Interpreting Environmental History

In Changes in the Land, William Cronon points out the European colonists` pursuits of a capitalistic market and the impact it had on the New England ecosystem. Native Americans and colonists had different views on the use of land resources. The Natives viewed the land as something not owned, but as a resource to sustain life. They believe in a hunting-gathering system, hunting only when necessary. In the long run Native Americans lost their old traditions and were forced to adapt to the colonists` traditions in order to survive. This change contributed even more to the alteration of the ecosystem during the colonization period. In contrast, colonists viewed the

Before Europeans ever ventured to North America, the land had been populated by Native American nations that had their own distinct cultures and social structures. Native Americans had trade routes and established complex relationships between tribes. They were not merely heathens waiting to be civilized by the Europeans. Yet, Europeans would use those justifications to lay claim on their land.

While it took some time for the Europeans to get settled, they were able to conquer to Indians quickly afterwards. The Indians started to loose their land and they became “regarded entirely within English colonial jurisdiction; indeed, the logic of the situation seemed to indicate that, for Indians to own land at all, it had first to be granted them by the English Crown” (Cronon 70). The English also had the upper hand, in their own eyes, because they had money. As John Locke thought, “because the Indians lacked the incentives of money and commerce, Locke thought, they failed to improve their land and so remained a people devoid of wealth and comfort” (Cronon 79). They also had the upper hand because they had antibodies to all of the diseases that they brought. The Europeans also had a different relationship with animals; “The English sought a much more total and year-round control over their animals’ lives” (Cronon 128). They domesticated their animals and owned them, whereas the Indians did not. When Europeans first came to New England, they started to change the ecology of

Among the great native tribes that called the Americas their home, none are as iconic in American culture than the Native Americans of the great plains. Among these tribes, there arose the Great Sioux Nation, one of the largest and most powerful of them all. They seem to have had a deep connection with and have held a gentle balance with nature that few cultures throughout human history have seemed to match; yet, history has shown that Native Americans didn’t quite have the same romanticized relationship with their environment that many depict. As Americans started to expand westward, there were few who were able to stand up to “manifest

With many diverse cultures coming together for the first time in America’s melting pot, it’s no wonder they each honor the environment differently. The Native Americans, Virginians, and New England Puritans each had their own unique perspective on how to take advantage of the New World’s resources. Unlike the Native Americans, who respect and view themselves equal to the environment, the Virginians had a mentality of controlling and dominating the earth for England. The Puritans, however, simply wanted to start their own community for religious freedom, rather than claiming land for another country.

The Native Americans had held the land in North America for millennia, and viewed it as theirs, inasmuch as their culture would allow the concept of the ownership of land (in actuality, they saw themselves more as guardians of the land). The land was also sacred to them. It provided them with all that they needed. The European settlers, on the other hand, viewed themselves as having a divine right given by God to go out and settle these lands. They believed that God Himself gave the new land to them, and that they were to either convert the Native Americans or push them out.

The Indians viewed their land much differently than the colonists did. The colonists came over from Europe and as such has no roots or historical attachment to the land. They only viewed it in terms of its economic potential (Calloway 24). The Indians, however, did have deep roots, they did have a historical attachment to the land. But it was much more than that. The Shawnees, as well as several other Indian tribes, believed that the land they existed on was an island. They believed that it was placed there by “the Great Spirit” and that the Shawnees were a chosen people. They believed that the Great Spirit recreated the world following a flood and chose the Shawnee people as the first people to reintroduce to the world, to this piece of land (Calloway 34). So, the colonists (which at this time encompassed the British, the French, and the American colonists) viewed this land simply in terms of money and ownership, but the Shawnees viewed it as their God given right and possessed a spiritual connection to the land.

Some environmentalists would like their readers to accept their thoughts that when the Europeans arrived in North America they found a wilderness that was not damaged or harmed by the inhabitants. The author literally questions what were they thinking? In stark comparison to what we do to our land today, it may seem that the Indians did not impact the landscape at all however, it was definitely the opposite. The author further states the Indians were intimately aware of and connected to all that was around them. The environmentalists are certainly entitled to their theory, but based on all that we know of Native Americans and their culture, being intimately aware of and connected to all that was around them pretty much sums it up. Not only did the Indians leave their mark on the landscape, they depended on it for their very existence.

Euro-Americans believed the Native Americans were savages and devil worshippers. They believed the land the Indians were on was for everybody to settle on and use for their own reasons. The land had no titles or deed stating who owned it or was using it. The Indians had their own way of reserving land among themselves. Europeans believed in paperwork stating ownership, the Indians didn’t have such paperwork. If the Indians were to have titles or deeds for the land, the Europeans would not recognize it as a legal document. Therefore making the paperwork null and void and the land free to use. The Europeans had plans to preserve the land and build on it. John Winthrop believed there was a natural and civil right to the land. Natural right meaning

Native Americans felt a right to the land due to the belief that it was their ancestors and in turn it should continue to be theirs. Compared to the European view that was personified through the Americans not only while concurring the west but to establish the first settlements.

While both land uses of the Europeans & Native Americans was similar in the fact that they knew that there were set boundaries. By this I mean both obviously treated the land as territory to some extent since the Native Americans had their territory so only their tribe and possibly closely allied tribes could use it. Similarly the Europeans had divided the land into their own territories (i.e. Dutch colonies, English Colonies, ect... ). However, the Europeans had made the land much more private (i.e. private parks, private properties within the lands for governors ect...) While Native Americans had again allowed anyone within their tribe to use the land and their close allies to some extent. Looking at an environmental standpoint, the Europeans

Native Americans believed themselves to be part of the earth. To them, land could not be owned or taken. There was a respect for the earth and the surroundings as if it were a living being.

Locke and Winthrop, another staunch defender of England's right to aboriginal land maintained that enclosure was a signature way to prove one's ownership of the land, and since the Amerindians had enclosed non of their land to farm on, they had no right to it (Arneil, 1996, p. 63). Winthrop goes on further to say, that these cultivation rights were sanctioned by God (Arneil, 1996, p. 65). To Locke, this justified the appropriation of land to European settlers, who would use the land in what he believed to be a productive manner. This theory was a way to create moral legitimacy for taking land away from the indigenous people (Arneil, 1996, p. 1).

The United States has been built on a land with a history of its own. Native Americans lived all throughout North America before colonization. Although some of them are long gone, they have not been forgotten. Native Americans have rich and diverse culture that has been preserved through stories, myths, songs, and legends; all passed down through generations. One of the most important themes in Native American literature is the relationship between people and nature. This plays a role in almost all of their stories. Two of these stories are “The Man to Send Rain Clouds” by Leslie Silko and “The Way to Rainy Mountain” by N. Scott Momaday. I will be comparing these stories and exploring similarities and differences in their

Property is so deeply embedded it is attached to personhood that it is based on race. The Naturalization Act of 1970 constituted that citizenship is exclusively for White property owner of good moral qualities. Anyone out of the grid is not considered human. This is an inherent contradiction of the constitution (1/17/17 Lecture 3). The ownership of acquired land by Anglos required the removal and containment of people inhabiting the land. The justification of the removal of Natives was that they were not utilizing the land for profit and they were not considered human. Lands rich in copper metal and other resources, were incentive for