Brief Views on Early New England

If ten people were to focus on the same aspect of time, all ten individuals would have different and unique perspectives on it. One person may see abundance, peace, and joy... while another sees pain, destruction and death. Still another may see parts of both of these views and then add another twist to their vision. I tried to look at some of the history of New England from some of these different perspectives: the people, animals and communities after the the colonies were started in the area of the United States that we still call New England. I also incorporated some commonly known history in the mix...

The most common way to study the history of New England is to study the perspective of the explorers and the reigning government's point of view. Another perspective is to look at the history from the standpoint from a colonial settler. Living in the 'new' world was hard. Most colonial settlers had no commercial talents – the majority of people came to this world to flee religious persecution, to find land and wealth, or to even try and escape punishment or the gallows for misdeeds such as murder; to have a fresh 'start'. A lot of money and wealth could be made by cutting down trees and shipping the created by-products to England as well as the collection and shipment of fish and other natural resources. However, many settlers had to learn that money can not be 'eaten' and couldn't be used to purchase food where none was available/grown. The major commodity for making money was through trees and created wood products- masts, casks, tools, lumber for construction, barrels, etc... This created the incentive for individuals to sell all the resources available...leaving none for yourself, your family or your community. From the settlers point of view, the land was a God given right, a place of hardship and work, but a place of potential- a new world of wonders and great fertility.

Another way to study the history of New England is to study it from the perspective of the beaver. In the world that the beaver inhabited before the arrival of the Europeans, the beaver was a king. It manipulated the physical environment more than any other animal on the continent... besides us. :) Through the efforts of the beaver, many trees were felled or downed, soil erosion was controlled as the water table rose, new homes are created for animals and fish, and new meadows would develop over time. Beavers had been on this continent for millions of years, and lived building dens and traveling over land and water. They were difficult for their predators to catch and the life they set up for themselves and their progeny was quite successful. The arrival of the Europeans found an animal quite spread out over its environment and in control of its land. Unfortunately for the beaver, the fact that their fur

was easily used to imitated a type of hat manufacturing already in existence in Europe created a further incentive to kill the beaver after if was discovered by the new settlers. In humans, the beaver found the ultimate apex predator who would chase them out of the water to kill them, had a significant incentive to do so, and would do so at will. Due to the economic inequality between the Europeans, the trade desires between the Indians and new settlers, and the profit margin of upwards of 2000% on the fur, beavers suffered horribly. It is believed that only the laws created by the early American government to control and limit the use of beaver products saved the animal from extinction. The beavers lost their land, safety and even the possibility to survive without the intervention of the same species who had brought them to near annihilation. The difference between these two histories in some ways is plain. It can certainly be said that the beaver's history in some ways mirrors the history of the Native Americans- both groups had made themselves comfortable and relatively at peace and in harmony with the land... the coming of the European settlers not only spelled the near annihilation of both groups, but also their loss of land, food, harmony and peace.

The relationship between Blacks and Indians in the colonial South is a bit complicated. Both Blacks and Indians could and had been enslaved by the white Europeans, but the rules of bondage that were held in the laws were interpreted more harshly for blacks. Many Indian tribes accepted runaway slaves into their tribes and intermarriage was acceptable in most of these cases. However, many Indian tribes would turn in runaway slaves and would get benefits and rewards for doing so. In some cases such as the Seminole tribe, Indians would also own blacks as slaves and at the end of the civil war, some tribes had to actually be forced to free their slaves. Europeans would in some cases cause problems between both of these groups by suggesting to members that the other group was working against them; i.e. Indians would be told that Blacks were working against them, etc.... Some sources suggest that working to cause and develop racism in Indian tribes against African Americans was part of

the early government's public policy. Europeans tried to stop the flow of runaway slaves to Indian tribes and even signed treaties with some tribes with the agreement that these tribes would return runaway slaves- most who signed did not follow through and did not return the runaway slaves. The reality is that Indian tribes welcomed runaway blacks into their folds for the most part which caused President Andrew Jackson to fight with and push the Indians out of many of their lands. In the area we now call Florida, so many blacks were escaping from Georgia and living with Indians that the local Indian tribes were seen as a threat for that reason alone. Some of the ways that these groups tried to deal with their conditions was to hold tight to their cultures (although some groups allowed forms of assimilation), some grew foods from their native lands and others tried to find other ways to find peace with their situation. Some ran away, assimilated, or found justification in exploiting others like their European counterparts.

There are a few differences between an organic and an inorganic economy. An organic economy consists of natural resources such as wind, water, animal and human labor. Inorganic economy consists of iron ore, charcoal, etc... In many instances the resources that make up an organic economy as more easily expanded and grown that those that govern the inorganic economy. Human labor is renewable through rest and the importation of servants, slaves and explorers. Wind and water are fairly abundant and while less controllable than human labor, they can be created, collected, and harnessed to squeeze all the available resourcs out of them. Animals can be bred, imported and even trained fairly easily. However, sources such as iron ore are not quickly duplicated. Iron takes a long time for nature to develop and charcoal can be made, but it takes a lot of 'waste' or resource usage to create a small amount of charcoal. So an inorganic economy can be made, but is a riskier

proposition- you risk the loss of the economy when resources run out... if you do not have a strong organic economy you risk starvation, etc... The Europeans focused so much in some cases on the creation for wealth through inorganic economies that they had to buy or steal food from the Indians to survive and some laws had to be passed in some areas that required the growth of grain if you participated in a part of the economy that did not actual create food. Learning about this phenomenon was really interesting because I was a little shocked that people would 'forget' or would be unwilling to waste their 'time' growing food... but would want to eat it later. In many ways we have that same economy today where people have separated themselves from the growing and making of their food... and our farmers can be quite poor even though they work really hard and product an important commodity. In many ways we still 'despise' this labor even as we eat from it.

The importance of Christopher Columbus's report to Queen Isabella cannot be understated. His report of a new land filled with potential converts to the Christian religion, gold and other riches, but most importantly.... land for the taking after conquering was staggering and exciting! While this news was important to the Queen and to Spain, the rest of Europe was also in a situation that caused desperation and it was only a matter of weeks before the letter that Christopher Columbus had written to the Queen had been translated, copied and traveled throughout all of Europe by other travelers and pilgrims, traders,and armies. Soon other countries were arming ships to head to the new land with people who had nothing to lose in the hopes for land, a better life, and riches to gain in the new world. Spain started the lead for colonies first, and when England had fought and beaten the Spanish army, the English came and started their own settlements. Other countries soon followed created French and Dutch colonies and more rivalries for land and resources.

