I thought it was fascinating (and had previously had no knowledge) about how independent traders and even villages? were actually legally purchasing land from the Native Americans, though this would later be made illegal by the setup colonist governments. Because the reading was jumping around time period, it was kind of confusing to determine when things were happening. It was clear to me that William Pynchon was the first European to purchase land from the Native Americans including a deed to the land, but after that things got a little confusing…
Also, I thought it was interesting that the Native Americans were selling “their” land when it said towards the beginning of the reading, “What the Indians owned--or, more precisely, what their villages gave them claim to--was not the land but the things that were on the land during the various seasons of the year” (page 65). So it seems to me, that by selling land to Mr. Pynchon (land which by their own belief they did not even own) they simply got free payment from him for nothing in return other than the title that he “owned” the land, while the Native Americans still got to hunt and reap the rewards from the land--things they had been doing all along. Sounds like they may have been some crafty businessmen....
I thought the question that Rachel posed about how mapping would fit into the conflicts of land ownership in the new world. Considering how unreliable map making was back then, I think it would only be for the worse to try and map out who owned what land in New England during the 1600’s. In the first place, it would be unnecessary for most part, because: A) it does not seem like the land was divided up border to border (meaning that A European would purchase a patch amongst the Native American masses of land, rather than be closed up against the land of other white land purchasers). B) Because trespassing was not always an issue (such as in the case of William Pynchon, where the Native Americans were still allowed to hunt in the land that he purchased), there was not a critical need to define where the owned land ends and begins. Trying to accurately define these borders would only lead to otherwise avoidable confusion.
Responding to what Isaiah said about Native Americans selling the land they didn't own, I agree but I think instead of selling the land itself, they were selling the usufruct rights of that piece of land. The reason why it seems they didn't own the land is because the land is not a specific person’s, but the whole village/tribe’s. So when trading with the Europeans, the Native Americans believed the whole thing had more to do with sovereignty than ownership (which can be understood as the small community versus individuals). So when they sold the “land”, they were actually selling the rights to use it and they were expecting the English to use it the way they did. But on the other hand, the English (later other Europeans too) thought about this trade meant that they were now in complete control of the land and they could do whatever they wanted. So it was the different understanding that further brought conflicts into their interactions.
Also I found it ridiculous how they English got the land from the “English Crown” when the crown himself (or maybe it was her at that time?) wasn't even present and had no control of any of those lands. They were just finding excuses to justifying their sins ‘^’.
I thought the way the Native Americans named the places was very interesting. It is such a smart idea to name the places based on the symbols, like “fishing valley”, “cornfield” etc. This is just like maps, only much easier to remember and to use. Just like what we named our building. A new kid might not know what classes are usually in George, but he would know that Art Building is where most art classes are offered.
When I started this reading, I was expecting to see the Europeans in a position of power over the Native Americans, but I was surprised to see that the two groups of people balanced their rights relating to land/agriculture quite reasonably. In the past few days, I've gotten the point from both readings and class discussions that the European immigrants, in general, were more experienced in starting and sustaining communities than Native Americans, who seemed to follow less progressive lifestyles. At the point in time which the majority of the reading covers, the two groups of people were faced with the challenge to negotiate property rights, while they had very different needs and hopes in using their land. Since Native Americans had been occupying US land years before the Europeans immigrated, it was inevitable that they would be allowed to keep land to live off of. I think that what made the property separation simple is the fact that Europeans understood that the Native American goal was not to expand and make money, but to live comfortably. They would not have to face the challenge of financial competition. A quote at the end of the reading that completely ties to what I understood is, "Thomas Morton had posed his riddle knowing full well that his readers would recognize its corollary: if Indians lived richly by wanting little, then might it not be possible that Europeans lived poorly by wanting much? The difference between Indians and Europeans was not that one had property and the other had none; rather, it was that they loved property differently.
At first, I was very confused by the reading and felt like I was reading the same thing over and over again. But, the last ten or twelve pages really captivated me because I started to understand what Cronon was talking about when he began to use “business” terms. I found it fascinating to know that terms I’ve grown to use like profit, commodity, capital and other definitions we commonly use in the business world to understand various markets developed and were shaped by the interactions between Europeans and the Native Americans. This is interesting because now, the United States Economy and stock market is so closely connected to that of Europe and understanding these beginning business helps better understand the history of our economies. On page 79, Cronon said “It was the attachment of property in land to a marketplace, and the accumulation of its value in a society with institutionalized ways of recognizing abstract wealth (here we need not follow Locke’s emphasis on gold and silver), that committed the English in New England to an expanding economy that was ecologically transformative.” This idea of an ecologically transformative economy is something that we are still striving as a global community to establish and currently are striving to develop sustainable ways to manage natural resources. On a slightly different note, along with Euronext, a very large stock exchange in Europe, and the New York Stock Exchange, together they formed the first global exchange NYSE Euronext). The reason why I am writing all of this besides the fact that it interests me is because as a result of European settlers and the Native Americans struggling to define land ownership and what it meant to “legally” own land, they formed a relationship that helped build a strong global economy. Stovall, I as well really like the quote at the end of the reading and more broadly, the whole last paragraph made me come away with a questions about the relationship between civilization and material possessions.
