Rhetoric 1315 Questions

This is just a side note from Friday's discussion. In class, it was mentioned that Native American tribes such as the Hopi, Navajo, and Eskimo had retained their native lands because they had come into contact with Americans later on in the settlement era and that by these times the Americans were better at handling these situations. However, could the real reason why these Natives were allowed to keep their homeland be the fact that the settlers couldn't find a use for it and thus were not really tempted to take it away from them? Just a thought.

(p.130-131) Colonists were forced to admit by the Native Americans, that by their own concepts of property and ownership, they were legally liable for the damages that their cattle caused to Indian crops. Was this a unique circumstance in "settlers vs. Natives" history or are there other instances in which settlers have been made to "eat" their own laws?

(p.141) I thought that it was very interesting that the true reason for people's need to spread out was the animals NOT the humans were overcrowded. Why then did colonists continue to raise more animals than the land could sustain even when they new the effects of it?

Ecologist E. Fraser Darling is quoted on page 141 stating "Pastoralism for commercial ends ... cannot continue without progressive deterioriation of the habitat." This is upsetting because the Native Americans were able to sustain life on the same amount if not smaller amount of land, without deteriorating it nearly as much as the colonists.

I found it intersting that the text states several times that the grazing of livestock encouraged tree growth on abandoned cropland (p 144-145). Then the text also states on numerous occasions that the grazing of livestock made sure some species of trees were not replaced and, at the same time, shifted the natural vegetation of the area. The same agricultural practice both helped and hindered the natural ecology of the area.

Furtile cropland was a major issue for colonists in New England. Even though they were coming from England - where farmers had been cautiously raising crops and the same fields for generations - the colonists did not seem to adapt any of the old world conservative farming techniques to their new homes. They were raising mostly the same crops, but they did not seem to know how to make a field last. How is it that they could come from such a land starved country and still know nothing about crop rotation and other techniques to improve land fertility? Was it simply because they did not understand the scope of just how much corn used the land?

The author talks about how the pigs were let loose into the forest for a season but does not talk more about the effect this would have on the environment. Feral swine have caused huge problems in the southeast where they have a large population density and I think it's important to note the effect these would have had on the environment. The author also mentions the extermination of the wolves and the bounties being paid for them. Many states did not repeal their bounty system until the 1960's. It's interesting to see how views on treating the Indians and even better use of cropland has changed over the past 150-100 years (although Indian relations were still poor even recently), but the view on predator extermination was the same 40 years ago as it was 300 years ago.

It seems that many of the problems that arised for colonials were caused by animals, plants and insects that they themselves had brought over from England, either on purpose or by accident. Were there any sort of systems or laws in place aimed to prevent new colonists from bringing over undesireable flora and fauna in both England (before they debarked) and in New England? Did they try at all to keep the banes of the old world away from the Colonies?

I never realized that animals such as rats, house mice, cockroaches, honeybees, and flies were not native to this country. How different would the landscape have been had these foreign creatures not found there way to America?

It mentioned at the end of the chapter how New England transformed from agriculture-based to industrialism. Which of these proved more harmful to the land at the time? In the long run?

It amazing how the colonist found more and more reasons to destroy New England forests. Once the forests were gone, I wonder what they blamed flooding, soil erosion, and crop failure on?

The effects of farming and commercial tending herds on the ecosystem in the 17th century is astounding. Do we still have this much impact today?

Many things were brought over from Europe, like livestock, but also weeds, and animal weeds. My question is that the colonists obviously had to know that New England didn't have some of the same problems as Europe with weeds, etc. so why didn't they take extra measure to make sure that the new land didn't get infected with these same pests?

It's also interesting how the raising of livestock in a way started the system of roads from towns to cities. This way colonist could get their product to market. And just the role livestock itself played with the environment and how tree populations grew is important to the landscape.

I have noticed that the colonists don't like pest or animals that make life a little bit difficult. On page 133 it states that the colonists put a bounty on a particular wolf and I don't hold anything against the colonist for trying to protect their livelihood, but I do object against the unnecessary need to kill all animals that are in the area of a problem of animal.