Until the arrival of the Spanish, horses were not an animal known to the Americas since the prehistoric ice age. However, the Spanish brought them in abundance to the Americas to aid in their conquest of the native populations and it is thanks to the horse that Pizarro and his Spanish army conquered the local populations in such a small period of time (the diseases that the Spanish brought with them muct also be given some credit, but I digress :). As some horses escaped and became wild, a new breed of horse was developed that we today call the mustang. This breed became extremely numerous and they populated the land across the continent- the horses didn't stay in the 'conquered' lands. These large groups of wild horses changed the way that the Native Americans lived in a dramatic way. Horses gave the native populations new ways to do almost everything. They could fight, hunt and travel on horses and this 'blessing' transformed their lives. Some tribes become more nomadic as moving farther distances was easier/ possible and horses became a new part of the Indian's culture and lifestyle. It seems almost rare to hear about the culture of Indians and not hear about the horse. The horse becomes a symbol of the Indian's culture and life to the Europeans and their future progeny... even though the history of Native Americans is thousands of years long and their history with the horse is only a few centuries.

Pigs were brought from Europe with the explorers and they were a blessing to these non-native people. Pigs are prolific, small, not too picky about food, easy to care for and are willing to look after themselves. Some pigs were let loose into the 'wilderness' on purpose- with markings on their ears to show ownership- and then were hunted as needed by their European owners. This way their owners didn't have to care for them and just 'collected' their property when needed. As the Americas were conquered by the Spaniards, the pigs helped the conquerors by attacking and eating the local native's crops of corn- they competed with Indians for the Indian's food. Native Americans didn't fence their fields and so wild pigs were able to eat the small shoats and cultivated crops of the natives. (Between pigs and the entitlement felt by the Europeans that they could take the native's seed corn whenever they wanted to, the Native Americans must have felt quite trapped and desperate... which explains some of their aggression towards the incomers. Within a few generations, there would be tens of thousands of wild pigs which became more aggressive over time and developed tusks... becoming a serious and daily problem for the Native Americans.

The Europeans reacted to the seemingly endless supply of trees and fish with joy and greed. Europe was desperate for both wood and fish and the 'new world' seemed to be overabundant and unending in these resources. The land is describes as having rivers with more fish than water and trees that are so numerous that a squirrel can go from the north of the country to the south without ever touching the ground. The newcomers saw it as their 'duty' to tame the forests and civilize the land for God. So the forests are cut down for building and 'needs' for not only this new land, but the lands of Spain and the Old World. Fish were harvested as if there would always be an overabundance so it

took only 200 years to over-fish the Americas. Wood was taken so quickly that some areas in the Americas were literally denuded of trees – and this 'new world' begins to look like the land that they left. For the settlers, someone who owned land would be able to sell the fish for money or other goods creating wealth- and since the land wasn't owned, the land's resources cost nothing. I think it is safe to say that both wood and fish were harvested with only greed and need in mind and not conservation or with the thought that the resources might potentially be limited. Both of these resources with be overused and run low... and were probably a factor in the fight for independence from the European powers... it would allow those that lived in the Americas to keep more of the resources to themselves and not have the largest share (or what was left) travel across the seas.

The animals that were brought over from Europe such as the horse and pig changed the landscape of the American continent in many ways and the arrival of women and their animals also create great change. Women brought the way of life that they were used to in Europe which included plants such as wheat, barley, fig trees, olives, bananas, other fruit trees, etc … and animals such as goats, chickens, sheep, cows, etc…. Through these passengers that traveled to the America's, other 'tagalongs' such as weeds like dandelions and European insects (including bees) arrive and start to populate the environment. With all of these changes, the Americas and it's land literally fall under an environmental revolution as the land becomes a mirror image of the European lands that these people have left behind. The land was invaded by all of these animals and the new plants and the land is forever changed through the trampling and domination of the new animal population. In the end, the settlers do not have to tame the land... they practice environmental imperialism and conquer the land itself, bending it to their will and leaving death, destruction and sometimes extinction to the native flora and fauna that were once strong. One quote I found stated- “livestock and grains changed this world into a true New England.” The land was permanently changed and today looks nothing like it did before the Europeans arrived.

The new discoveries of resources in the Americas created a demand for luxury goods that were purely American products. Fur and other 'hide' products became in high demand and some animals (such as beavers) were hunted almost to extinction... (But I bet everyone in England and some of the other European countries look very fashionable in their fur coats and beaver hats. :) The land was quickly cleared for gardens and orchards/plantations and the demand for fruit from the 'New World' is high in Europe. Sugar and tobacco (the luxury goods with highest demand) were also desired luxury items which were packed and shipped in large amounts to Europe. To satisfy the large demand of these products in the Old World, huge plantations or large mono-cultures were developed that stretched over enormous swaths of land and Africans are captured, forcibly immigrated, and then compelled to work these huge areas/ plantations for the profit of the white Europeans. These African slaves were needed as the Native American population could not really be enslaved – too many of them had been killed or died out from the new diseases brought by the European immigrations. The downside of growing sugar and tobacco is that they really can not be eaten(for nourishment and health)and these plants tend to rape the soil of all it nutrients. So growing these products in many ways required the development of slavery and the loss of forests as more land had to be cleared to grow these crops when current fields were no longer fertile. The upside is that sugar tastes really good... sorry, couldn't help that comment. :)

The discovery of the potato took a few centuries to really take hold in Europe, but when it does it becomes a necessary and needful food item for the poor as a healthful and nutritious product. Potatoes are introduced to Spain and from there to Europe and it is embraced in Ireland. Ireland is constantly short of food for its population due to bad land, wars, exc... The potato is easy to grow and has less chances in war time of being burned and destroyed. The population in Ireland will more than double due to the potato and other towns in Europe with explode in population due to the impact of this easy to grow tuber. The fact that potatoes also have a goodly amount of nutrients including vitamin C (which helps prevent scurvy) made them an indispensable food for a moving and financially strapped population.

