Today's Brain Gunk

It's funny how life drags you into the minutia of living and you can allow yourself to be distracted by it all. Classes, health and recent events have left me feeling strained and weak. I feel powerless to change the political direction that my country appears to be firmly headed toward- fascism is an horrific, ugly form of authoritarian nationalism and racial hatred that should appall each of us... yet for many, this form of government seems to be desired. Up here in New England where there is less diversity, there appears to be less conflict. Yet, I still see some of my neighbors who fly a Confederate flag and post images of the flag on their Facebook wall. In a discussion on how to celebrate Black history month next year with a few friends, the issue of possible conflict due to celebrating it was brought up and I am so sad about that. The reasons that I feel sorrow are two-fold. I can't believe I live in a world where celebrating Black history is controversial, but also that I found myself trying to find a way to celebrate such a wonderful part of our American cultural heritage without celebrating it so openly that someone might be offended. I sit here a bit ashamed of myself for my fear and lack of energy to advocate better for friends and people other than myself and my major desire when I pray these days is that I can find the strength to be a better advocate for others, but also to find a way to advocate that I can do over an extended period of time- rather than just a one time protest. I pray for the strength and will to participate in the long fight that is clearly before us.

Today I cleaned, completed homework, and did all sorts of necessary minutia and needful things while going out during the afternoon to try and see the eclipse. I am so far north and out of the path that I really didn't see anything. I could feel the temperature lower and the shadows during the day deepen, but the sun never seemed to change shape. The pictures that people are posting on social media sites are simply phenomenal though. I think there is another eclipse in 2024... maybe I will be better placed then.

The summer semester is drawing to a close and the fall semester is getting ready to commence. As I get ready to close on semester and embark on another, I have many thoughts. One of which is that I need to start writing again because I get so much enjoyment out of it. Currently, I feel like my life can be described in one word- exhaustion. I'd like to keep working to change that. So I think I need to add a little more fun time in my life. I have enjoyed reading, creating art, and other hobbies in the past and I have let most of that fall aside with the daily demands of other priorities. I think its time to create more time to enjoy things within my daily 'to do' list. So watch out - I may start boring the world with more cat pictures. :)

Eugenics in America After 1945: Term Post #1

The study of human history shows the many achievements and journeys of our race. From our humble beginnings, through the development of culture, religion, communities, hierarchy and power structures, to what and who we are today... well, as a less-than-humble commercial suggests- 'You've come a long way, Baby!’ The path to the twenty-first century has not been smooth nor painless and, like our predecessors, we view ourselves, our lives, and our world as an improved and civilized place with the human race as the most intelligent and virtuous beings on it. Looking at the history of the human race, I see many recurring themes that are a part of every society; hope, love, beauty, want, etc. The theme of self-improvement or change that benefits ourselves and, in turn, society has been a reappearing idea that became more pronounced after the Enlightenment and the Renaissance along with the concept of improving groups of people to improve society. However, like all virtues, self-improvement or personal development can come with a dark side that is exposed when the virtue itself is placed on a pedestal or idolized without regard to the thoughts and rights of those we consider 'lesser' than us. When this happens, any noble or virtuous ideas are shown to be the shallow horrors that they can become ... the virtue is pulled and stretched out of its normal view to a pained and stretched mask of what it actually is. During the twentieth century, the themes of human breeding, genetics, prejudice, self-improvement and social progress collided to serve the virtue of better breeding and health of human beings. Eugenics, which means 'well born', was created in

America. This movement was so strong and large that it was able to spread into other cultures and countries before its horrors and Machiavellianism tendencies became apparent enough to create a sizeable opposition that attempted to crush it. In response to the common belief that eugenics was no longer an important movement after World War II, I will discuss briefly the history of eugenics in the United States before WWII and then analyze the way the movement changed after the war. I will show that the ideas behind eugenics are still alive, well and being acted upon in our society today. Recognizing the way the movement itself has adapted to our changing culture and its opposition helps place us in an informed position to focus on the fearful and reactive areas of ourselves and our society so we may work to create a more lasting and peaceful change in our thoughts and fears. Hopefully, that will help us change how we act upon our fears and prejudices and how we justify acting on them in our communities and society.

