Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:59 pm Post subject: Bisons on the Great Plains/The Rise and Fall of Mixed Hubby
I haven't read the second one yet, but I felt a very clear "OH that's environmental history!" during the first part of our reading. In order to understand why Native Am's shifted towards commerce and trade, reorganized gender roles, dispersed into small groups during certain months were all due in large part to the addition of horses. Therefore, horses, arguably very close to nature and the environment, acted as major players in the greater social and economic shift that some nomadic Native Americans took on.
After doing the reading, I feel like even though America was called the “New World”, it experienced the structural changes (agriculturally) much faster than the “Old World”, partially because a lot of its residents were originally from the “Old World” and they catalysed the process. When the Euro-Americans were still using the husbandry system, “they… strove more for what they called competency and a respected place in their family and community”, they knew that they were never getting rich but that wasn't high among their aspirations (P. 113). But after the husbandry system reached its limits, “the Euro-Americans began to strive… more for individual success as measured by material prosperity” (P. 114). This is when people started abusing the lands and we are still living under the influences of it nowadays. Before I read it, I always thought that people started overusing lands only because they were greedy. But after reading this, from an Environmental Historian’s perspective, I begin to see that environment has a role in it too. If there were enough resources, perfect climate and fertile soils, we might still be using husbandry system right now, or at least the commercial-centered system wouldn't appear as early. Euro-Americans, as well as a lot of other people from countries all over the world started abusing the lands not only because they wanted more money, but also because they had families to support, and when there was only that certain amount of resources, their only choice was to plant the crops that could bring the best cash return, and in doing that, they were very likely to start abusing the lands (and in fact they did).
Like Naya, I also thought the couple pages about horses very interesting as well as very environmental history-esque. Not that anything we’ve read yet hasn’t been, but this reading in particular showed an interesting and fun new concept on how something so specific such as a horse can have such a large impact on the environment and human development.
It was also great to read something that went in to depth about the specific area(s) in which a lot of us live/are from. It’s also very strange to think that there was a time in which people lived on the same land we live on today and they were able to grow/produce everything they needed right there. To us, these days, the land is so taken for granted that it seems almost nonexistent. The only thing the land means to us now largely is distance and climate. And to think, only 400 years ago all it took was some cows and some grass, and one need never travel anywhere to sustain themselves.
While New England is not the most luscious of farm lands, it is (luckily) versatile enough to support the mixed husbandry talked about in the reading. The land that New England does have to offer, also only comes in small amounts, and the statistics about what it takes to keep cows, oxen, cattle, and sheep happy was incredible, and also makes you think how it was possible for the early colonists to utilize such animals on a large scale. A question that I had however, was that why the amount of grass needed for livestock is much less today than it was back then. “…today, just one good acre of New England pasture will support one cow or five sheep for summer, a tenfold improvement” (page 119). Is this because now there are food substitutes besides grass that can be fed to these animals? Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Isaiah, in response to your question, I'd like to hazard a guess that it definitely has something to do with new technologies that we use today that help reap the best benefits from crops in a more sustainable way, in terms of land use. We can probably use 1 acre a lot more efficiently with modern tools than was possible with the first farmers in NE. We also have a greater understanding of permaculture and many more generations of farmers' trial and error to learn from.
I loved the second reading for a similar reason, it was so awesome to learn about farming in MA with familiar towns, especially after my experience farming last summer. "Not many households were self-sufficient or aimed to be, but the community as a whole produced the great bulk of what it consumed directly from the local environment." (114) This account of Weston family farm life reminded me so much of the early nomadic tribes we read about in the first reading, where large tribes took on a "divide and conquer" approach to supporting themselves as individual units, but still relating to the larger community/tribe.
When New Englanders decided to focus more on "growing products for which tey had a comparative advantage and to earn cash for the rest", they "sold their produce to their Yankee cousins who were replacing artisan shops for factories...and no longer feeding themselves." (115) This shift for farmers in New England would not have been possible without their "Yankee neighbors" making the shift towards industry simultaneously, because they provided partners for New Englanders to sell their produce.