The impact that the new diseases brought from Europe had on the native populations was nothing short of devastating. Conservative death estimates suggest that around 50% of these native populations died, but it appears that the estimates that suggest death numbers might be over 90% mortality may be a lot more accurate. Historians are still trying to discover all the diseases that were spread and to grasp a clear and accurate mortality number, but we are sure that one of the diseases that caused such devastation was smallpox and, because the virus was so strong and traveled so easily, many populations of native tribes fell to the disease and death without ever meeting any of the Europeans who originally brought the disease to their lands. Another disease that is know to have causes large scale death and destruction to the Native Americans was influenza. Neither of these diseases was known in the Americas before the arrival of the Europeans so no native animal or person was immune from these diseases and had little to no defense. As the Native Americans fell sick and perished (and their civilizations failed), the Europeans would give thanks to God and see the death/destruction of the natives as a blessing and a mandate from God; that the land was theirs to tame and occupy, that the natives were sinners, etc... and not worthy of the land, and that the land was a gift from God for them. These thoughts and prejudices allow the settlers to see themselves as the true owners of the land and to see themselves as better and more worthy than the native populations. These viewpoints would justify the exploitation of the land and the European settlers would feel justified in their minds that their actions were right and appropriate... and not greedy and unrighteous. It allowed them to look at the natives and label them 'savages' and other forms of animals - not actually human beings like unto themselves (and God's image).

Some of these views we as a human race are still struggling with. Racism, exploitation, belief in Godly entitlement... these are all viewpoints that can easily be found on a daily basis in our communities. I wish I had easy answers to solve the problem but I really don't. What I know I can do is work to change myself and work to create change in my community. What do you think? What are you doing?


pictures from: http://www.instantshift.com/2010/08/24/88-brilliant-examples-of-forced-perspective-photography/, http://www.albinocrowgallery.com/murals.html, http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/animals-ecology/beaver-damn-climate-change-17122014/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_among_Native_Americans_in_the_United_States, https://www.pinterest.com/russellgavin/black-native-americansmixed-race/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade, http://www.billsbearrugs.com/clearance/, http://natureworksct.blogspot.com/2012/03/grow-food.html, http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/05/21/american-history-myths-debunked-columbus-might-have-been-jewish-and-other-unknown-facts, http://myhorse.com/blogs/horse-breeds-information/wild-or-rescued-horses/colorado-state-university-researchers-try-birth-control-vaccine-on-wild-horse-herd/, http://research.cnr.ncsu.edu/blogs/news/2011/05/04/wild-hogs-researchers-examine-impact-of-feral-pigs-in-eastern-n-c/, http://inhabitat.com/epa-declares-more-than-half-of-us-rivers-unfit-for-aquatic-life/, http://miriadna.com/wallpapers/forest, http://www.wildmanstevebrill.com/Plants.Folder/Dandelion.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_hat, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato, http://espressostalinist.com/genocide/native-american-genocide/

Eugenics in America After 1945: Term Post #2

...Here are some examples:

North Carolina had a sterilization program in place from 1929-1974 in which approximately 7,600 individuals were sterilized with over 70% of those coming after 1945 when the program expanded after World War II. One unique aspect of North Carolina's laws was that they were written allowing people to be recommended for sterilization by doctors, social workers and other government employees they dealt with in their communities and homes. About 85% of those referred for sterilization were women. One guideline for sterilization was if a person had an IQ of less than 70. In July 2013, the state set aside ten million dollars for compensation to the verifiable victims of this program of which approximately 3000 are thought to be still alive.

In the 1950’s, black women in the south became targets of forced sterilization via tubal litigation or hysterectomy, commonly referred to by women as “Mississippi appendectomies,” because women entered hospitals to have abdominal surgery and left unknowingly without their uteri. In 1972, testimony before a US Senate committee brought to light at least 2,000 involuntary sterilizations that had been performed on poor black women who were mothers with multiple children. They were usually told that their appendix needed to be removed and were sterilized at that time or at the birth of a child, especially if the women was unmarried. There is evidence that many women may never have known why they couldn't conceive.

Forced sterilization practices changed and were focused on specific populations in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s through newly established federal family planning programs. Mexican and Mexican-American women were coerced or tricked into forced sterilization at the Women’s hospital of the University of Southern California- Los Angeles County Medical Center. Public concerns that the rise in Mexican immigration was overpopulating the state and purposely expanding state welfare needs was high. The idea that women became pregnant and then worked their way across the American – Mexican border to give birth and give themselves and their new family a secure financial benefit through the various welfare programs available is still an active concern in our present political climate. There is no known number of how many involuntary and coerced sterilizations there were before the federal class court case Madrigal v. Quilligan - a lawsuit brought against a hospital and their doctors by some women who discovered their unwanted sterilization. However, statistics show that elective hysterectomies had a 742% increase and tubal ligations a 470% increase within a two year time frame. At least 140 women shared their stories of being forced to agree or not being given any kind of informed consent at all. Some described situations that can only be described as blackmail. i.e.; I will not give you pain medication to finish your labor and delivery unless you comply. The lead defendant in the court case, Dr. Edward Quilligan, was quoted by a medical technician as stating, “poor minority women in L.A. County were having too many babies; that it was a strain on society; and that it was good that they be sterilized.” The plaintiffs lost their case, but the case did change and created stronger informed consent rules through legislation in California including bilingual language on the consent forms.

In 1955, the federal government changed the way that health care for Native American populations was provided. Depending on many factors, the quality of care throughout the Indian Health System varied considerably due to individual facilities, staff opinions/prejudices, and changes in 'coverage' due to Congressional appropriation hearings and decisions. These changes had some significant benefits as the new program was much better funded which helped increase services and decrease mortality. Another potential benefit which was added was the provision of family planning services. On reservations, Native American women became targets of physicians employed by the Indian Health Services who believed that restricting these women’s reproduction would reduce their poverty and dependence on the state. Through the

sharing of stories, complaints of coercion or harassment, and from research and interviews preformed through investigations, it is estimated that IHS hospitals and their affiliates sterilized between 25 and 42 percent of all Native American women of childbearing age between 1970 and 1976. Even with mandated changes requiring informed consent, added waiting periods and added safeguards, in 1974 more accusations cropped up that IHS staff in some places were not following the new guidelines and questionable sterilizations were still taking place - almost all subsidized with federal funds. Evidence shows that these types of experiences not only changed the relationships between Native Americans and the government/Indian Health System but also caused significant changes in an individual’s life and their standing in the community, as well causing economic and familial harm- some marital relationship were also severed over the procedure. In 1976, Congress passed the Indian Health Care Improvement Act which gave tribes the right to control Indian Health Service programs and there is no evidence that inappropriate sterilizations have happened after that time.

