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

jdesai · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 14

I guess I'll have to start it.....
So the most prominent point in this reading for me was that the Europeans basically thought that the Natives were misusing their land. On page 56 Cronon says that according to European eyes,"Indians appeared to be squander their resources...underused land, underused natural abundance, underused human labor." To the Europeans the New world was a shot to accumulate property, or money. And funny thing, they did this through Court. The British government decided that the New World was already theirs and that the Natives had to be allocated land if they wanted to use it. I don't see how that works when clearly the Natives have been using the land far longer the the invaders.

Free Forum

eeschneider · Joined: 16 Oct 2009 Posts: 30

I agree completely with Jay. Now I had a few questions about the reading... On page 56 when Robert Cushman said "Not industrious, neither have art, science, skill or faculty to use either the land or the commodities of it, but all spoils rots, and is marred for want of manuring, gathering, ordering, etc." was that just saying the same thing as Indians are wasting the land and it's resources (as Jay stated above). Also, I couldn't tell whether Roger Williams was angry at the British government for giving the land to the Englishmen and not to the Indians or he was pleased with the governments decision? Also I found it very interesting the difference between how the English and Indians name the land. I think it's much more creative and helpful the way Indians name parts of the land by it's ecological label than the way the English name parts of the land after who ever owns it or other places from their homeland. I mean really, is New England the best the English could come up with? Totally lame.

Also- I did not finish the reading completely.

nsheff · Joined: 11 Jan 2010 Posts: 12

From the way it was describing the different aspects of property ownership, I don’t see any way the English found it okay to swoop in and claim land that the Indians were calling their home. I don’t buy it that the Indians weren’t using the land “right.” What is “right?” It doesn’t have to be the English definition, which would include more farming and manipulating of the land. The Indians were using the land as they chose, and it seemed to be working for them until the English came.
To Emily, I think Roger Williams was defending the Indians’ right to the Salem land. He sounded pretty angry at the British government, accusing them of injustice in their actions. He argued that “if the English could invade Indian hunting grounds and claim right of ownership over them because they were unimproved, then the Indians could do likewise in the royal game parks.” It sounded like a very fair argument, and I definitely agree with Williams.

ps i didn't entirely finish the reading.

pmillergamble · Joined: 15 Oct 2009 Posts: 24

I wrote this one in response to Emily's post (before Naomi posted)

Yeah, I think he was referring to Indians wasting the land/not using the land to its fullest potential. At the start of that same paragraph it mentions “Indian poverty” which I found very interesting. This whole reading got me thinking about what exactly ‘wealth’ means. Towards the end of the reading, Cronon points out a major error in Locke’s analysis of the land and the natives and that is that he failed to notice that the Indians didn’t recognize themselves as poor. Cronon goes on to quote Pierre Biard who said that European’s desire tyrannizes over them and banishes peace from their actions. This was fascinating to me; it forced me to really take apart the societal understanding of ownership and wealth. As a society we’ve always associates wealth with prosperity. I think the biggest conflict within the land reform was the clash of understandings of prosperity. The native’s had been prosperous by taking what they needed, and working together. That idea completely clashed with the European understanding in which prosperity was a continuously expanding goal of personal gain. It was such a strong clash that people even misunderstood land agreements; “sell” meant “share” to the natives. On page 76 Cronon argues that the first New England towns were not capitalist, but they had the seeds of capitalism in them. I was less clear on this. Was early New England capitalist? If not, what was it?

ellawm · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 12

I agree with all three of you.

I think that the English just wanted to take the land to use for their own and needed a reason to take it from the Indians. The reason being that Indians were not using it right is complete bs to me. Since the Indians were there before the English and were surviving, obviously they were using the land right.

I found the part about property interesting. I feel like the English just took advantage of the Indians having guns and etc so the Indians would have a harder time fighting back and keeping what was theirs.

p.s. i didnt finish the reading

pgui · Joined: 17 Nov 2009 Posts: 36

I think that there is a definite trend of the English justifying their actions based on what they want. In most of the readings the quotes from the English settlers are things about the Natives not having god on their side or not using the land correctly.
The reading gave me a different perspective on how the Natives saw the land v.s the Europeans. It never had occurred to me that the Natives saw land in a totally different way than the settlers. This seems to be how they lost so much of it. Not because they sold it at ridiculously low prices they didn't understand what the money meant.
We learn the story of the Natives selling the land in school because we are more comfortable with it. It is justification for what happened. Why is it that we are more comfortable with this story and use it to justify the settlers actions?

Travis Law · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 18

I agree with your summary that the British wanted to take the land from the Native Americans. They viewed the world through an entirely European viewpoint and they used it to justify their seizure of the American land.

