dreams. The gold rushes, the settling, the railroad, the national parks, all of these things were completely different in fact than was imagined.
Americans are too blindly idealistic.
I am curious about if the American concepts of Native Americans in tonight's reading relates to the initial idea of Native Americans as a weaker/lesser race. Or if it was due to other causes.
For me, this acted as another “white guilt” reading. It was interesting comparing the treatment of natives during the start of colonization and the treatment of them in this reading. In both instances the white people forced the natives out of the land with the justification that they (the natives) were misusing it, only in the former it was because the natives weren’t using the land enough and in the latter they were over-using it; they were destroying it. What bummed me out the most about this reading was how it brought me back to that question “What is natural?” My uncle lived out in Jackson Hole and not too long ago I visited. We went through a part of Yellowstone and I remember thinking how beautiful it was; how naturally beautiful. I never would have thought that human intervention would have been involved in the park, maybe in protecting it, but not in creating it. To answer the question “What was the west?” I think it would be best described as a dream, and I don’t use dream to mean an aspiration, but rather an ideal non-existent reality. In a sense, the “discovery” of the west was an aftershock of the “discovery” of America. It was mistakenly thought of as open, virgin land, free for the taking. Whites weren’t dumb though, they understood that the land wouldn’t stay this way, it would have to be preserved. They weren’t actually preserving the land though, they were preserving their understanding of the land; they were preserving their dream of the west. So when I visited Yellowstone with my uncle and stared at all the wild animals and endless rocks, I was in sense staring at racism, or rather the result of a racist dream. In the case Ward vs. Race Horse, the court initially sided with the natives, however when the case was appealed to the supreme court they overturned the initial ruling and violated the treaty the government had with the natives saying that it was merely “a temporary expedient” at the time it was made. This fascinated me. Why was the federal government less sympathetic? Why do you think there was a discrepancy between the states ruling and the federal ruling?
To respond to Travis' question, I do think their persecution of the natives in yellowstone is related to their initial idea of superiority. I also think it ties in to what you're saying about 'ignoring truth for the sake of a greater ideal'. What has enabled europeans throughout american history to ignore the truth has been that sense of superiority they got when they survived the new world and the natives for the large part didn't. The way they understood it was that the natives weren't meant to live on the land. Yellowstone was just another application of that understanding.
Going with this idea of ignoring the truth, I was angered by the part about Indian hunting vs. white’s hunting, and whose was more destructive. It talked about how even though Harris had complained about white poachers, he deemed Indian hunting far more destructive. Even if this were true, I find that unfair and for the lack of a better word stupid. Weren’t they going too easy on whites? As proved a couple pages later, white hunting actually became much more of a concern, and if those “protecting” the park had honest intent, they would have fought off any and all hunting threats, not just those of Indians. I’d like to get some other opinions, maybe look at other sources, because I’m having a hard time weighing how “destructive” the Indians really were, and how much of this removal was simply racism, and like Paul said, a false sense of superiority.
I had a hard time figuring out who to get mad at in this reading. We are obviously dealing with a racist topic, but how bias do you think this text is? Is the writer a historian reporting the facts, or has he put in some of his opinion as well?
I can see why Naomi is angry, this reading made me frustrated as well. Earlier this mod I recall us learning about how we have to keep in mind who were keeping the documents and who wrote the essay we’re reading. Back then the law was mostly by white men. From what I’ve learned in past history classes, it seems that white men will blame anyone else for a problem except for themselves. The Indians were just their form of a scapegoat, to make it seem like they were being less destructive in their hunting than they actually were.
I can’t decide whether the answer I just gave can answer Paul’s question. It’s a really interesting question, and I’d like to know the answer to it.
I'll post my own question later once I think up a really good one... hmmm
I really do think the author had strong bias against the Yellowstone management, but I guess I agree with the author so not too mad at him. What I get frustrated about is how...contradictory the management. "They viewed native hunters as a dangerous and unnatural threat to yellowstone's fragile environment," even when the population was increasing. (pg.272) I mean I don't see how they justified their actions. They built concrete fortresses, which I'm sure now has to have electricity and various underground pipes.
One ongoing question I had was whether or not the government acknowledged that they were making it harder for the Natives to survive and perserve their culture. They forced other tribes to communicate, move out, or created boundaries on what Natives thought to be their land. In our group work today Naomi talked about whether our priority should be to settled or to find a place to survive. And I feel that the government took away those options for the Natives. Wyoming is one of the dry states (though its not the worst by a longshot) so finding habitable land is hard.
I guess my big question is should Yellowstone be for visiting, or for natural use (i.e no modern tech is allowed.)?
The section where Didion mentions the swimming pools caught my attention the most. He says:
“I have always wanted a swimming pool, and never had one. When it became generally known a year or so ago that California was suffering severe drought, many people in water-rich parts of the country seemed obscurely gratified, and made frequent reference to Californians having to brick up their swimming pools. In fact a swimming pool requires, once it has been filled and the filter has begun its process of cleaning and recirculating the water, virtually no water, but the symbolic content of swimming pools has always been interesting: a pool is misapprehended as a trapping of affluence, real or pretended, and of a kind of hedonistic attention to the body. Actually a pool is, for many of us in the West, a symbol not of affluence but of order, of control over the uncontrollable.”
I started to think about the idea of our urge to control the environment, but at the same time, our need to keep it looking natural and pretty. I’m sure all of us have seen these fake bushes and plants, whether it be in someone’s home or outside a trendy department store. People have them simply because they look pretty. I started to wonder whether environmental activists legitimately care about the environment and its practical uses, or they just cannot bear the idea of not seeing any of their precious green meadows outside their window.