The colonists like to take land and then have animals that would be able to roam free and wouldn't compensate the Indians for any crops that they lost, because of the colonists animals are roaming free and the Indians are not accoastumed to putting up fences for their crops because they don't always stay in one spot.

My two posts for this reading are in response to two of the questions already posted. The first question I will give my viewpoint on is from Katie Hausladen who asked, "Why then did colonists continue to raise more animals than the land could sustain even when they new the effects of it?" I think it was becuase the colonist, like every other human being, wanted to make more money. They knew that there was so much land out there that they thought it would never run out. In a simple response, the colonists were not thinking in terms of the long run.

The second interesting question I found was written by Nick Miller who wrote, "The effects of farming and commercial tending herds on the ecosystem in the 17th century is astounding. Do we still have this much impact today?" The answer is yes. Farmers have a great deal of impact on the land, but fortunately we understand that if we don't respect the land, we won't be able to produce enough food for everyone. I can give a further explanation in class if needed.

I found it interesting that for the first three years they had no cattle and then they finally got 3 heifers and a bull. It then stated "...ship after ship arrived laden with upward of fifty animals in a load..." It shows that those cattle showed an importance to the people and they couldn't seem to get enough of them.

I didn't know that they used fish as fertilizer. I think it is an interesting way to fertilize.

Cronon talks about how the colonists and Native Americans followed seasonal cycles. We still follow the same seasonal cycles today, although the way we have adapted is slightly different. The NAs and colonists both went through the seasons and gained and lost weight. We do the same today. We gain weight in the winter and lose it in the summer. We adapt our habits and lifestyle to the season.

The Native Americans were given a double edged sword. Cronon talks about how the swine from the English would ravage the oyster beds (which the NAs used to collect food). The NAs were "in direct competition with the swine for food." In order to protect their food source, hypothetically they should have been able to kill the swine, but had they done so, they would have been persecuted by the English. Not only did the colonists come and take things from the NAs, so did the animals.

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?

The book says that the Indians relationship with the animals they hunted was far different than that of the Europeans to the animals they grazed. The European system of ownership and enclosing your animals to gain year round control led to "a host of changes in the land, the seemingly endless miles of fences, the silenced voices of vanished wolves, the system of country roads, and the new feilds filled with clover, grass and buttercups." I was wondering if this would have all been the same had the Europeans not had the approach of needing to own everything and enclose it.

I noticed that the animals like the hog and the cow were different from the deer hunted by the Indians, because even if these animals were grazed in a common herd, they were all marked in some way, by a brand or notch, in order to prove ownership. This approach to the way the Europeans think of animals as opposed to the Indians then led to lots of fines and punishements if the Indians killed a European animal. This system of ownership also hurt the Europeans in the case that the animals they owned went and ate some of the Indians crops, then the European owners were held responsible and would then have to pay a fine to the Indians.

On page 130, when Cronan talked about the Indians killing a colonists pig, the fine was one beaver skin to be paid to the colonists by the Indians. This seems like a twisted version of "an eye for an eye"

When the English livestock started to over graze in the woods and the plants that were useless and more of a nuisance than anything else, started to increase in number and eliminate the plants that were acceptable for grazing, the colonists did nothing about it but move the cattle somewhere else to destroy more land. To me, this just reaffirms that the colonists were lazy and had an unequal concept of how to maintain the land compared to the Indians.

One of the major problems encountered by New England settler/farmers was that their fields quickly became unproductive as a result of the intensive cultivation of corn. This got me to thinking, today's corn production is much more sustainable from a soil fertility point of view because of the use of fertilizers, which were not used in colonial New England. For me, this truly put the idea of sustainability into perspective, and allowed me to realize just how unsustainable the colonial system of production was.

you guys are idiots

Cunts.

this is a very boring text(isorry i didn't read it yet) BY:Ayesha

this is a very boring text(isorry i didn't read it yet) BY:Ayesha

Huge info collection --
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]