The horse transformed the economy of, giving greater mobility to what were villagers. Ultimately, this led to a more separate and divided national land, and cooperation between various tribes declined. This surprised me because I would’ve thought the greater mobility would have led to increased trading (in the interest community; rather than exploitation of villages to benefit the individual) throughout the Old World. Additionally, the biggest similarity I found between Native Americans in the Old World and New England Farmers are the foundation of early civilization which lies squarely on the notion of self-reliance. But it was a “...transformation necessitated an almost total reliance on the bison, a new dependence on trade, and the adoption of a decentralized social structure (59),” that profoundly changed not just the economy, the everyday lifestyle of the Natives. Lastly, one of the biggest difference I found between Native Americans and Europeans from previous readings, was their method of manipulating the land. They were frugal with what they had, and lived within their means. In the reading, it says, “they’re land use strategy protected them from both environmental shock and over exploitation (59).”
Europeans who emigrated to New England used their prior knowledge of English farming, but were also able to adapt to their new lifestyle as they realized that some of their past practices lacked wasn’t sustainable in the New England environment. For example, “settlers adopted coarser rye and native maize as their everyday crops (111),” after learning that the soil lacked consistency throughout the region. What shocked me most when reading was how Europeans remade the lands to be more sustainable for their agriculture while at the same time, using practices that were not detrimental to the forest lands.
Throughout the reading, it was evident that early farmers never yearned to become wealthy, but “strove for what they called a competency and respected place in their family and community (113).” Overtime as environmental conditions would change (both naturally and by humans(let’s talk about the difference between the two tomorrow)) individualism and an increase in regional trading surfaced, eradicating all sustainable practices set in past precedent. Although greed was certainly a factor in this, over-population contributed. While having a large family (in particular, a large number of sons) would result in a stronger and more prosperous farm, however the environment would still be impacted negatively. Interestingly, an influx of women forced expansion to the west, which would solve The New England Farmer's problem lacking grass for cattle.
I found paradoxes throughout the reading when it came to human interaction with nature, and how nature responds to the actions of humans. It seems that in Environmental History, one looks at what was done in the past that improved human living, but most importantly how it impacted the environment for the better.
For tomorrow, I’m interested in discussing the role of capitalism in both the Old World and Early New England...
I don't want to be repetitive, but I have to agree with Naya and Isaiah - the first reading felt like how I imagined all the readings would be when I started this class. It described human progress through using horses for work, especially agriculture-related. Although the beginning of it was dense, I was interested by the details on how people made great use of horses and how they brought the east coast a new level of efficiency and development.
The second reading was intriguing because it focused on so many towns surrounding where I live. I always enjoy reading about the history of where I'm from, and I loved reading every detail about the farming history of Massachusetts. I was probably most surprised that cattle were so important to Massachusetts early on. Today, I think of the midwest as the main US cattle industry, but I never knew that so many farmers in the area were devoted mainly to working with cows. The key point that I took from the reading was that Massachusetts farming was most prosperous during times around the eighteenth century, with less people - even though we have much more technology today for farming (in MA), the rural land in the area is becoming harder and harder to find due to the rising population. Reading about Weston in the past made me think of the Berkshires or of Vermont, but looking around the town today, I think of wealthy residential areas and a developed town center. As more people have come to the state and more urban development has been made, we lose more and more history.
Question first; Former readings said that Native Americans devastated the environment of North America, but Isenberg suggested that their farming, hunting and gathering life “protected them from both random environmental shock and overexploitation.” (51) Are they discussing of Native Americans in different era? From different tribe or region?
It is quite interesting to see the huge change that one domesticated animal brought on Native Americans’ lifestyle. This cause and effect flows quite smoothly. Better mobility allowed Native Americans to pursue different resource, and the entire lifestyle transformed around the resource. Following bison herds, the Native Americans choose nomadic life, and they “were isolated in small populations” (59) which allowed less damage from diseases.