Taking water from its natural setting and dumping into a carefully designed hole, then unnaturally mixing toxic chemicals with it seems just as pathetic as fake plants. Didion says it’s about controlling what we can, and I think it also has to do with our desire to have a small sample of the pretty environment.
I can’t help but feel a little sick whenever I think of people deliberately discombobulating the land in the most unnatural ways for silly reasons. Why do I have a problem with people doing this? After all, we’re all just trying to make our way in the world, making it as pleasant as we possibly can.
Peckin'
The saddest thing I ever did see
Was a wood pecker peckin' at a plastic tree.
He looks at me and "Friend" says he,
"Things aint as sweet as they used to be."
-Shel Silverstein
To respond to Naomi i do think that the reading was very bias. It defiantly had an opinion it was trying to get across. I do however think that this is a very horrible period in American history. It is sick that we did not let the Natives live on the small piece of land that was supposed to be a preserved part of America.
I am interested how it was that the settlers could justify this. Ever since the Europeans first came to the country they were constantly justifying there actions with concepts such as manifest destiny or superiority. Do you think that false justification is a large part of destruction in the world? Who do you believe does it the most the people for themselves or the public figures as propaganda?
Steve i think it is an interesting concept the way humans are attracted to both nature and man made unnatural things. I think people naturally have a part of them that has a connection with nature. I think peoples separation from nature is a safety mechanism. the further from nature one is and the more surrounded by his own creations the safer he feels. i think it also saddens a lot of people in the same way to see things destroyed.
Also
Where does false justification come from in people and how do you make sure that you are truly thinking and making reasonable conclusions and not simply justifying your actions?
What is natural use? Is it "natural" to use only technology 100 years old? 1000? 10,000?
Where do we separate natural and unnatural?
The park manages thought defined natural as their idealistic view of the land. This view included white hunters, but not native Americans. I don't know what my definition is, because everything human is inherently natural. But it is important to find how people define unnatural.
Peter and Steve got me thinking more about human invention vs natural living, and to go way far out on a limb here, I think people have started to realized how far they really have drifted from nature, and are starting to see that it’s all one big mistake. Human inventiveness, on any scale, just seperates us from what’s natural. We have to stop pretending like humans can be the gravitational pull for everything else so that everything circles around us and adapts to us. We are only inhabitants of the earth, not rulers. Medicines prolong life, they don’t bring immortality. Heating and air-conditioning make us comfortable, but they don’t change the temperature of the outside air. However aware we are of this, the task of fixing it is blocked by our inability to let go. Of course we would rather have a car than walk 20 miles to school or work. But shouldn’t mean it’s not natural to work farther than you can walk? It’s all about going to the root of the problem. It seems, though, that that root is waaay too deep for us to reach. Is there any way to start this proccess of fixing? It seems so impossible. Ideas?
I definitely sensed a sympathy towards the natives in this reading. It seemed as though the reading had this idea, and i too, that the natives are natural to the land. I wonder if this is a fair understanding though. I mean natives were still people. If left completely unmolested would they have not also developed technologies that were abusive of the land, they would also have to face the problems resulting from their population growth. We agree that it is racist to have thought of the natives as inhuman savages, but then isn't it also racist to think of them as intrinsically different than the europeans, with a more refined sense of morals and understanding of land? I think the way yellowstone was created was for the large part very arrogant on the part of the white folks, but were they correct in thinking that true preservation can only be done through the removal of humans? Can "Natural" only be achieved in the absence of humanity?
"Early park officials realized that even the slightest fear of Indian attack could prevent tourists from experiencing all the benefits and enjoyments that Yellowstone had to offer the American people."
This is one of those readings that made me pretty mad and guilty at the same time.
To answer Mr. Thursday's (Jay's) question and ask him one back: I think white people definitely turned Yellowstone into something that is for visiting and looking at all of the pretty, natural landscape of America. What is "natural use?" Once humans use land, can it still be natural? There's that whole natural vs. unnatural thing. Also, It seems like Native Americans were far more "naturally" occurring than geysers in America and we just wanted them out of our beautiful parks because if they were in our beautiful parks first... then they're not OUR beautiful parks.
Posted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:44 am Post subject: Parks n' shit
As I read this piece and read peoples' posts, I found myself able to tie in things I had just learned from the paper I wrote comparing The Searchers and a reading about the destruction of the Grasslands. My focus was on the inevitability of violent and destructive conflict with people and land when trying to live both the Western and/or agrarian myths. In case there was any confusion, the agrarian myth is the idea that a family can simply settle on a homestead with their 160, and easily/succesfully farm and raise livestock and whatnot.
The Americans are flipping shits over the Indians living on and FARMING land in Yellowstone, so they decide to drive them out of the park. The Americans used examples of the Indians DAMAGING the LAND to justify their actions. "Even worse, they lit fires 'in order to obtain dry fuel for winter use, or to drive the deer to one place where they might be easily killed...[and thus] large tracts of valuable timber were burned over."
Responding to Paul's comment on racism, I guess that yes, you could potentiallydeem the latter example racist, but it all depends upon your definition of the term. I have been taught to believe that it is always negative, and it is, but to say that the Indians are intrinsically different from the Europeans, which is true, and then to follow that up saying that they have a refined sense of morals and a broader understanding of the land doesn't sound like any type of racism I've ever heard. this sounds positive.
I was really just wondering in-depth why it meant SO MUCH to keep the Indians off the land.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