In case we believe that our society’s beliefs and behavior has changed since the late 1970's, we have other more recent examples. In 1909, California was the third state to pass a eugenics sterilization law and over the years had sterilized around 20,000 patients or around 1/3 of all the sterilizations in the country. That law was finally repealed in 1979 after a lawsuit by several women who had been coerced or forced into their own sterilizations. Yet, at least 148 women incarcerated in four California prisons were illegally sterilized in the years 2006-2011 costing the state $147,460 for the procedures. One of the physicians, Dr. James Heinrich, has stated that the practice of sterilizing female prisoners saves the state money because the patients would no longer have “unwanted children as they procreated more.” Auditors found in those cases that sometimes paperwork was altered to look like compliance with current laws was achieved and in many cases, no informed consent was attained. On September 25, 2014 California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill prohibiting forced sterilization in the state.

That the United States has not been able to shake the ideas and prejudices that informed and created the original Eugenics movement. Today eugenical ideas and procedures are still officially permitted. Voluntary sterilization for therapeutic or for reproductive reasons is a great blessing for thousands of people and should be accessible for those who need it. However, its availability gives eugenic proponents the tools they need to pressure individuals to give up their dignity and human right to reproduction. Some women may lose that right without being told of the procedure or are given false information such as it is reversible. There is even incidental evidence that federal money is being spent on experiments and science that are clearly eugenic in nature. In the end, eugenics is still very much successful in America. I am aware that I personally fit several of the ideals for eugenic sterilization –I am so myopic I am considered legally blind, suffer from celiac disease, and have two other severe medical issues as well as PTSD, and severe sensory/ anxiety issues. I have given birth to a child that also has problems with celiac disease, has sensory problems and had seizures for seven years before outgrowing them. And yet, my son is a wonderful human being and he is well liked in his community. He is smart and compassionate in spite of his disabilities and my life wouldn’t really feel worth much without him. I have chosen to not have any more children and being able to make that choice for myself is one of the most wonderful things I appreciate in my life. I am hopeful that as society recognizes the individual worth of all individuals, may the concept of eugenics pass away… and rest in peace.

pictures from: http://www.carolinapublicpress.org/9854/house-passes-eugenics-compensation-bill, http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/the-american-eugenics-movement-after-world-war-ii-part-1-of-3/Content?oid=2468789&storyPage=3, http://gloriamolina.org/2014/01/15/looking-back/, http://www.quora.com/Native-Americans, http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/SD/SD.html, http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/12/opinion/la-ed-sterilization-female-prisoners-california-20130712, http://www.examiner.com/article/illegal-sterilizations-forced-on-women-california-prisons, http://rt.com/usa/167660-california-illegal-sterilization-women/

What in a Team Name? A Lot!

It is almost impossible to not know about the controversies over sports team names that are named after slurs or white shorthand for Native Americans as they are pretty consistently in the news. I haven’t owned a television for over ten years, but the controversies about these names is also in the newspapers, radio, etc… I have felt for many years that these names are wrong and offensive for several reasons. Those reasons can be slightly different depending on the particular ‘name’. Here are some of the names and my thoughts on them.

Redskins - This is a word that was used to describe the skin color of Native Americans and is widely considered to be a racial slur and studies show that to most likely be correct. Why it’s a slur – whether the word means the color of skin, a bloody scalp, or a description of the corpse with the scalp removed – seems clear. In 2014, Amanda Blackhorse, a Navajo activist stated: "The name itself actually dates back [to] the time when the Native American population was being exterminated, and bounty hunters were hired to kill Native American people... So, in order to show that they made their kill, they had to bring back a scalp or their skin." According to the Los Angeles Herald, different parts of the colonial government would pay up to 50 pounds for the scalps of Indian males over the age of twelve, 25 pounds for Indian women over the age of twelve, and twenty pounds for the scalps of children of either gender. The owners of the team named the “Washington Redskins” state that the team name is respectful and has been from its inception, however, it appears that is not necessarily true and is more of a myth that is clung to in the hopes that they will not feel forced to change the team name. In the end, many people see the word 'redskins' to be as rude and bigoted as the word 'nigger'... if we are unable to accept the use of that word because of its connotations, why would we be okay with this one?

Braves- One the face of it, this word seems respectful. It brings to mind an Indian warrior – a tall male, proud, and strong, etc... However, when I really thing about this I realize that I am seeing an image in my head that is part myth, part caricature. I am not seeing what that word really shows because I do not know the culture well enough to understand the full nuances of what the word really symbolizes. So what this term really suggests is what white people think of Indian culture which shows how not only how limited our understanding of their culture is, but how little we actually respect it as well. A whole intricate culture is not made to be simplified into a few actions of a mascot or boiled down to a single stereotype or image. So, in the end, this word really isn't nice or respectful either as many Native Americans have tried to express to us through speech and writings. Currently, the US has a major league baseball team named the Atlanta Braves and a few minor league affiliates with the same name.

There are other team names that are named after specific tribes (such as the Chicago Blackhawks and the Florida State Seminoles), stereotypes (Elora Mohawks) or simply as Indians (such as the Cleveland Indians) and they tend to be seen by native tribes as offensive, racist and derogatory. When I look at the issue in that light, I can't have any opinion but that the names need to be changed. First of all, while it might cost the teams money to change things, it would be a very great gesture which I believe would go a long way into helping to promote healing in the Native American community. I also think that would potentially bring in more revenue as another group of people who currently feel angry and alienated (and maybe even mocked) would potentially become customers when it feels more respectful and fun for them. Sports teams have been complaining over the last several years that they need to attract more customers- this seems like a good potential way to do it. It also seems like changing a name is really a small thing to do to help build bridges and create opportunities for community gathering and understanding. Just my thoughts....


pictures from:
http://www.redskins.com/, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Braves,

“It's Your Funeral”... and Thoughts on Humanity's Continued Search for Itself

I have never had any interest in westerns and the culture that surrounds them. In fact, I think I have only considered them something that might be worthwhile because my grandfather likes them. So when I discovered this film on the syllabus I didn’t really have much to look forward to. I recognized John Wayne from pictures and posters and country 'accents' that you can buy in stores and that's about it really. So I thought that the majority of my fun with the film happened with my experience of purchasing it. I must admit that I enjoyed my time at Bull Moose with the clerk who took me around the store looking for it. He walked me around while he wore a really crazy hat that flopped around and when any of his co-workers asked what we were doing he always answered with the same phrase, “Us? We're searching for the Searchers.” It was a bit funny :)

So I got it ordered, picked up and sat down to watch it with more than a little feelings of just blah. The first five minutes convinced me that I was in for a few hours of difficulty, maybe not boredom, but not really any interest either. I got a large glass of grapefruit juice and slouched down on the couch to keep watching but also so I could continue to watch the snow coming down outside the window and the sun slowly dissolving into the dark. I then spent two hours watching the saga of Ethan Edwards and his search for his missing niece named Debbie Edwards after she was stolen by a Comanche Indian raid. He traveled back and forth for over five years with a companion named Martin Pawley- an adopted young man who lived with and grew up with Debbie and her family.