This shift, although smooth and reasonable, is rather quite dramatic. Complete reliance on the hunting of (the bison) cannot be more practical than using the diverse resources, since the result of hunting is unpredictable. Did adopting horses made the buffalo hunting significantly easier or could the nomads earn vast profit from the trading?
…Second reading, I understood how settlers did not adapted into the environment of New England, but chose to change it with slight compromises, how they moved out from self-sufficient life (For example, started to see the cattle as self-sufficiency resource to the subject of trade), and “substitute commodities imported from other regions for many of the subsistence goods they had been producing for themselves.” (114)
I think I should read once again since acquiring further comprehension was unsuccessful..
The first reading was fascinating to me because it made me realize that if the Europeans didn't come to America, the Native Americans wouldn't have become nomadic and traveled across the country. I mean... if the Europeans didn't come to America, the entire world would be different. But still. The Native Americans were influenced by several things like the need for sustainability (which they were not getting when sedentary), introduction of horses, the large plethora of new diseases, and the fur trade.
The second reading was really uninteresting, and I found no large points or "essential questions." The only thing I found remotely worth discussing was that the Europeans seemed to have a harder time adapting to the land, because they had more complex means of farming and hunting. They also grew more things, and domesticated more animals that needed to live in specific environmental conditions. If one thing didn't grow, then they couldn't feed it to this animal, so this animal would die, and the animal couldn't provide anything. Its one large cycle.
After tonight's reading, I developed a new understanding of what the Europeans had to endure during their time on the "New World". A couple of readings ago, I read that there were many Europeans and Native Americans who exploited the land through various crops and other essential resources needed to survive. However, this reading gave me a different perspective. This reading told me that there was a lack of grass to feed cows, a lack of land to cultivate crops, and a lack of space for people to settle in. The distinct gender roles that women,children, and men had during this time period bothered me because women were expected to have children rather than plow the land.
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 Posts: 27 Location: United States of America
Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:57 pm Post subject:
Like many of the people who have responded, I also think the first reading is the environmental history that I thought of. It uses houses as a medium to talk about how Indians’ economic has shifted overtime. I thought the way Isenberg approaches the topic quite interesting, and makes me look at history in a complete different way.
Unlike many of you, I do not think the second one is as interesting as the first one, maybe because I do not have the similar feelings that you have to the land. Another reason might have to do with the writing style that Donahue uses. I think he is a little bit slow on the temple when I read it, so I get bored. However, if I look at the reading from an environmental historian’s perspective, I also think his approach to New England is quite fascinating. Like the first reading, Donahue talks about the transformation of economic in New England- how the economic transformed from agriculture and husbandry to marketing, and its relationship with the natural resources that Massachusetts had. For example, on page 110, Donahue starts with: “Grass is the key to understand the region’s agriculture history.”
Having been in Weston for three years, able to learn a little bit about the transformation of Weston was interesting.
In the readings, natives and European both went through a transition from a self-sufficient stage which everything was produced locally. (husbandry system) to a interdependent stage, which only produce the stuff has advantage on and get other products through trading.(marketing).
I see how horse as a factor changed the way native people live, and how becoming rich in land (the big America Continent) made the Europeans change. A progress of economic specialization led the human race to a new era. But Europeans were smarter than the Indians, where they can realize the environment change caused by economic specialization, but the Indians just keeps hunting the bison, and eventually lead to bison’s extinction.
At first I was mad about the way the Europeans saying “improve” the land, I thought they were just destroying the environment in change for money, but later I realized these New England settlers were from Britain where they only have limited amount of land for huge number of people, everything becomes reasonable after I realized that.
Environmental unfriendly is only one of the early stage of human civilization, and in 21 century people all know about saving our planet.
Like naya said, “reorganized gender roles”, through the comparison of native Americans and European settlers, I realized how gender race play the role in the environmental History Study
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
