Rhetoric 1315 Questions

Before reading this book I knew many Indians died from European diseases, but I did not know to what extent. Within 75 years Indian population fell from 70,000 to 12,000 in New England alone. This figure is devastating. It was very interesting how Cronon explained why Indians were not immuned to Eropean diseases.

It's amazing to see how humans can keep destroying the land time and time again. Europeans already knew the effects of deforestration before they arrived in New England, yet they kept cutting and burning forests. Since then, the same thing has occurred accross the United States. I'm not sure, but I think Theoadore Roosevelt was the first to implement a plan to stop this destruction of the land, and this was not until the beginning of 20th century.

The diseases that wiped out Native American populations in the century after European arrival to the American continents is one of the under-reported tragedies of history.

On a lighter note, I had no idea what wampum was before I read this part of book, which is too bad, because it is part of the lexicon, so to speak, and one finds it impossible to understand some jokes without knowing what wampum is. Cronon does an excellent job describing the details of this bizarre moment in American economic history, and logically ties it to the ongoing upheaval within Native New England communities.

In the chapter "Commodoties of the Hunt", the author talks extensively about the fur trade. The Indians were enthusiastic in their pursuit of furs inorder to trade with the colonists, and in their own way contributed greatly to the decline of wildlife throughout New England. This, if anything, shows to me that there really wasn't a great deal of difference between the Europeans and the Indians. Both were more concerned with social status than they were with conserving the land. I found this interesting, because this is far from what most people have been led to believe in the contemporary world. This got me to wondering if maybe most history classes are to this day bias in there approach of American History? Does most common historical literature tend to demonize the colonists and present the Native Americans as "noble savages"? If so, is this view really correct, in light of what Cronon talks about in this chapter?

I noticed that the Indians that lived in the north handled the trading with the Europeans differently than those in the southern part of New England. Northern Indians had more experience with dealing with the Europeans and found ways to protect their villages and peoples. Why did they feel threatened in such a way that they had to meet with Europeans in such isolated locations.

England's need for trees and lumber for their navy was not the soul object for major deforestation in New England, it was the farmers who were the cause of most of the deforestation in New England. These two occupations were the most cause of deforestation. People don't really consider that farmers may have a hand in deforestation in New England.

I thought it was interesting that the mortality rate in the Indian village were rarely below 80 to 90 percent.

I also thought it was interesting that in 5 years they killed up to 9,000 beavers for the fur and hundreds of other animals.

It really makes clear in this section how much of an impact that the Indians really did have on the land that they inhabited. When the Indian populations underwent huge disease disasters, the land returned to forest, and the animal populations shifted because the edge habitats had changed. Usually people don't think of the Indians having a huge impact on the environment, but they obviously did.

It's also to think of how when the Indians killed off a major portion of the beaver populations, that the land started to drain better and once the beaver dams rotted it released huge tracts of land that were recently underwater, this was good farming soil. So in a way, killing off the beavers, helped the agriculture portion of New England.

Honestly, before class started, I was ignorant to the early effects of colonists on the environment and native inhabitants of New England. I was very interested in the diseases brought over the Atlantic Ocean and their affect on the Indians.

It is awful to think of how destructive the early colonists were to the land of New England. For example, the early colonists cut down so many trees in such a short period of time that certain species had started to disappear, such as the cedar and the pine.

I find it interesting how a few people realized what deforestation was causing, yet no laws or policys were made on deforestation until much later.

If the epidemics that killed 80-90% of the Indians hadn't occured, would the history of New England be completly different?

I found it amazing how quickly the Indians changed to fit the needs of the Europeans, but in doing so created problems for themselves.

I am curious as to why the Europeans didn't try to head west right away after they stripped the east of its resources/commodities. It would have seemed the likely course of action.

I thought that it was pretty bad how the colonists were completely making the Indians switch to their way of life instead of trying to maybe adapt to theirs.

I also found that in their practice of knocking down bigger trees, they ended up wasting more smaller trees, which could have grown into bigger ones and been more useful, just so they could "conserve their own labor"

I found it interesting how at one time the beaver was being conserved because the need for it was slight to the Indians, and then when the colonists came the beaver was conserved because the fur was a valueable trading item.

I also noticed that when the beaver became less populated the colonists took advantage of the rich soil that was lying beneath the beaver dams.

It is interesting that there are many accounts from Europeans about how the Indians are being wiped out by diseases, but never seem to take the blame for any of it or give accounts of how they tried to help. I understand that medical knowledge back then was very limited, but surely they must of have known something. Drawing on that, there are the accounts of how the Indian men are much better at trapping beaver than are the Europeans. Not helping a people desperately in need of it is cruel and terrible enough. Not helping the same people that serve as your workforce is just plain stupid.

(Pg. 123 for reference) The descriptions given for the changes in the climate of New England were drastic. Even in that day they could see the shifts in weather patterns. Could some of today's "Global Warming" and climactic shifts be also due to ecological change in addition to pollution and green house gases? Is this currently being looked into by any major university as a study?

I found it interesting that the Indians were not impressed with much of what the English had brought to trade with them until they had found a niche for it within their own society, oftentimes as a symbol of status. Is this not true within our own society still? Most kids' excuse for wanting something is "but everyone else has it" or something similar. Is this just inherent in human nature to want to belong or be appreciated as special?

Before Europeans showed up, the Indians had a sort of understanding with the land. Not to take more than they needed and they knew how to take care of the land in order to insure their survival. After trade started, especially with wampum, the Indians became materialistic. They gave up on the land and started to depend more on trade to live.

I was a little confused when Cronan wrote,"European pathogens thus served to undermine the spiritual and religious practices of Indian communitites." What did he mean?

At the beginning of the reading this week, Cronon contrasts the trading behavior of the Native American's of Narragansett bay and those further south with Verrazzano's men. He writes about how hostile they are. It makes me wonder, what could have happened to them to cause them to be so hostile?

After having read the section about three times, I am still unclear as to the mechanics of the European trading and wampums, as well as the firearms. Could you go over that?

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.

Hear about?
http://buygenericviagr.forumlivre.com/
http://buygenericviagr.forumlivre.com/ >buy biagra [url=http://buygenericviagr.forumlivre.com/]buy biagra[/url]

For your business --
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 >biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]biagra[/url]