Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2012 7:58 pm Post subject: Who's West Is It?
Rachel's q: Based on the readings in this class, what was the "the West" - a place, a goal, a dream, the future, a geography, a myth... or none of these? Why?
I didn't find much in this weekend's reading about what the "West" is...other than Lamar's definition of wilderness on the bottom of page 267: "For Lamar and his contemporaries, 'wilderness' was a fairly simple concept that meant large animal populations and vast stretches of uncut forest." This made me connect Yellowstone to our previous night's description of what the West is- both with "with vast stretches of uncut" land. I think every Westerner would have their own definition of what the West represents and "is" , in essence, but each share a common thread (similar to our attempted definitions of "Nature".) Wallace Stegner says in "Living Dry" that "...culture is a pyramid to which each of us brings a stone." (207) However, if I were to describe the common thread of Western culture that I've picked up on in the readings, I would use words like "arid", ("Aridity...alone makes the various Wests one." 209) and "hardship", "dreams" (both on 213) and "palpable space"... from "William Least Heat Moon's definition of the true west:
...Space west of the line is perceptible and often palpable, especially when it appears empty, and it's that apparent emptiness which makes matter look alone, exiled, and unconnected..." (216)
Maybe I'd even use "Arrested Development"- for it's open areas that are unworkable as fields but also the land that is constantly being seized and battled over by the government, large commercial farms and small families/citizens. (also that is the best tv show in big-H History.)
Question: "If anything, Yellowstone served as a prelude for later conflicts between government officials and native groups at other national parks. These new struggles...did not make the task of creating and preserving uninhabited wilderness any easier."(272) Do you think the humans with the best technology/modes of production have a right to take over land, if they can successfully enforce their ownership?
Naya question is very complicated and I don’t really understand why you put the quote and the question together, they don’t seem to have connections to me. But respond to the question, I would say, Humans don’t have the right to take over any land under any condition. However, they have the right to distribute ownership if they use it properly. The relationship between human and land is like the relationship between a mosquito and human body, mosquitos suck blood from the body, but it can’t bite too hard, otherwise human recognize it and the mosquito get killed. Taking over the land is like thousands of mosquito rest on one person, and the result would either be the man dies or the mosquitos get wrapped out. So what human can do is “suck” as gently as they can, and only “suck” enough amounts for living. So I think if human can have the “perfect” (instead of the best) technology/ modes of production that can minimize the compact (or zero compact) of the production on nature environment. Then people have the right to take the advantage of the land instead of take over the land.
Rachel's q: Based on the readings in this class, what was the "the West" - a place, a goal, a dream, the future, a geography, a myth... or none of these? Why?
In the American people’s eyes the West is everything Rachel mentioned in the question. It’s a dream because the west is a “wonderland” where people expect their dream to come true, and the west itself is a myth of New Edenic world because of its “undisturbed nature”. It’s a goal because people want to conquer the west and expend the country to the Pacific Ocean. It’s geography because it has variety of geological environments that are unseen in old places.
But I also agree with Naya, “Every Westerner would have their own definition of what the West represents and is” it differs by who they are, (Americans, or Indians) the purposes of going there, and where exact they are in West. For example the people arid area may think the West is a place “has had a way of warping well-carpentered habits” (p.206) To some Indians it would be the home or it would even become the East because they live on the west of it.
Question for the next person: Do you think the concept of making national parks is right? In what ways the government could have done better?
Responding to Ping's question, I don't think there is a right or wrong, but there sure is a good or bad consequence. Talking about the concept, it is surely different from what we think today. Most people nowadays would think the national parks are created to protect the nature, but back then, "the creation of the first national park had less to do with ideas about undisturbed nature than a desire to keep the region's scenic wonders out of the hands of private interests"(264). About what the government should have done better, of course they shouldn't have killed or banished the Native Americans. So going back to Naya's question, Ping's mosquito-human model confused me so I don't really know what to say about it. However, I believe that the humans who have better technology can't take over other humans' lands even if they could successfully enforce the ownership. But again, the world is not ideal, and conquer "the weak"'s lands, and maybe resources seems so natural.