The idea of eugenics is a simple idea with more complex answers. The word was coined in 1883 by Sir Francis Galton who advocated the scientific regulation of human breeding to ensure that 'better' genes had a larger chance of predominating in the continuation of the human species. Eugenics encompassed the progress of medical practice and scientific thought and recognized the inseparable relationship between medicine and social progress. To be blunt, the idea of the eugenics movement was that better breeding would lead to a healthier population and was an effective way to deal with social problems. It provided a comfortable way to rationalize people's prejudices about race, poverty, etc... and also suggested that 'undesirable traits' could be minimized within a few generations if people were only brave and good enough to work towards it. Undesirable traits that were thought

to be correctable through eugenical reproduction included epilepsy and other physical disabilities, alcoholism, tendencies towards rape (rapists), and other criminal behavior, promiscuity, and more. Races and immigrants that were not of Anglo-Saxon heritage were also of 'suspect' genetic material and poverty was thought to be a characteristic of genetic inferiority. Always a controversial movement, eugenics has had its loyal adherents since its conception and even the tragedy and knowledge of the German Holocaust in World War II didn't change those who believed and followed its tenets. Before the war, it was common to institutionalize the ‘feebleminded’ or those that those in power worried about reproducing. The rationale was that the only way to stop a living being from reproducing was to limit its movements, monitor it in risky situations, or make it biologically impossible for breeding to take place. Institutions for those who were ill, the ‘feebleminded’ or those who had medical difficulties were created to isolate and remove those individuals from active society. Laws were passed that forbade marriages between people who had specific medical or mental health problems. However, locking people up costs a lot of money and the inability to remove everyone from the community that fit the criteria (due to lack of funds or institutional space) made the original eugenics process less effective than its early adherents wished. Sterilization allowed the individuals to be released back into their local communities to support themselves while not crating any more individuals like ‘them’. Because of that, sterilization became the easy, cheap, and irreversible weapon in the eugenics supporter’s arsenal.

The Holocaust did shift some of the popular views of how eugenics should work, but didn’t change any of the eugenic and popular thoughts of a large part of the populace nor did it change the most popular procedures that were used. In 1927, psychologist George Ordahl explained at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco that if it was possible to calculate “the economic burden of the moron” that [was] paid for by taxpayers, “every patriotic citizen would become a eugenicist in search of methods of prevention even more drastic than any now known.” The tone may have softened since WWII, but not by much. Dr. Charles Gamble wrote in 1947, “Tomorrow's population should be produced by today's best human material” and he complain[ed] that only one in forty-one people with severe mental illness had been sterilized, leaving dozens of others to spread defective genes. In 1966, C. Lee Buxton published an article titled

“The Doctor’s Responsibility in Population Control” in which he reminded his colleges that “medical responsibility demands more action than just passing resolutions and making recommendations...” and advocated sterilization as a solution to the ‘problem’ of unwed mothers on welfare. In his view, the problem was multiplying “because the medical profession has controlled the death rate but has done very little about the birth rate.” The exact number of women- for women were by far the more common victims of eugenics- involuntarily sterilized after the end of World War II into the 1980’s remains unknown due to the lack of collected statistics, listings in medical records of coerced sterilizations as ‘voluntary’, the social and reluctance of women to file formal complaints, and the ignorance of individuals who never knew or were never told that they had been sterilized. (The reason I stop at the 1980’s is due to a lack of information on current trends.)

