Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:42 pm Post subject: Weekend reading on "Eden"
I thought I should start a new post. We can post on the reading from this weekend. It was a lot of reading so I know there will be a lot to talk about.
While the reading "Eden" was very long and tiring to read at points, I found much of it very fascinating in the sense that epidemics and how they affect populations plays a huge role in understanding environmental history. Something that I found interesting in this reading was on page 96 when the author talked about the growth in population and European immigrants in the U.S. The author said “Their effect on the landscape depended on the region and time. Powered by consumer-based needs and wants—by commodification…” This idea of a consumer world was a huge part in factors like deforestation, and the depletion of animals. Because we live in a supply and demand world, when a group of people demanded a commodity, they would receive it, not being aware of their impact. The author also said “As their [the Europeans] populations grew, so did their demand for land….” This is where population plays a huge roll in the supply and demand mentality. Also, when removing one species like beaver for their fur, this also throws off the cycle of forest growth and etc. As soon as a large mass of people want a commodity or whatever it may be, wiping out marshes, forests and other large habitats that countless species and organisms that comprise the environment live, it is very destructive and unbalances the interdependencies people have with the land. Because we live in a consumer bases supply and demand world, once population is involved, choices for protecting the environment are limited.
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 Posts: 27 Location: United States of America
Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:02 pm Post subject:
This weekend’s readings are written from many different perspectives of Environmental historians. For instance, the first two readings focused on the surrounding that the Europeans saw when they first arrived. They did not go further than describing the environment. But the third one and the fourth one discuss the relationship between the colonists and Native Americans, and how their relationships changed the environment.
I personally do not like the first two readings because I do not think they are History. I think they can show us “what” the colonists saw, but cannot show us “how” the environment shaped the colonists and Native American. On the other hand, the third and fourth readings do show what impacts did the colonists had on the Native Americans, and how they slowly found the equilibrium state. They are more toward the Environmental History that Merchant is talking about. I think that is the Environmental History that I am looking forward to learn.
One thing that struck me the most when I read Eden was that the author reminded us that not only industrialization affected the ecosystems, but also the preindustrial societies had environmental effects (p.97). But, the rate of the effect was different. I think this is really important for us to learn about Environmental History because everything on this planet has some impact on the environment. It is just the rate of the effect is different. Therefore, when we look at Environmental History, we can see how each group of people had effect on the environment, and why were their effects different from one and another. I think that is what Worster means by saying that “…environmental history has…been drawing on a number of disciplines, ranging from the natural sciences to anthropology to theology. It has resisted any attempt to put strict disciplinary fences around its work” (p.4).
Amy, I agree with you. The first two of part one were more likely histories, rather than Histories, as if they are primary sources (diary, I suppose?) from colonists.
After Reading the part two, 'Eden,' I felt as if human inevitably destroys nature. The common knowledge of Native Americans is that they take only what they need from nature, without any greed and selfishness. The reading, however, clearly showed me that Native Americans are another major factor of the devastation of North America. At the last part of the reading, the author mentioned that as the diseases struck the Native Americans and decreased the population drastically, the environment recovered from the deforestation. This was quite frightening to me (it seems like human is somewhat destined to devastate the nature, as if they are not a part of the Earth), even though it is very logical fact as Eli explained.
I want to question how far the boarder of the Environmental History can reach. As the body paragraphs of ‘Eden’ develop, I somewhat felt that the essay moved out from the relationship between population and environment to the history of diseases. Is disease part of environment? If it is so, can everything except human or man-made matters that surrounds human(or can be found around human) be considered as environment?
You need only read the first couple lines of “Eden” before being able to identify what lead to the draining of North America’s resources. A few pages into the reading, it is said plain and clear, “Nonetheless, to many the continent appeared as a bountiful land with inexhaustible resources” (page 75 of the original page numbers). The key word in this quote is “inexhaustible,” and the fact that when the various pilgrims and colonists came to witness vastness of wilderness and wildlife of the new world, the last thing mind on their mind was a thought of the land’s preservation. It is in a sense, a dilemma of “you don’t know what you’ve got ‘till it’s gone,” but instead it’s more of “You don’t know what you had ‘till you’ve used it all up.” The author did make a good point however that the European invaders were not the only ones who were diminishing the continent’s resources. On page 76 it says, “…then in 1500, at least one-half million acres (and perhaps many more) showed the effects of agriculture in the East alone.” These “effects” are the farming techniques of the Native Americans, who may not have been all that much more land efficient that the Europeans, just that their limited technologies prohibited them from altering the land too much.
I thought it was out of place for the Author to start going to in depth about the epidemiology of old North America, as it seemed like an unneeded tangent (even thought it ended up being the majority of what the reading was about) that would have been better off as a separate chapter. The point that bridged from land into this was a good one, about how population had a lot to do with land use, and disease had a lot to do with population (or lack thereof). I was a little disappointed at the end of the reading to find that it never revisited it’s original topic of land use.
While the information or the "tangent" that Isaiah talked about was the majority of the reading and did seem often repetitive, epidemics drove history. They removed huge masses of people and with population increase and decrease, the land is affected. I was also thinking about kinds of epidemics and i came across a cool quote. “Thought is an infection. In the case of certain thoughts, it becomes an epidemic.”--Wallace Stevens. In many cases, the vast possibilities of the New World Europeans saw were infectious and "infected" a huge mass of people that lead to the colonization of the Americas.