“And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.” - Matthew 2:8

Ethan was a very interesting character. All of his opinions and thoughts bordered on arrogant and... for lack of a better word, macho. His obsession- the only word that makes sense in this case- with looking for his niece was confusing when you looked and comprehended his thinking of what makes family as well as his thoughts and anger towards the “Comanche' – anger that appears to come from past experience and dealings with some individuals from that Indian group. Family, or 'kin', to Ethan is a very simple thing. Blood and blood only makes family. He can't seem to see it any other way. His views on women are very stark as well – if you live with Indians or accept them, then you are damaged and shouldn't live. These stark, unbend-able views make his obsession with finding his niece even more challenging to understand... after all, why search for a girl for years and then wish to kill her when you discover a women who is married to an Indian chief? How can a man compartmentalize his feelings so clearly that he is unable to recognize the inherent clashes his own views will cause?

Martin - “They raised me”
Ethan - “That don't make you kin”

Funnily, enough... that does make you 'kin' in my book. I see family as those who stick by you, who love you, who look out for you and with whom your life would not be complete. I have many family members who share my blood, but I know people who share my blood and who really are not family. I have family in whom no related blood flows, but in all other ways they are my kin and I cannot see them as separate. I grew up with three grandfathers and while a child should never have a favorite, I did and still do to this day. Grandpa Carlile is the grandfather that I think about, I miss, and I know I will feel the loss keenly when he is no longer able to be a part of my earthly life. Sometimes, people remind me that he shares no blood with me- that he is my step-grandfather... but that label isn’t who he is and doesn't change who or what he is to me. If he had been kidnapped and lived in another culture for a while, I wouldn't hesitate to take him back... no matter what. As with all obsessions, Ethan puts everything he's got towards his plan and desire to find and rescue Debbie, but is unable to see the reality of what he wants. When he finds her, she can't live up to his expectations (can any obsession do that?) It takes more experiences and time before he is able to learn not only about how to understand and deal with the reality he faces, but also to actually understand himself. I would wish him happiness with his new understanding of humanity and even family, but as he is really a fictional character.... I will simply try to remember the lessons of the character.

Brad – “They gotta stop sometime. If they're human men at all they gotta stop.....”

Ethan - “No. A human rides a horse until it dies and then he goes on foot. Comanche comes along, gets that horse up... rides him twenty more miles... then eats him.”

Another problem that plagues Ethan is his discrimination and dislike of Native Americans... the Comanche in particular. He is unwilling for a great deal of the film to listen to or recognize Martin as being a human on the same plane as himself (Martin is one quarter Native American). His attitude of dehumanizing the Indians allowed him to see anyone who fit in with them as bad, not worthy of even living... damaged beyond repair. This movie was made over sixty years ago and this is a problem that we all still fight – as individuals and as a society. When someone angers us or does things that we do not approve of, we strip them of all the positive traits that they have... making them almost one dimensional with only negative qualities and stereotypes. This makes it easier for us to justify the poor treatment ans thoughts that we have toward them. It is this way of dehumanizing and 'othering' different people that has caused every genocide in this world. It is how we justify discrimination and violence towards others. And it is how Ethan justifies his attempt to kill Debbie when he finally finds her at the end of his quest. Sometimes I think what we are really looking for is to appease and justify our mistakes – by blaming others or hurting them. It is our search to understand and love ourselves that can be our way to peace... or the path to hatred and scapegoating. Martin Pawley finds himself unable to stop searching for his sister and follows Ethan over the country for years – sacrificing his potential wife Laura as well as good financial prospects- even when it is pointed out to him that is sister isn't his 'kin' because he is adopted. Even when he is told that the Comanche chief Scar murdered his mother, he is unwilling to focus solely on revenge... the life of Debbie is still more important. How many of us sacrifice so much for another person? For someone who many even today would say wasn't even family?

In the end, I sat back on the couch and thought about Ethan and Martin. I thought about how Ethan feels like the side of us that is angry and fearful and courageous and doesn't really think... and Martin is the 'one who follows' and pure love... charity. He feels fear and he feels angry, but he channels it and uses it to try and do what he feels is right for others and not what is necessarily all right for himself. Like the Super- Ego and the Id, parts of the same consciousness fighting to be the dominant partner.... which part of us will win the battles that we chose? Will we approach those who believe or behave differently than us with curiosity and tolerance... or will we allow ourselves to act out our fear and hatred with ourselves and our behavior on others? We are given these choices everyday... sometimes several times a day.... how we act says a lot about us and our character. If nothing else, I learned that the struggle to be tolerant and open is a problem that we have struggled with for centuries and we do not appear to be any closer as a race to understanding. I believe that Heavenly Father gives us more information and knowledge when we are ready for it – both individually and collectively. No wonder so many people think that God has stopped talking to us... we as a race are really slow to learn so how can he give us more information? In the end, Ethan Edwards is right: it is our funeral. And how we chose to get there is our choice most of the time. So what choices are you making? Are you choosing love and tolerance... or are you choosing anger and fear? In what ways are you judging your fellow humans poorly? If you have seen this film, what are your thoughts? I probably won't watch it again... I will actually probably send it to my grandfather who will probably love it. But I am glad that I watched it. :)

Short Views on Biocentric History and its Early Adherents

This post is about biocentric history and its important past American historians. I also spent some time writing about the philosophy of transcendentalism. I found this topic fascinating and fun to study. I hope you enjoy!


Biocentric history is most easily defined as history compiled from the point of view of nature. However, collecting or 'doing' this form of history is quite difficult. It requires the historian to try to rid themselves of some basic unconscious biases that most human beings have. The historian must step back and recognize that humans are not the center of all things and that the world was not created solely for our benefit and use. The understanding that we as a species are not separate from other species and that all species are equal in importance and depend on each other for survival is also key. This is not an easy thing to ask of anyone I suspect. Certainly as a human I tend to anthropomorphize animals and plants and while a part of my brain considers other species to be equal to humanity, I can't really believe that if I am willing to eat meat (I think... I might need to think more on this.) Henry David Thoreau was considered a pretty good biocentric historian and in his writings and work he recorded activities of any animal he saw (be it bird, fish, insect, etc...). He tracked the life cycles of several species throughout the year and he tried to figure out how the activities of different animals and plants were connected to each other.... and to us.

