Rhetoric 1315 Questions

On page 161, it is stated: "The rural economy of New England thus acquired a new tendency toward expansion ... Capitalism and environmental degredation went hand in hand." This is something which I believe could have been avoided. If the colonists would have looked at how the Native Americans thrived off the land in less destructive ways, many of the ecological disasters which were happening could have been prevented. For example, on page 160, Cronan begins to explain how the changing of the land affected the overall atmosphere of the area. For example, it states that flooding had become more common and soil exhaustion was occuring in many areas. This is no doubt a result of European colonists arrival in North America. The Native Americans lived on the same land for centuries before the Europeans arrived without such disaster occuring.

I found it interesting that Cronan stated "If Europeans were responsible for bringing diseases to America, it is no less true that those diseases in turn helped promote European expansion." Who would have thought that Europeans could begin a biological war, unintendedly, and eventually benefit from these bacteria and virus!

Cronon writes about how growing up in the MidWest heightened his awareness of ecological change. After thinking about this I realized that I to was raised by my parents to notice changes in the landscape. Is this also true for others in this class?

(p.165) The assassination of Miantonomo (the sachem of the Narragansett) was described. Were such assassinations of Indian political leaders common, and if so were individual colonists or entire village assemblies responsible for deciding who would be assassinated and carrying out the task?

I found it intriquing that my favorite line from this book was in fact the very last one. Cronon ends the book by saying, "Ecological abundance and economic prodigality went hand in hand: the people of plenty were a people of waste." He uses the past tense in this sentence, but does not the same hold true even now?

In this final chapter, Cronon restates all of the great changes that had (have) taken place in the ecology of New England. In light of what we have learned in this book about invasive plant and animal species and the great geographical changes that took place, would it ever be possible to recreate the New England of old in even a very small area any time in the future? Or have things changed so much that we would never be able to really see what it was once like?

In response to Katrina's comment on the last sentence of the book, "...the people of plenty were a people of waste." I think this is still true in American culture. We still pride ourselves in how much stuff we can aquire, even though it far surpasses what we need.

In response to Katrina's other comment about restoring even a small part of New England to how it was before colonists came: I don't think this would be possible because I think it would be too difficult to determine what was actually native and what was invasive since the colonists never had an accurate record of the species exhisting.

I especially like the following quote from the book "colonists economic relations of production were ecologically self-destructive." I think that it kind of sums up the whole book in a sense.

I wonder had the Europeans not come over to New England would the Indians have gone about their ways forever? Would they have not developed their own markets and commodities, more so than what they had being doing previously?

On page 160 the book states, "Deforestation had in general affected the region by making local temperatures more erratic, soils drier, and drainage patterns less constant." In what time frame did this occur and how do we verify this statement?

I too liked the ending sentence of the book! "Ecological abundance and economic prodigality went hand and hand: the people of plenty were a people of waste." I think this is very true.

In reference to all of the comments above about the final quote, it is interesting to see that all of these people that are leaving the Old World to escape persecution and tough times seemingly forgot all of these reasons and then instilled this waste and biasment on the indigenious people of the land.

On page 161 it states, "Capitalism and environmental degradation went hand and hand." This statement is as true and maybe even more true in today's world. During macroeconomics I saw figures that showed that the more a coutry was developed and the more money it had in the capitalist market, the greater the harm to the environment. The more a country develops the more pollution it causes. It's amazing to see this correlation between now and almost four hundred years ago.

I found it interesting that even though the Indians and the Europeans came from two, very different ways of life, the Indians still adapted and acquired some of the traits of the Europeans. The Indians, in some manners, conformed to the Europeans way of life. It isn't suprising that this occured because the Europeans were the dominant people. It's just interesting and somewhat sad that this had to happen.

I found it particularly interesting that the indian sachem Miantonomo wanted to create a united indian group to kill men, women and children. Due to the circumstances, are his actions justified?

Also I found the last sentance on page 170 "the people of plenty are a people of waste" to be a very true statement. Does it seem as though this statement is still true of the USA?

Cronon discussed how the Europeans were capitalistic and strove for surplus and gain. The Indians saw this from the beginning, but were selfish and involved themselves with them for trade purposes. Later, he mentioned that the Indians wanted to unite and fight the Europeans. Why did the Indians never try to stop the Europeans? Was it solely a matter of numbers or was there something else stopping them in the beginning?

Cronon also talks about how the Europeans wanted to leave the manufacturing and business in Europe. However, they attacked the land and used it to its full extent as though it was infinite, which was obviously not the case. My question is then, how, being that they came from Europe where space was certainly limited, could they not foresee this problem and be more careful with this new space than their predecessers in Europe were?

Cronon shows that the Indians were able to change and alter their lifestyle and still be a culture unto themselves, but still a lesser people to the English. Miantonomo was one of the few Indians that actually took a stand and tried to rally all the tribes together so that they will be able to stand up against the English. Miantonomo caused a lot of turmoil with trying to get political rights for Indians and to stop the English from taking their land. Miantonomo was then captured by a rival tribe and thought that going to the English (who he also had an agreement with) for safekeeping would be alright. The colonist had then had him assassinated. Did all the "leaders" of Indian tribes or Indians who caused a stiring turmoil for right end up killed and did the colonist do it on a personal level or as a community?

On page 163 Miantonomo told his people that "they were going to ambush the people and kill men, women, and children, but no cows" It is interesting how they made their plan to "leave the cows and eat them later until their deer populution increased again"

I found it interesting where the colonists viewed New England not as a place full of resources, but rather commodities that could be sold in the marketplace. Did this thinking set the tone for the American lifestyle today?

Was this self interest for commodities as a way to make profit for the colonists the force that led Indians out of their lands and on to reservations?

One leader of an Indian tribe said in a speech, that the colonists got their land and ruined it with their livestock, which in turn led to much less wild animals. By realizing this could the Indians have done anything to stop the colonists, or was this just their fate?

I found it interesting that the colonists came to New England and got dominance. This can be seen in view of the fact that the Indians were adopting to the European ways. The Indians were putting their goods in the market to earn profits? Was this their only hope of survival?

On page 169, it talks about the colonists assuming that there are "limitless availability of more land to exploit". What doesn't make sense is that in Europe, they ran out of land and were running out of other resources such as wood. Did they think that it wouldn't happen here too?

Cronan also discusses the different costs of labor in England vs. America. I think that its interesting that even back then they say that in England, rents are high and labor low. In America, it is just the opposite however. It was true back then I still believe that it is true today.

Cronon makes a good point in this final chapter. Too often we are tempted to jump to conclusions and state that a single idea or process is responsible for a transformation like we saw in New England. While capitalism explained much of what occured, it was not the cause for all of the changes in the landscape of the northeast.

I appreciated the Swedish travler's observation on the gross unsustainability of the American farmers in the colonies. This was attributed to the colonists use of land as a form of capital, which in my opinion is an equation for abuse and disaster. It has taken this country 300 years to come around and attempt to right this wrong.

replica handbags
http://www.blognow.com.au/replicahandbags/
replica handbags

Thank you guys.

[url=][/url]

Thank you guys.

[url=][/url]

Thank you guys.

[url=][/url]

Managed Hosting, Colocation and Data Center Services by victoryushchenkonashpresudent ...