'd like to respond to Eli's point and possibly draw a connection. Our discussion in class seems to support the concept that all humans and their actions are part of nature. I've struggled with considering whether the human interaction with the environment is a natural phenomenon. Like Eli's example where humans decimate the beaver population for their firs this a natural course of survival of the fittest? Is it moral to do so? Does it being moral or not effect whether or not it is part of nature? Now I have to admit that I have no textual evidence to support my reasoning, however I would love to see if anyone else may have found something to this point or could just weigh in. I've never been able to come to terms with this idea and it is actually why I'm taking the class. What do you think?
The second part of the reading (the actively read one) is pretty broad. It begins with talking about the abundant resources in New England, then moves on to the population of Native Americans before and after the arrival of Europeans, and ends with the relationship between environment and population. The reading has a lot of connections with the essay by Diamond. Diamond believes that the reason why the Old World developed faster was that there were more animal species and plants in Eurasia, but it seems this contradicts the reality. The Europeans “… were flabbergasted by the ‘incredible abundance’ of wildlife” (p. 84). They found many species they had never seen before, including trees, fish, birds, mammals, etc. This shows that there were at least adequate amount of species in the New World, which means the lack of species was not the reason why New World didn’t develop as fast.
In "Eden" it was apparent within the first two pages that visitors to New England forged the connection between bountiful nature and happiness, but also immediately clear that exploitation of these resources was inevitable. "In many places, farmers used fields year after year, until declining yields pushed them elsewhere." (98) This portrays a determination for produce beyond balanced boundaries or respect for the land.
I really appreciate how Eden illustrated the impact of population density and its inevitable effect on land, but also the anthropological aspect of individual human impact as well. For example, on 97, Merchant states "The impact of people on the environment is complicated by resource abundance, climatic and environmental changes, acquisitive intentions, productive technology, animal and plant domestication, relations of production, political economy, and global pressures and interdependencies. Human actions (individually often subtle and unintended)...are all part of a picture that varies at both community and individual levels..." (96) I think I like this approach because it offers a holistic view of human life and accounts for the varied responsibilities we have in order to own the environmental consequences we influence.
I agree with Amy's point. The first two readings offer descriptions on what the Europeans saw once they arrived, but it doesn't give any information as to how the Europeans shaped nature and vice versa. However, I thought this line was interesting "A Gentleman and a travelller, that had bin in the parts of New England for a time, when hee retorned againe in his discourse of the country, wondered (as he said,) that the natives of the land lived so poorely, in so rich a country, like to our beggars in New England...." (pg.46) For me, this line caused me to wonder why so many people during this time lived so poorly. It also reminded me of the fact that there are many poor people in Africa and in other parts of the world, yet they are surrounded by a lot of natural resources. This line in the text is also relative to how someone defines poor.
Lastly, The Eden reading proved a lot of my views on history wrong. I always thought that it was the Europeans who over used the land and not the Natives. The fact that Native Americans abused the land as much as if not more than the Europeans shocked me.
I thought reading "A Hideous and Desolate Wilderness" really illuminated how the religious beliefs were so closely related to everyday living. Just by reading the first sentence... "... they fell upon their knees and blessed the God of Heaven who had brought them over the vast and furious ocean..." made me realize that these people were so dependent on their faith. Instead of being happy / relieved with themselves, it was their God who had kept them alive and given them good fortune. On the second page, second paragraph, first line, he says "What could now sustain them but the Spirit of God and His grace?" This confuses me. Wouldn't they be sustaining themselves? You know... working, building, hunting, gathering, producing, inhabiting, etc. ? Our culture has changed drastically. Or maybe I live in a place where my life isn't significantly ruled or influenced by religion.
It also mentions "savage barbarians" who "showed them no small kindness in refreshing them..." I assume those barbarians were the Native Americans because William Bradford mentions that they "were readier to fill their sides full of arrows..." which is really actually amusing to me because honestly, can you expect to remove people from their land and do horrible things to them without retaliation of any sort? I DON'T THINK SO, MR. BRADFORD. That is truly ignorant thinking. I apologize if that sounds harsh and judgmental, because it is.
I'd like to start by seconding what Naya said - when a group of people enter new territory with numerous resources, it is important to understand that the resources are NOT endless. As more and more land is developed for agricultural use (processing the land, burning trees, etc.), it becomes harder to find areas that would produce good harvests, and more space for people to expand into that offer useful resources. As Naya said, the "balance" is crucial.
In "Eden" I was most intrigued by the "mystery" aspect of diseases across the country and among different groups of people. As the US developed, so did more mystifying diseases that killed numerous people. Well-known epidemics such as smallpox had specific signs and affected people in many different places (even used as a weapon), but many other diseases that affected only small groups of people and had varying symptoms brought confusion. Reading "Eden" really made me realize how powerless people were, both physically and mentally, to such small viruses that left so many dead across a country that was starting a crucial point of development.
Krech said, "American Indians often so pressure or depleted basic resources like land and trees that they had to switch from one type of food to another or move the locations of their villages." Again, these were the same people who "exploited lands and animals in order to live, cut down forests for fuel and arable land...helped animals to an early demise." From this, we learn that Europeans cannot be blamed for destroying the environment.
It is without question that disease led to the depopulation of native indians throughout America. Though Europeans are no strangers to destroying landscapes and animal population, how can historians justify the actions of American Indians if they were part of the problem as well? Again, “these diseases did not need conspiracy to spread,” as Krech said. I feel that when looking at this history, we cannot blame any group for destruction of the American environment, but simply look at the little data we do have and deduce from evidence what factors played into the depopulation of natives.
By looking to the past, we realize that industrialization, disease, and overpopulation transformed the environment which resulted in the fall of civilizations, and animals. My biggest question is how Environmental Historians work past an understanding of the history, and look to the future?
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