And Rachel's question, yes, I agree with both Naya and Ping, and I think the choices Rachel gave are all connected to each other. People went the West to look for opportunities, dreams and a better future. But because they knew so little about the West, everything was so mysterious, and the stories other people told sound like myths. This is the same as how Europeans thought of America when they first discovered it. Different people saw different things and therefore defined it differently. That's why the descriptions vary.
Question: If it wasn't the government spreading the rumors about Native Americans, the tourists wouldn't be that scared of them. But scaring away the tourists didn't bring the government any profits. So why did the government keep telling the people the Native Americans were uncivilized and were savages even though the government knew in a real battle they would win for sure?
Well Ping ping, I do think the concept of making national parks is right. National parks provide states with money to invest in conservation and they are a place to view nature and wildlife in an unperturbed environment. In the case of Yellowstone, I believe the government could have approached the “Indian problem” they had a little better. The federal government felt entitled to have the rights and the power to protect Yellowstone from native hunters and people who would deplete its resources that people pay to see. I found it interesting how on page 268, how the author was talking about a program the government created to help protect the park. “Such a program would not only preserve wilderness but also fit nicely into ongoing efforts to “civilize” Indians by training them to become self-sufficient agriculturists.” The Native Americans called the land home and used it for food long before the feds declared it a national park. In attempt to secure boundaries of the park, the feds give the Native Americans conflicting messages. It appalls me how the government can manipulate situations to fit the outcome that they want. “Even unintentionally neglecting to recognize past treaties could be interpreted as an active expression of the governments will.(271)” The government constrains the Native Americans to a reservation and then says that it “was destined to be occupied and settled by the white man…” This idea of conflicting messages ties into the question Ping was asking because I think the Federal Government could have been more clear in what their intentions for the park were and also more respectful of the people who needed the land to live their lives. The last page of this reading was the most impactful to me because of the last sentence. “Yellowstone also provides the first example of a native population in order to “preserve” nature.” Something I was wondering about was if a group of people were displaced or killed in order for the protection and preservation of national parkland, should their families and generations who came after them be compensated financially? Or if they currently live in a place without resources like clean water, lights and etc., should the government be at fault of this lack or resources?
Based on Rachel's question, I believe "the West" was a dream intended for civilized people. When Europeans began to expand into the West, they faced a different environment than what was on the East Coast. For one water was scarce and there were humid weather conditions. Nevertheless, Yellow Stone was a place that Europeans used to create their ideal form of nature. To them nature, was a place for civilized people to enjoy, a place that would remain undisturbed. "They regularly maintained favored campsites and hunting areas through the use of seasonal burns. The lighting of purposeful fires and hunting within the park seemed to contravene all that Yellowstone now stood for...." (pg.268) This quote displays some of the actions that the Europeans deemed uncivilized. Instead of Europeans finding their own Eden, they created one.
I was also interested in the law put in place to prevent Native Americans from entering Yellowstone. The Native Americans still owned a piece of Yellow Stone, yet a court ruled against them. On pg. 270 it states: "the justices believed the 1868 treaty must be viewed in the context of American assumptions at the time- that is, a temporary expedient that government officials expected neither to honor nor to uphold in light of subsequent events." I understand the judge's ruling, but I disagree with it. It is unfair to displace a group of people from land that they own while another group reap all of the benefits of the land. I believe the Europeans fight to expel the Native Americans had less to do with protecting the environment and more to do with the fact that they disliked the Natives.
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 Posts: 27 Location: United States of America
Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 6:06 pm Post subject:
Rachel's q: Based on the readings in this class, what was the "the West" - a place, a goal, a dream, the future, a geography, a myth... or none of these? Why?