The British said that the Native Americans were not "properly" using their land in order to retain property rights. They used this to take the land from native Americans, but then they claimed that the British King could not claim the land, because the Native Americans had a right to their land. They said that the king could not take away the land which they took from the Native Americans due to this.

This miscommunication between the Native Americans and the British was a result of greed, and not their environment.

How important is a location's name? What do people think?

stefanks · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 15

*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 that even if Native Americans claimed the land as "their property," Whites would still find a way to screw them out of their land assuming they had the same life style as they did. The Native American view of "no one owning land" only sped up its take over by Europeans. The settlers came to settle, so they knew what the goal was; they just had to justify it in their minds.

*What's the value of a name?
-You can attribute ANYTHING to a name to the point of it becoming idiom.

*Extrapolating some from this article, how would mapping fit into the conflicts around land use and ownership? Why?
-Maps draw boundaries that designate ownership of the land. If you look at maps of Native American tribes, a lot of the boundaries overlap and are irregularly shaped. This is because it is where the tribes were located and not what land they owned. Mapping of the new world set a plan for Europeans taking over the country.

One thing that I found amazing was how whites used establishments that they created to pass laws and rules on Native Americans and their lifestyle. It's like calling gutter balls on someone that's playing golf.

emills · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 19

I didn't finish this reading yet, but I did find the parts that i have read a bit interesting. It is really strange to read this, knowing it is about colonists from a few hundred years ago, and then realize that things have not changed too much since. Native Americans and our government are still arguing over land. Native Americans are still treated poorly and have less land than they probably deserve, I think. But now it's been modernized. It's less about who is using the land better but who is building casinos and who is paying what taxes and so on. I think it's sort of crazy that so much time can pass with so little change. We always hear that time changes everything, but in this case it is not so true. The situation is a bit different and there are new generations dealing with it, but the basic concept is still the same.

mlong · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 22

I totally agree with what Peter said- that this reading gave me a completely different perspective on how the Native Americans thought of the land versus how the Europeans did. I had also never considered that they thought of the land differently. Thomas Morton's riddle, "if Indians lived richly by wanted little, then might it not be possible that Europeans lived poorly by wanting much?," is a perfect example of this point. The Natives loved property differently- they didn't require as much to be happy. "'Wants,' Sahhlins says, 'may be easily satisfied either by producing much or desiring little." While the Natives desired little, the Europeans settled on producing more. The Europeans were greedy and wanted the land all to themselves so that they could produce more.

And to reply to Peter's question, no it doesn't justify what happened. I think we're more comfortable with this story because telling it this way, it doesn't make "us" seem like the bad guy. When younger kids are first being taught about the history of Native Americans, it probably just seems like a better idea to whoever teaches it this way, to show that we're not bad people and that we got this land fairly. Since, when learning the truth, it makes it seem as though we are definitely not good people at all. The settlers totally cheated the remaining Native Americans out of their land and not explaining to them how money works before they expect them to use it, or making up laws about them without them having a choice in the matter, is absolutely unfair. While it may be taught in a way that makes us more "comfortable," it doesn't tell us the whole truth. And there's no justification in that.

mlong · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 22

Oh and to comment on what Emily said- that's totally true. And not only are they given very small amounts of land, but the reserves that they live on today are extremely poor and generally uncared for by the governments responsible for putting them there in that condition.

Skarman · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 27

Looking at today’s maps, it is clear that they are based from a strict-border, British system as opposed to a use-oriented, Native American system. Think about what names of areas would be if they were named using the Native’s method. Saudi Arabia might be named “Oilville,” South Africa might be called “Diamond land” and Colombia would be named “Coffeeville” or “Coffeeton” or “Starbucks.” If we viewed the world as just a bunch of different places, each of which with a specific purpose, there might not be as much conflict as to whose is whose and which belongs to which. For a modern example, India and Pakistan have been fighting over the very small area of land called Kashmir. Both countries believe it is important to control Kashmir because it contains part of the fertile Indus River among other ridiculous reasons, including giving another path into the respective enemy countries in case they want to invade. If India and Pakistan saw the land through a Native American’s eyes, as nothing more than a mutual ground with a river which everyone can benefit from, sharing the land might seem a little less intolerable to them. It’s the austere borders that countries seem to be concerned about now, adopting the British idea.

Is it possible to view land as a mutual ground, good for its specific uses, as the Native Americans viewed it as? Would it be such a terrible idea to not have any borders of countries? What would happen? I certainly don’t think it’s possible given the already rigid country-border standards people have always known. Don’t forget John Lennon’s: “Imagine no possessions. I wonder if you can.” I think this doubt of believing that everybody can share anything sums up the reading.

Free Forum