In 1988, historian Robert K. McGregor wrote about Henry David Thoreau and his work and studies on nature... in particular, the red fox. He makes the point that while many people would not see the writings and nature studies completed by Thoreau as history in the traditional sense, they are an important part of a historical record in a few ways. One way is that the descriptions of all the animals that were seen as so precise that they give a clear record of all forms of life – plant and animal- that Thoreau encountered in that area. (A rare primary source indeed.) It gives a record of interactions between the different species and these interactions are describes over long periods of time in minute detail. Mr. McGregor makes it clear through his studies of Thoreau that the later certainly qualifies as a biocentric historian due to the writer's ability to try and discover the truth of nature and not simply create it around himself. Even when using his skills as a scientific man or as a believing transcendentalist, Thoreau worked to keep the work pure and didn't try to make any particular discovery in the sense that he recorded and tried to learn, but tried to not have any preconceived notion about what 'truth' he might find.

The word transcendentalism describes a philosophical movement or way of viewing the world that developed around the 1840's in response to the strong Puritan thinking of the day. Someone who was a transcendentalist usually had characteristics of many different fields of thought including philosophers, psychologists, intelligentsia, naturalists, etc.... There are quite a few well known individuals who were known as transcendentalists, but two of the most important were Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson. Both of these men were writers and intellectuals. Henry David Thoreau took his thoughts and desires and acted upon them...living and writing in nature. He wrote about the strength that nature gives us as individuals and felt that human beings needed to find a balance between nature and civilization to survive and thrive. Thoreau believes that the wilderness was the raw materials of life and the farther we as human beings get from it, the less intelligent and understanding we are. He also believed that to truly understand nature you had to study it in its natural environment... you can't just remove a piece to study and think that you will understand the whole. Ralph Waldo Emerson believed in many of the same ideas but came to them in different ways. He also wrote about humans and their ideal relationship with nature which was not that nature was simply a commodity or something to exploit. He also felt that humans should enjoy the technology that they developed but not to allow the technology to take over their lives or to remove them from enjoying and understanding nature. (Boy, I think in many ways I have failed in that regard and I don't think that I am alone!) Lastly, Emerson believed in the concept of the 'oversoul'- the idea that we as individuals can be one with others and to not see the world in different parts... but as one component that we are part of. And the only way to find our 'oversoul' is to look at and understand nature. These men are great examples of people who believed and tried to teach and live the concept of transcendentalism.


Many American artists of this time belonged to a movement called the Hudson River School. While this sounds like a physical place, it was truly an almost intangible movement that was started and embodied by several American landscape painters during the nineteenth century. These artists completed many portraits of the area and surrounding land of the Hudson River valley.... and later on other areas of the midwest. Many of the paintings from these artists (which included the acknowledged founder Thomas Cole, Asher B. Durand, Thomas Doughty as well as later artists Albert Bierstadt, Frederic Edwin Church, and Thomas Moran) were themed on the idea that human beings and nature could and should coexist peacefully. This movement tends to be viewed in three stages. The first stage is known as 'the Wild' and the landscapes and paintings tended to attempt to represent nature and wilderness untamed... The second stage is known as 'the pastoral' where farms and people are shown side to side with nature and wilderness. The third stage is known as 'the urban' and these paintings tended to focus on the views of nature trampled and tamed under the weight of factories and cities and railroads.

The idea and motivation behind this movement was the artist's attempts to capture their thoughts of nature and its crash course with people and civilization. By studying these artists and their works... as well as watching the changes of the works over time, we can study not only what these people thought at the time about the clash of environment and civilization, but we can also see what they thought the future looked like from their viewpoint. The views are not entirely accurate in the sense that the artists tended to take a very romanticized view of nature. It was thought that to understand spiritual truths we must understand them through our intuition and emotions that are evoked by our experiences and understanding of nature. These views tended to cause the artists to pour out their yearnings for the spirituality that they were unable to get from the current Protestant revivalism or the large industrial cities. In a way, these men were creating their spirituality and their religion from their thoughts/fantasies and which were spread and drawn onto the canvases through their brushes. (It is no mistake that these artists were nicknamed “priests of the natural church” by art historian Barbara Novak.) And as very converted and zealous believes, the artists did tend to leave out of their painting real images that they didn't want to display. So nature was tranquil and peaceful and beautiful and the paintings never tending to show the reality of what had happened to much of the land that was being painted... the burned over fields, pollution in the lands and the streams, and other signs of the destruction of wildlife and human activity were rarely added to the portraits.

This movement is important as it helps us to understand the world that these paintings were produced in. We are able to see what they had hoped for and as time went on what they saw the future of nature and wildlife becoming... or maybe disappearing is more appropriate. We can also see how our current views of nature and civilization have merged and been formed through not only the beliefs and images of these men, but the beliefs of the society that surrounded them.

Another great painter of this time was George Catlin. He was a painter who was fascinated with Native Americans and their culture. It is not entirely known how his fascination developed to a point that he dedicated his life to their study, but it is known that his mother told him stories of her life as an Indian captive when she was younger and he also enjoyed the experience and inspiration of a visiting Indian delegation to Philadelphia where he was working as a young man. He was quite alarmed at how quickly civilization and other people were rapidly disappearing the differing groups and so he resolved to spend his life painting them in their 'natural habitat' before both the Indians and their natural habitat were gone. He was also a strong advocate of the idea of a national park in the hopes of saving both the vanishing Indian and the wilderness that was rapidly disappearing as well. His idea of a national park would be a place that both Indians and animals could live “in all the wild[ness] and freshness of their nature's beauty.” His work was seen as important because his works helps draw the parallel between the disappearance of pristine wilderness and the Native American. He also tried through his artwork to show others a picture into the daily lives of many Native Americans.... their tasks, work, clothes, relationships, etc.... It was his hope that a national park could potentially save both the Indians and the wilderness. It is with sadness that we know that his idea did not work and in fact, when national parks were developed, Indians who lived in its boundaries were then forcibly removed to make the areas safe and beautiful for white Americans.

So what are your thoughts? How is nature part of your worship or spirituality? Are the images of nature in your head rather fanciful and romantic? Do you think of nature and the wilderness as tamed and found in parks or other countries... Is it mysterious or a true part of you.....