Same as Naya, I cannot really see the connection between the question and the weekend’s reading. The only connection I found was on the last page, which Mark David Spence refered that Yellowstone represented “a perfect Eden” (p.272). The quote reminds me when we first began to learn about the arrival of Europeans. They thought America was Eden, which was the closest place to God. I thought the reference of Yellowstone to Eden could mean that the West was another hope, dream, future, myth, goal…etc, like Eden for the new comers. Plus the previos reading that we had, I thought the West could mean another chance for people to expand, and become rich because not a lot of people had been there. So, I felt the West was everything that Rachel refered in the question like Ping Ping said.
I don’t really know how to answer Mingwei and Eli’s question, so I am thinking to answer Ping Ping’s question. I would not say creating a national park is right or wrong because there is always a good and bad side of the action. I would say the way governemt treated the Native Americans was not quite right. One thing that strucked me the most was on page 268 when Spence talked about using “military force to keep native peoples on their reservations.” I felt what government did was a little bit too extreme. What follows was even more scary. “Such a program would not only preserve wilderness but also fit nicely into ongoing efforts to ‘civilize’ Indians by trainging them to become self- sufficient agriculturists” (p.268). The reason I though this part is scary is because I do not know the purpose of national park anymore. Is really a place to “preserve nature” or a place to protect the land from “outsiders”, like Indians, and cooperations. I think that is the part that I think is wrong about the national park.
Question: Do you think national park like Yellowstone is the best way to protect the nature, Also, do you think that it preserve the nature or shape nature to human’s defenition of wilderness?
I would like to start out by answering Rachel's question about the west - As Naya said, the west as a whole was barely discussed in the reading, but I could formulate a brief response to the question using the information given about Yellowstone National Park and the surrounding areas in Wyoming and bordering states. Both because of the differing landscape and the "wilderness" aspect, the west was a mystery to Americans in many ways, but it was also an opportunity to thrive. As discussed throughout the reading, Native American interference with immigrants was a major problem in the west, but otherwise, the un-developed land held unique natural resources (forests, animals, etc.) and opportunities for land development and tourism. I wouldn't consider the west to agree with any of Rachel's defining words, but I would consider it to be more of a "project".
My response to Amy's question (Do you think national park like Yellowstone is the best way to protect the nature, Also, do you think that it preserve the nature or shape nature to human’s defenition of wilderness?) - In my opinion, a national park is not the best way to protect nature. Although they may not appear it, national parks are very much affected by humans. Through trying to protect nature, it becomes more altered, and therefore loses the "wilderness" aspect. To me, wilderness is represented in nature that is completely unaffected (that means regulating visiting people/inhabiting animals or preserving nature to appear differently) by humans. Simply by shaping nature, we automatically lose wilderness.
Here's the question that I would pose to the class - was it inevitable that the Native Americans had to be regulated in order for Yellowstone to progress?
In response to Yi-Wen’s question, I do think that national parks are a very good (the best that I can think off) way to protect nature. I think that human alteration is what makes things less natural, therefore if the human world is roping off a section of the planet, then they are doing a pretty good job of preserving nature. And yes, I do believe that it is nature, not just a surreal human definition of such a thing. Just because humans have the intelligence and progress to acknowledge that they have strayed from the path of nature, doesn’t mean they made it up. (This is going back into what we were talking about on Friday), when we think about nature, we think of something pretty separate from what/where we live. For example, would any of you say that you live in nature? I think that animals for the most part don’t have the intelligence to register a difference of their lives from the lives of others like them, so to them, their lives are completely natural and there is no parallel universe like there is for us.