This reading seems like an extension of yesterday’s reading. Maybe because the remnants of yesterday’s reading made negative perspective in mind, I respectfully and carefully disagree on stoval’s idea. The essay concentrated on the different conceptions on property of Native Americans and settlers, and how the settlers manipulated the fact to be fit in their interest. I think the settlers did not trade the property reasonably. Surely, there was no mentioning of conflict. (I mean, only according to the essay.) However, the reason why the settlers wanted to ‘buy’ the land from the Native Americans is to “defend the right to lands originally purchased from Indians” (57) so that they can claim the right of ownership. I think this is also in order to act against the king who claimed the land under the justification from yesterday’s reading?? Cronon explained how Native Americans didn’t ‘own’ the land, how they shared the resources (plants, animals on the land) among the community and how they compromised with the other tribes. They did bordered the land and divided their territory, but because of the recourses, not for the possession of the land. Though the settlers knew this (or didn’t they?), they made perfect justification of acquiring the ownership of the land, which is validate only among the Europeans.
I think Isaiah's point about mapping is great, and I would add to his list that those invisible boundaries one would have to make when making a map mean very little to Native Americans and their idea of how to use and inhabit land. (I'm wondering what the most "politically correct" term is for Native Americans is - is it Americans or Indians or American Indians or Native Americans, etc...)
Mingwei's point made me wonder about whether or not it matters if Native American and European ideas about what the rights to land entails if the group with power, in this case the Europeans due to their advanced technology, eventually get their way anyway.
I was also very intrigued by the birth of "Money" (which led to capitalism), and the difference between commodities and commerce. These concepts came to be based solely around the prospect of gaining more than necessary to survive or surpassing a level of subsistence that NA's were happy existing in, and turning "land into a commodity" (75) which was so inherently disproportionate to NA's beliefs. However, the quote on the last page, "The difference between Indians and Europeans was not that one had property and the other had none; rather, it was that they loved property differently..." helped my optimism stay afloat because it showed me that someone recognized the conflicting standards that were being used to measure Happiness.
The first two lines of the text, "...English colonists could use Indian hunting and gathering as a justification for expropriating Indian land. To European eyes, Indians appeared to squander the resources that were available to them." Once again, this is an interesting and controversial way to begin our reading. I couldn't really grasp the validity of this statement. I tried connecting it to other scenarios like if i'm not using ALL of the free space on my ipod or i'm not using it productively, then someone else can take it. "The land was a vaccum Domicilium waiting to be inhabited by a more productive people." (bottom of page 56) I thought it was awesome and super innovative how the Native Americans *SHARED* their land (whaaaattt a conceptt!) and did not place specific boundaries that were not to be crossed. I found the quote "Property rights, in other words, shifted with ecological use." (bottom of page 63) This really stuck out to me because instead of attempting to replenish and reuse land that was lacking resources, they would just relocate or shift somewhere else. No one was tied down. On page 58, it talked about what the DEFINITION of "property" is, and what it entails. There were two main topics in this definition, being "individual ownership" and "collective sovereignty." I feel like we will be talking about this in class tomorrow, so I don't really want to get into detail, but I thought it would be interesting to note.
When the Colonist think of ownership of the land, they are thinking about absolute control of the land, meaning the land itself belong to them, which is different from the Natives ”what their village gave them claim to- was not the land but the things that were on the land during the various seasons of the year” (p65) the land doesn’t belong to anybody but was shared by the whole tribe or village. Individuals have the right to obtain the resources on it. This difference matters when colonist try to buy the land from the natives, the natives would share out the resources on the land but the Colonist thought they bought the actual land, so they keep occupying Native’s land, but the land was actually shared within the whole tribe, it’s the territory of the whole tribe. So when the Colonists occupied the land, it was not only taking away the ownership of the land but also threading the sovereignty of the whole tribe. that could eventually lead to conflicts between colonists and natives.
The value of name is to be given to specific objects so they were distinguish from others, so if other people are also notified the name of that object, people would be able to use the name in communication.
The reading talked about the difference between how the Natives and the Colonists name the lands. Natives tend to name the places by what can be found in that piece of land, while the Colonists tend to name the land by referring the name of the owner. For the Natives, the whole tribe or village shared the recourses on the land, so the name of the map marks where the things can be found. So when Colonists occupied some lands, the Native would lose a site to find a specific thing. So that would bring dissatisfactions and conflicts.
Since nobody asked a question, I can’t answer.
But for the next person, Does the ownership of Natives look like a socialist country? In what ways?
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
