free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

rhirsch · Joined: 16 Nov 2009 Posts: 35

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 accordingly - talk to each other

Travis Law · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 18

These readings seemed to talk about another aspect of environmental history. Instead of looking at how the environment has shaped us, they seem to ask how we can live with the environment. It is inevitable that if we use unsustainable living practices, that the environment around us will buck us off. These two authors seem to be more interested in how we can avoid living unsustainably, and they look to our history with the environment to answer the questions.

I think that this new perspective on how to apply environmental history can potentially change the importance and application of environmental history we have developed from previous readings.

What do you think?

nsheff · Joined: 11 Jan 2010 Posts: 12

In the one by Donahue, he was talking about the difference in the cow-to-land ratio that the settlers used, compared to the present day. I was sort of confused; it said that any cow, oxen, or horse back then had 10 acres of grazing land to itself, and that now, it has been reduced to 1 acre. Is that because of an improvement in the quality of the grass, or an infestation of residential areas, and now the cows just don't have a lot of space? Donahue called this change a “tenfold improvement,” but I don’t know if it should be rewarded with such a phrase. This isn’t going to sound very “academic” or whatever, but it’s like those milk commercials that are like “happy cows come from California.” It’s all about the wide open grazing grounds they have, instead of being cooped up in the little space they’re usually given. Or did I read this wrong, and is it just that the grass they graze on now has more nutrients?

Funny line: “the evidence is that many hogs wandered loose through the woods and raided the planting grounds, generally wreaking havoc.”
If anyone has the ability to deserve a term to describe them that’s as great as “wreaking havoc,” it’s definitely pigs.

emills · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 19

“Indians and Bison on the Great Plains”

I felt like this was a very clear example of what environmental history is. We spent a lot of time trying to define it and I thought this short reading is a very good example. Especially the parts about the “ecological safety nets.” I thought it was interesting how the Native Americans spread out their taking from the environment, they hunted and gathered and planted. And then the horses came over from England and they started just hunting. I think that is a great example of how humans and nature affect each other.

“The Rise and Fall of Mixed Husbandry in New England”

This reading kept bringing up the importance of grass. Because it was mentioned so much, I sort of focused in on it. The importance of grass had never occurred to me until I read this. It is something we see everyday. But imagine what New England would have been like without any grass. If New England had been a desert our culture and our economy and just general way of life would be very different. The grass allowed for people to have animals and focus on raising animals. But without grass they couldn’t have done that and everything would be different.

Skarman · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 27

I’m not sure if I saw a clear thesis from either Donahue or Isenberg. But I certainly enjoyed this reading, and I thought it was pretty cool to see how the people transformed virtually unusable land to useful land, especially the land around us like in Sudbury and Watertown (I couldn’t picture wolves running around and hunting swine or whatever in Watertown). And the idea that horses aided the practical extinction of the bison was mind-boggling. All in all though, this reading felt a little like a lecture I’d hear in 7th grade, basically telling the story of the Metro-Boston environment. Yikes, awful post.

stefanks · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 15

I think that Isenberg's thesis was that the Great Plains Indians were forced by to rely solely on bison, and in turn switched over to a nomadic lifestyle all because of European influences.

"The horse, the fur trade, and epidemic disease together created the nomadic hunters... largely a reaction to the European conquest of North America."

I was pretty amazed that it was Europeans that made some Native Americans nomadic. I figured that they were already living like that when the Euros began to "influence" them, but I guess not. Who'd uh thunk it?

This whole Environmental history is gettin' me down. When I was little, I thought my backyard was as wild as it gets, but no, cow farmers and settlers have already uh-splored and altered all of New England before I got to see how it was when indians were still around. And now I learn that indians have altered pretty much all of the land before the settlers and I got to see what it looked like when dinos were still walkin about... unfair.

jdesai · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 14

Like others said its crazy how the immigration of animals planned not only an important role in the segregation but also the an enormous change in lifestyle. Personally I enjoyed "Indians and Bison on the Great Plains" because now I've been thinking just how the introduction of horses impacted Europeans. If horses helped inter-village trade than would it also "help" spread the European disease?

pgui · Joined: 17 Nov 2009 Posts: 36

I didn't know what to make of this reading. It was kind of interesting but did not teach me anything that was ground breaking. I do think however that Emily brings up an interesting point about grass. It was so important to the settlement of the U.S. It seems that it far more import to Europeans than Natives. Also as the reading was on animals think about how much more it seems animals were utilized by Europeans than natives. Why did they not domesticate animals if not for farming than transportation. Then again if they were not farming it seems a stretch to domesticate. Also if America was supposed to have such fertile land then why was it said that it was so difficult for the settlers to grow even grass on the land around here?

P.S It does not say to post on mycsw

scormanpenzel · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 10

When I started Isenberg's piece, I was a little surprised at the end of the first paragraph. I knew the piece was on Indians and Bison, but I had never heard the word "Bison" in the same sentence as "Decentralized social structure". After getting over this oddity, I agree with Steve in that I never knew that horses were such a huge factor in the near extinction of the Bison. I read on though, and realized that the social decentrilization was due to both the horses and bison. I thought that it was very interesting how the horses were so important to the Indians that the indians were willing to split apart and abandon a very old tradition in order to utilize the horses' ability to help hunt bison.
I didnt finish the readin Sad

Free Forum