Environmental History: Viewpoints on Native Americans, Europeans and the New World in 1490 part 2

This post is the second part of a series of snapshots and viewpoints between the Native Americans and the coming Europeans in 1491. Please feel free to add your thoughts, concerns and views on these topics in the comment section below! :)

One way to study the history of New England is the most common way which is to study the perspective from the explorers and the reigning government point of view. Another perspective is to look at the history from the standpoint from a colonial settler. Living in the 'new' world was hard. Most colonial settlers had no commercial talents – the majority of people came to this world to flee religious persecution, to find land and wealth, or to even try and escape punishment or the gallows for misdeeds such as murder and have a fresh 'start'. Much money and wealth could be made by cutting down trees and shipping the by-products and the collection and shipment of fish and other natural resources. However, many settlers had to learn that money can not be 'eaten' and cannot be used to purchase food where none was grown. The major commodity for making money was through trees and wood products- masts, casks, tools, lumber for construction, barrels, etc... This created the incentive of selling all the available resources leaving none for yourself, your family or your community. From the settlers point of view, the land was a God given right, a place of hardship and work, but a place of potential- a new world of wonders and great fertility.

Another way to study the history of New England is to study it from the perspective of the beaver. In the world that the beaver inhabited before the arrival of the Europeans, the beaver was a king. It manipulated the physical environment more than any other animal in the continent... besides us. :) Through the efforts of the beaver, many trees were felled or drowned, soil erosion was controlled as the water table rose, new homes are created for animals and fish, and new meadows would develop over time. Beavers had been on this continent for millions of years, and live building dens and traveling over land and water. They are difficult for their predators to catch and the life they set up for themselves and their progeny was quite successful. The arrival of the Europeans found an animal quite spread out and in control of its land. Unfortunately for the beaver, the fact that their fur imitated a type of hat manufacturing already in existence in Europe created the incentive to kill the beaver after if was discovered by the new settlers. In humans, the beaver found the ultimate apex predator who could chase them out of the water to kill them, had a great incentive to do so, and would do so at will. Do to the economic inequality between the Europeans, the trade desires between the Indians and Europeans, and the profit margin of upwards of 2000% on the fur, beavers suffered horribly. It is believed that only the laws that sprung up in time saved the beaver from extinction at the time that they were hovering over the precipice. The beavers lost their land, safety and even the possibility to survive without the intervention of the same species who had brought them to near annihilation. The difference between these two histories in some ways is plain. It can certainly be said that the beaver's history in some ways mirrors the history of the Native Americans- both groups had made themselves comfortable and relatively at peace and in harmony with the land... the coming of the European not only spelled the near annihilation of both groups but also their loss of land, food, harmony and peace.

The relationship between Blacks and Indians in the colonial South is a bit complicated. Both Blacks and Indians could and had been enslaved by the white Europeans, but the rules of bondage that were held in the laws were interpreted more harshly for blacks. Many Indian tribes accepted runaway slaves into their tribes and intermarriage was acceptable in most of these cases. However, many Indian tribes would turn in runaway slaves and would get benefits and rewards for doing so. In some cases such as the Seminole tribe, Indians would also own blacks as slaves and at the end of the civil war, some tribes had to actually be forced to free their slaves. Europeans would in some cases cause problems between both of these groups by suggesting to members that the other group was working against them; i.e. Indians would be told that Blacks were working against them, etc.... Some sources suggest that working to cause and develop racism in Indian tribes against African Americans was part of the European government public policy. Europeans tried to stop the flow of runaway slaves to Indian tribes and even signed treaties with some tribes with the agreement that these tribes would return runaway slaves- most who signed did not return the runaway slaves. The reality that Indian tribes welcomed runaway blacks into their folds for the most part caused President Andrew Jackson to fight and push the Indians out of the land we now call Florida as so many blacks were escaping from Georgia and living with Indians there. Some of the ways that these groups tried to deal with their conditions was to hold tight to their cultures (although some groups allowed forms of assimilation), some grew foods from their native lands and others tried to find other ways to find peace with their situation. Some ran away, assimilated, or found justification in exploiting others like their European counterparts.

There are a few differences between an organic and an inorganic economy. An organic economy consists of natural resources such as wind, water, animal and human labor. Inorganic economy consists of iron ore, charcoal, etc... In many instances the resources that make up an organic economy as more easily expanded and grown that those that govern the inorganic economy. Human labor is renewable through rest, importation of servant, slaves and explorers. Wind and water are abundant and while less controllable than human labor, they can be created, collected, and harnessed to squeeze all the resources out of them. Animals can be bread, imported and even trained fairly easily. However, sources such as iron ore are not quickly duplicated. Iron takes a long time for nature to develop and charcoal can be made, but it takes a lot of 'waste' or resource usage to create a small amount of charcoal. So an inorganic economy is a riskier proposition- you risk the loss of the economy when resources run out, if you do not have a strong organic economy you risk starvation, etc... The Europeans focused so much in some cases on the creation for wealth through inorganic economies that they had to buy or steal food from the Indians to survive and some laws were passed in placed requiring the growth of grain if you participation in an economy that did not actual create food. Learning about this phenomenon was really interesting because I was a little shocked that people would 'forget' or be unwilling to waste their time growing food... but would want to eat it later. In many ways we have that same economy today where people are so separate from the growing and making of their food... and farmers can be quite poor. In many ways we still 'despise' this labor even as we eat from it.


The importance of Christopher Columbus's report to Queen Isabella cannot be understated. His report of a new land filled with the potential converts to the Christian religion, gold and other riches, but most importantly.... land for the taking after conquering was staggering and exciting. While this news was important to the Queen and to Spain, the rest of Europe was desperate as well and it was only a matter of weeks before the letter that Christopher Columbus had written to the Queen had been translated, copied and traveled throughout all of Europe by other travelers and pilgrims, traders,and armies. Soon other countries were arming ships to head to the new land with people who had nothing to lose and land and a life and riches to gain in the new world. Soon Spain and the rest of Europe were on their way to conquer the Americans. Spain first, and when England had fought and beaten the Spanish army, the English came and started their own settlements. Other countries such as France and the Dutch soon followed.

Until the arrival of the Spanish, horses were not an animal known to the Americas since the ice age. However, the Spanish brought them in abundance to the Americas to aid in their conquest of the native populations and it is thanks to the horse that Pizarro and the Spanish conquered the local populations in such a small period of time (the European's disease so also be thanked, but I digress :). As some horses escaped and became wild, a new breed of horse was developed that we now call the mustang. This breed became extremely numerous and they populated the land across the continent- the horses do not just stay in the 'conquered' lands. These large groups of wild horses changed the way that the Native Americans lived in a dramatic way. Horses gave the native populations new ways to do almost everything. They could fight, hunt and travel on horses and this 'blessing' transformed their lives. Some tribes become more nomadic as moving farther distances is easier and possible and horses became a new part of the Indian's culture and lifestyle. It seems almost rare to hear about the culture of Indians and not hear about the horse. The horse becomes a symbol of the Indian's culture and life to the Europeans and their future progeny... even though the history of Native Americans is thousands of years long and the history with the horse is only a few centuries.

