Rhetoric 1315 Questions

This quote, "All human groups consciously change their environments to some extent--one might even argue that this, in combination with language, is the cruicial trait distinguishing people from other animals." is very true. In the book, it even mentioned Indians changing the land for farming etc.

The nomenclature discussion in the book was interesting. Today, there is a much better way of classification/identification that lets people know exactly which plant is which.

The different mindsets of the colonists and Indians of New England posed many passing questions for me. How did the colonists not understand how the Indians lived off the land without destroying it? The colonists came to New England and saw all the resources they had already extinguished in Europe and began changing the land to meet their needs. Did these colonists not realize the destructive patterns of their lifestyle destroyed the resources of Europe and that they would soon destroy the newly found resources of New England?

It says that in the early New England there where no rats, not as much disease, and they didn't have domesticated animals like pigs and horses. This is amazing to me to think about. The life that we know has always entailed these things, and it's weird to think that rats were brought over.

I also liked the notion that the Europeans weren't the first to change the land. The Indians had already lived there for a long time and changed it drastically, and usually people don't think of the Indians as changing the land.

One thing that I found interesting was that when taking into account the mistakes in nomenclature and the tendancy for early colonists to exagerate everything that they thought they saw, it could then in fact be true that they actually did less damage and had less of an impact than many environmental historians initially believed.

According to the author, the "wilderness" of New England was never truly "wild", becuase before even the colonists came the Native Americans were already there and adapting the land to their needs. This made me wonder something: Is there really any such thing as true wilderness? And does any human presence at all take the wildness away? In my opinion, humans are as much a part of the ecosystem in each place as other animals, so to say that any human presence/changes destroys the wilderness would be false. Like beavers and woodpeckers and all other animals, we use nature to suit our needs. This doesn't mean that our impact can't ever be bad for the rest of the ecosystem, however.

One thing that I found interesting was that when taking into account the mistakes in nomenclature and the tendancy for early colonists to exagerate everything that they thought they saw, it could then in fact be true that they actually did less damage and had less of an impact than many environmental historians initially believed.

According to the author, the "wilderness" of New England was never truly "wild", becuase before even the colonists came the Native Americans were already there and adapting the land to their needs. This made me wonder something: Is there really any such thing as true wilderness? And does any human presence at all take the wildness away? In my opinion, humans are as much a part of the ecosystem in each place as other animals, so to say that any human presence/changes destroys the wilderness would be false. Like beavers and woodpeckers and all other animals, we use nature to suit our needs. This doesn't mean that our impact can't ever be bad for the rest of the ecosystem, however.

I am curious to the populations and densities of the colonies, because many colonists seemed to take much more than they needed. At one point a man was quoted as saying that he caught so much cod that his ship was overflowing and he had to throw some back. And another man said that he could shoot 50 birds at a shot, did they have use for all this?

On another point I wonder if people have ever changed from their destructiveness, we still drill for oil, change the land around us and overpopulate the world, do we just seem less destructive because we have less resources to expliot?

It seems that this text refers to development as a negative aspect of our culture. Granted, some people take developing the land to an extreme and destructive level, but developing the land is a prosperous activity. How does a person expect to ride the Campus Connector to class without drilled oil, even biodiesel and ethanol are made with part gasoline. Would people have the food they eat and clothes they wear without the changing of the land for agricultural purposes?

I am a little confused on this subject, is William Cronan suggesting that development should never have happened, or is it just that it has gone too far?

On page twelve, Cronan poses the question "Are human beings inside or outside their systems?" in reference to ecosystems. This brings up an important point. Although we change ecosystems, so do many other factors like natural disaster. On the other hand, I agree with the text in the fact that some ecological change is for the worse.

1.) How reliable are first hand accounts of the New England environment by European settlers?

2.) In what ways are Thoreau's visions of pre-settlement New England flawed?

1) How do we know what writings to trust and which are fabricated generalizations or inaccurate when trying to determine environmental history?
2) What level of environmental change is normal in comparison to what is caused by humans and considered bad or not natural change?

I thought it was interesting on page 8 that it said "anything that had no English name has here been given only simple designation: the jay is the bluebird, the cardinal the red bird; every water bird is simply a duck..." when did the names of all these different types of wildlife become universal?

In colonial New England when and why did the shift from Indian to European populations occur?

In the last readings I wanted to comment on the disease portion. When Cronon mentioned that there was a grave with a man with blonde hair who was likely left behind (by a ship), lived his life with the Indians, married, and died, I began to wonder. Do you think this happened often? I had never heard of sailors being left to live in the Americas with the Indians.

Chapter 7

When the Indians were told to build fences to keep the pigs and other livestock from ruining their crops, did they make the connection to the land boundary they were creating or did they still not understand the European concept of land ownership?

Cronon quotes in the book a passage that discusses children and the elderly being in great danger due to the swine. How dangerous were these "domesticated" swine? Were they truly so wild and ferocious that they would attack and kill humans?