Rhetoric 1315 Questions

The author seems to suggest that the Indians of North New England 's tendancy to not store enough food to help them through the lean months of winter even when they had the ability to do so (with only a little more work) was in fact a mecanism for keeping there population at a low enough number to insure the abundancy of food in the future. Were they then conciously aware of this fact, and if so was that the reason that they failed every year to gather more food? Or was there another reason that they did little to avoid starvation, as it seems unlikely that any human population would willingly cull itself for the good of the environment?

A persistent discussion throughout this section was that of fire and its use. Although there were many benefits, there was also a lot of talk about how it was a harm to the environment/ecosystem. So did it have more of a positive or negative influence on the environment?

I thought that it was interesting that the Indians didn't really "own" the land, but it was just more of an understanding that this group was here and this one was here and so on. Also that they would get together at certain areas where fishing was good even if a certain group "owned" the land near it.

I wonder how the northern Indians controlled their populations? If they knew that they needed to control their populations in order to not overuse the land or if it was because of some other factor.

It's also interesting how the New Englander's got most land from the Indians by just not recognizing the Indians as having laws and rights, and since they didn't put up permentant barriers that the Indians weren't entitled to the land.

It was interesting to read that early colonists in communities such as Plymouth believed that they had found a place more bountiful than any, believed that they would not need to work for wealth because it would continue just as it had in summer months; many of these colonists died. This fact seems comparable to modern day Americans who believe that they don't need to work for wealth, that it will/should come to them just as it may have always come. These people, too, commonly end up suffering in the end.

It is explained many times that both Indians and Colonists hunted for wild game and fished for portions of their food, but what about domestic livestock?

The Indians really had two ways of living especially in the south. The Indians that lived in the north kind of kept the same lifestyle throughout all four seasons. The Indians that lived in the south had two major living techniques for in the summer and the winter. In the summer they grew crops and in the winter they had to disperse and give the land that they were living on a break from the use of humans and to be able to rejuvinate itself.

It said a number of times that the colonist were somewhat baffled by the way that the Indians lived, like fasting for ten days during the winter because a shortage of food. So the colonists really could have survived more easily because of the Indians example of poor planning, then why didn't they try and gather and hunt more than they did to try and survive?

Would it be possible for America to ever go back to a life of subsistence now that we have created "want" and "love for property"?

I am curious as to how the colonist and economists of the 17th and 18th centuries expected the outcome of America to be. Did they ever feel bad about pushing the Native Americans from their lands?

Would it ever be possible for America to return to lives of subsistence?

If I let go of my "want" and "love for propert" would it be possible for me too to have a life of leisure and without worry? (The Native Americans were described as not yet having these traits in the book)

Would it ever be possible for America to return to lives of subsistence?

If I let go of my "want" and "love for propert" would it be possible for me too to have a life of leisure and without worry? (The Native Americans were described as not yet having these traits in the book)

What was the formal declaration the the Conneticut court made in 1717?

Why did the Indians not regonize them self as poor when the times were changing and they never improved the quality of their land, while everyone thought they were poor they were still rich?

In response to Nick Miller's question of if America could ever go back to a life of sustinace, I think the answer to that is no. We live in a country too caught up in material possesions that serve no purpose other than to keep us happy (i.e. SUVs and Hummers in downtown Minneapolis, or anywhere for that matter). Most American's view their value of worth and sucess based on how much stuff they have; therefore, this country will never go back to the way the Indians once lived.

I pose the question, based off the discussion of Indian versus English gender roles: Did the English take into consideration the important role that both the women and men of southern New England played in the survival of their families?

I found the last two pages of the reading to be exceptionally interesting. Thomas Morton and Pierre Biard defend the Indians' way of life. They say that Indians live richly by not worrying. They say that Europeans have something to learn from the Indians. I think the world is much the say in today's day and age. People worry and hurry too much. I think it's best to sometimes take a step back and appreciate things, let things sink in and enjoy one's self.

In the reading it talks about the burning of the land to clear away forest for farming. It seems that this practice could have gotten out of control at times. Is there any known instances of this occuring?

In the reading it also says that at a certain point the New England land was under the English Crowns' jurisdiction. Then the Indians had to buy it back, because according to the English they had no rights to it. Did this cause a lot of uprising or response from the Indians?

Throughout my schooling I have always been taught the differences in agriculture and ways of gathering food among Native Americans. I found is fascinating to see the difference between how the northern Indians differed from the Indians in the southern New England colonies. The thing that struck me most was how the Native Americans planted there crops. They planted corn, beans, and squash together, at the same time. With this method, each crop benefited from the other. Native Americans understood the land and how to use it wisely.

When the Englsih arrived in New England it is said that they criticized the male Indians for hunting and fishing. To the English this was their fantasy. Did this make it difficult to get along with eachother?

In the book it talks about the land wearing down because the Indians would use the same land for many years. They would leave and clear more forest for farming. Did the land that they left behind grow back or did it stay bare?

The book makes several references to locations and gives both their Indian and English name. How did they ways that Native Americans named places differ from the way that the English named them?

On page 52, the author goes into a discussion on the sexual division of labor and the misunderstandings of contributions of each sex by the other culture. Is it just me, or is this confusion still occurring today?

In what ways did the Northern and Southern New England Indian tribes differ in their use of the land, and how did this influence the Europeans interpretation of land rights?

It is interesting to me to see how little people have changed. Cronon talks about how the Europeans thought coming over were under the impression that all they had to get food was go wish for it and it was theirs. Many people have that same mentality. How much can Iget for the least amount of effort?

People have the same inherent nature. Everyone is quick to point fingers at another. Native American's are quick to point out that the white women are lazy and the white men ar quick to point out that Native American men are lazy. It's interesting to me, as truly it's just a misunderstanding.

why did the colonist want fish.

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! ziqxynznra

Here is my links,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra >buy biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]buy biagra[/url]