Pigs were brought from Europe with the explorers and they were a blessing to these non-native people. Pigs are prolific, small, not too picky about food, easy to care for and look after themselves. Some pigs were let loose into the 'wilderness' on purpose- with markings on their ears to show ownership- and then were hunted as needed by their European owners. This way their owners didn't have to care for them and just collected their property when needed. As the Americas are conquered by the Spaniards the pigs help the conquerors by attacking and eating the native's crops of corn- they competed with Indians for the Indian's food. Native Americans do not fence their fields and so wild pigs were able to eat the small shoats and growing crops of the natives. (Between pigs and the entitlement felt by the Europeans that they could take the native's seed corn whenever they wanted to, the native groups must have felt quite trapped and desperate which explains some of their aggression towards the incomers. In a few generations there are tens of thousands of the wild pigs which become more aggressive and develop tusks... and become a serious and daily problem for the Native Americans.

The Europeans reacted to the seemingly endless supply of trees and fish with joy and greed. Europe was desperate for both wood and fish and the 'new world' seemed to be overabundant and unending in these resources. The land is describes as having rivers with more fish than water and trees that are so numerous that a squirrel can go from the north of the country to the south without ever touching the ground. The newcomers see it as their 'duty' to tame the forests and civilize the land for God. So the forests are cut down for building and 'needs' for not only this new land, but the lands of Spain and Europe as well. Fish is harvested as if there will always be an overabundance and it took only 200 years to over-fish the Americas. Wood is taken so quickly that some areas in the Americas are literally denuded of trees – and this 'new world' begins to look like the land that they left. For the settlers, someone who owned land would be able to sell the fish for money or other goods creating wealth- and since the land wasn't owned, the land's resources cost nothing. I think it is safe to say that both wood and fish were harvested with only greed and need in mind and not conservation or with the thought that the resources might potentially be limited. Both of these resources with be overused and run low... and were probably a factor in the fight for independence from the European powers... it would allow those that lived in the Americas to keep more of the resources to themselves and not have the largest share (or what was left) travel across the seas.

The animals that were brought over from Europe such as the horse and pig changed the landscape of the American continent in many ways and the arrival of women and their animals also create great change. Women bring the way of life that they are used to in Europe which included plants such as wheat, barley, fig trees, olives, bananas, other fruit trees, etc … and animals such as goats, chickens, sheep, cows, etc…. Through these passengers that travel to the America's, other 'tagalongs' such as weeds like dandelions and European insects (including bees) arrive and start to populate the environment. With all of these changes, the Americas and it's land literally fall under an environmental revolution as the land becomes a mirror image of the European lands that these people have left behind. The land is invaded by all of these animals and new plants and the land is changed through the trampling and domination of the new animal population- in the end, the settlers do not have to tame the land- they practice environmental imperialism and conquer the land itself and bend it to their will and cause death, destruction and sometimes extinction to the native flora and fauna. One quote states- “livestock and grains changed this world into a true New England.” The land is forever changed and looks nothing like it did before the Europeans arrived.

The new discoveries of resources in the American's brings a demand for luxury goods that are purely American products. Fur and other 'hide' products become in high demand and some animals (such as beavers) are hunted almost to extinction... (But I bet everyone in England and some of the other European countries look very fashionable in their fur coats and beaver hats. :) The land is cleared for gardens and orchards/plantations and the demand for fruit from the 'New World' is high. Sugar and tobacco (the luxury goods with highest demand) were also desired luxury items which are shipped in large amounts to Europe. To satisfy the large demand of these products in Europe, huge plantations or large mono-cultures would stretch over enormous swaths of man and African are captured and forced to work these huge areas for the profit of the Europeans. These African slaves were needed as the native population could not really be enslaved – too many of them had been killed or died out from disease. The downside of growing sugar and tobacco is that they really can not be eaten (for nourishment and health) and these plants tend to rape the soil of all it nutrients. So growing these products in many ways required the process of slavery and the loss of forests as more land had to be cleared to grow these crops when current fields were no longer fertile. The upside is that sugar tastes really good... sorry, couldn't help that comment. :)

The discovery of the potato takes a few centuries to really take hold in Europe, but when it does it becomes a necessary and needful food item for the poor as a healthful and nutritious product. Potatoes are introduced to Spain and from there to Europe and it is embraced in Ireland. Ireland is constantly short of food for its population due to bad land, wars, exc... The potato is easy to grow and has less difficulty in war time of being burned and destroyed and it becomes the crop of choice for this country. The population in Ireland will more than double due to the potato and other town in Europe with explode due to impact of this easy to grow tuber. The fact that potatoes also have a goodly amount of nutrients including vitamin C (which helps prevent scurvy) made them an indispensable food for a moving and financially strapped population.

The impact that the diseases that were brought from Europe had on the native populations was nothing short of devastating. Conservative death estimates suggest that around 50% of these native populations died, but it appears that the estimates that suggest death numbers are over 90% mortality may be a lot more accurate. Historians are still trying to discover all the diseases that were spread and to grasp an clear and accurate mortality number, but we are sure that one of the diseases that caused such devastation was smallpox and because the virus was so strong and traveled easily,
many populations of native tribes fell to the disease and death without ever meeting any of the Europeans who originally brought the disease to their lands. Another disease that is know to have causes large scale death and destruction to the Native Americans was influenza. Neither of these diseases was known in the Americas before the arrival of the Europeans so no animal or person was immune from these diseases and had little to no defense. As the Native Americans fall sick, perish and their civilizations fail, the Europeans give thanks to God and see the death/destruction of the natives as a blessing and a mandate from God; that the land is theirs to tame and occupy, that the natives were sinners, etc... and not worthy of the land, and that the land is a gift from God for them. These thoughts and prejudices allow Europeans to see themselves as the true owners of the land and to see themselves as better and more worthy than the native populations. These viewpoints allow the exploitation of the land and the European settlers to be justified in their minds as right and appropriate... and not greedy and unrighteous. It allows them to look at the natives as label them savages and other forms of animals - not actually human beings like unto themselves (and God's image)