Something that I found interesting in a mostly uninteresting reading was on page 228 where it talked about the use of the cavalry to keep the Native Americans on their reservations, and the reasons for doing so. “Such a program would not only preserve the wilderness but also fit nicely into the ongoing efforts to “civilize” Indians by training them to become self sufficient agriculturists,” this is interesting to me because it goes against the common American belief that ‘Indians’ were a part of nature that sort of came with the land in a way, when the first Europeans came to North America. The fact that the contemporary Americans view Indians as the bane of nature in this sense is sort of funny to me because it is just so opposite of what the common American teaching is. “…it seemed a wonder that any forests or animals remained in North America since the Indians practically based their entire existence on the destruction of wilderness” (page 286). My question is: If Native Americans supposedly lived off of the destruction of wilderness, where as modern America makes (some) attempts to preserve it and simply coexist with it in a parallel world, are we closer with nature than the Native Americans?
Reading those interesting postings and this weekend’s reading reminds me what Rachel’s friend Mr. Hamilton (Sorry I forgot your name) said before; Human can only be a visitor in nature. In the reading, Yellowstone National Park could be preserved by eradicating Native Americans out, and only allowing tourists’ access. Nature can be preserved by ostracizing human from the area, so Isaiah, I think one of the best methods of preserving nature and coexisting with it is staying out of nature as much as possible. This is my question; can we say human’s severance from nature as human coexisting with nature? Even it means creating boarder between nature and human?
Answering to Mingwei’s question; Based on what we read and what I believe, U.S. government intended to eradicate Native Americans out from America, to minimize the penalty that settlers might get from sharing the land with Native Americans. Since the governments knew that they will win the battles (physical) against the Native Americans, by spreading the rumor of Native Americans’ violence, the government can push Indians out of certain territories under justification of protecting the people of the United States.
Hi Everyone Unfortunately, I wasn't in class to read about "The West" (I believe that is what it is called...) but I did read "First Wilderness." I will try to answer Christian's question... "was it inevitable that the Native Americans had to be regulated in order for Yellowstone to progress?"
No. I do not think it was necessary or particularly useful to regulate the Native Americans in the name of progression, innovation, or preservation. Also, I'm not sure I could make that claim because how would we know if it was necessary for progression if we didn't let the Native Americans thrive. What if it *was* necessary, just not ethical.
I have a question about this question... how would you define "progress" ?
HOWEVER, I do think it was inevitable. The "Americans" (European settlers) thought that they had the right to own all land that they set foot on. This is unbelievably condescending and false, but to be honest, it was effective. On page 270, "...the reservation was destined to be occupied and settled by the white man hence interfering with the hitherto untrammeled right of occupancy of the Indian." Now that just doesn't make sense to me. It actually makes me angry that someone could POSSIBLY believe that they were DESTINED to take something away from someone else. It's just one large "I'm better than you are" situation. If I had to compare it to anything slightly relatable, it would be like a childhood bully taking your lunch money just because they could.
I guess one of my questions about this text would be, why did the "Americans" think that the Native Americans were destroying the wilderness? What would qualify as "wilderness" for a Native American and for an "American?"
Hey class, sorry for getting back to you all so late.
This reading was quite irritating not because but because of it's substance. As someone who fundamentally believes is a more limited government, it made me sick to read about how the Indians were penalized for the actions that white men committed throughout history-- and more recently (at the time of Harris' rain as Captain). "For Captain Harris, native hunting was an "unmitigated evil" that threatened to undermine the entire purpose of the park." However, Ed Howell was caught by park rangers after having killed 11 bison (for sport) prompting congress to pass a bill making hunting a federal offense. Ironically, indians became an adversary for all the problems taking place within and around parks.
I thought a lot about this in terms of humans interaction with nature. Can we justify the act of Indians in the great west if they would not kill animals such as bison for sport, but used every piece of it. Moreover, is it wrong for the government to prosecute those indians if they rely, and have relied on those animals to feed their family for centuries? Additionally, I would like some clerifcation on Manning’s laws of newly “established gaming laws.” It all just seams a bit too unfair for me...
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
Unfortunately, I wasn't in class to read about "The West" (I believe that is what it is called...) but I did read "First Wilderness." I will try to answer Christian's question... "was it inevitable that the Native Americans had to be regulated in order for Yellowstone to progress?"