Euthanasia programs never gained popular ground in the Unites States, but did have their supporters before WWII. One egregious example is Dr. Harry Haiselden who advocated and practiced denial of life saving treatment (even of newborns) and thought it was acceptable for an institution to give inmates tuberculosis through infected milk because only those with ‘defective’ genes would get the disease and die. In the end, after the Holocaust, sterilization was the procedure of choice and was perfectly legal through the decision in Buck vs Bell decided by the Supreme Court. This court decision has never been overturned and has been used to support involuntary sterilizations since its publication and over the last sixty years. Here are some examples....

pictures from: https://mediachecker.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/bill-gates-its-gods-work-monsanto-vaccines-eugenics/, http://www.uvm.edu/~eugenics/whatis1.html, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton, http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-horrifying-american-roots-of-nazi.html, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/darwin_day_in_may_buck_vs_bell003669.html, http://galleryhip.com/american-eugenics.html, http://365daysofthis.blogspot.com/2013/02/define-eugenics.html
eugen

Eugenics in America after World War II /1945 : An Introduction to the Term Paper

I know a few people have been waiting for this paper so here it is! I will need to break up the paper into a few posts but it will give a very basic outline of eugenics before World War II and our influence on other countries… and then move into how eugenics changed and what groups were affected by these legal policies. I do give current examples when I was able to find some and I am hopeful that after I share this research, maybe we can have a discussion about how to create community awareness and change in our areas…..

Here is my abstract paragraph:

The study of human history shows the many achievements and journeys of our race. From our humble beginnings, through the development of culture, religion, communities, hierarchy and power structures, to what and who we are today... well, as a less-than-humble commercial suggests- 'You've come a long way, Baby!' The path to the twenty-first century has not been smooth nor painless and, like our predecessors, we view ourselves, our lives, and our world as an improved and civilized place with the human race as the most intelligent and virtuous beings on it. Looking at the history of the human race, I see many recurring themes that are a part of every society; hope, love, beauty, want, etc. The theme of self-improvement or change that benefits ourselves and, in turn, society has been a reappearing idea that became more pronounced after the Enlightenment and the Renaissance along with the concept of improving groups of people to improve society. However, like all virtues, self-improvement or personal development can come with a dark side that is exposed when the virtue itself is placed on a pedestal or idolized without regard to the thoughts and rights of those we consider 'lesser' than us. When this happens, any noble or virtuous ideas are shown to be the shallow horrors that they can become ... the virtue is pulled and stretched out of its normal view to a pained and stretched mask of what it actually is. During the twentieth century, the themes of human breeding, genetics, prejudice, self-improvement and social progress collided to serve the virtue of better breeding and health of human beings. Eugenics, which means 'well born', was born and This movement was created in America and was so strong and large that it was able to spawn into other cultures and countries before its horrors and Machiavellianism tendencies became apparent enough to create a sizeable opposition that attempted to crush it. In response to the common belief that eugenics was no longer an important movement after World War II, I will discuss briefly the history of eugenics in the United States before WWII and then analyze the way the movement changed after the war. I will show that the ideas behind eugenics are still alive, well and being acted upon in our recent history. Recognizing the way the movement itself has adapted to our changing culture and its opposition helps place us in an informed position to focus on the fearful and reactive areas of ourselves and our society so we may work to create a more lasting and peaceful change in our thoughts and fears. Hopefully, that will help us change how we act upon our fears and prejudices and how we justify acting on them in our communities and society.

pictures from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Eugenics_supporters_hold_signs_on_Wall_Street.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

Napoleon and His Effects on Revolutionary Ideals

At first blush, Napoleon appears to have left the ideals of the 'Revolution' in the dust behind him as he moved forward towards his goals and desires. However, it would be remiss to make this statement without actually discussing what some of the ideals of the revolution were... and it appears that in some ways, we are still discovering some of the smaller pieces of knowledge that gives us new ways of looking at the actions, ideals, and desires of the major and minor players in the revolutionary process. Without a long discussion, most of the ideals that were hoped for with the French revolution and its 'creators' can be seen in its motto of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” The idea that people were and should be treated equally, that people had inherent rights to be protected from their government and have representation in that government, and that class and rights to only a few in a stratified society should be abolished. Other reasons for the revolution were problems with severe poverty, lack of safety or protection for the majority, and the inability for most of the individuals living in France to have any real way to take care of themselves or to be self sufficient... let alone able to advance themselves or their children.

Many of Napoleon’s ways of expanding his power, controlled territory and, of course, his ambition can be seen to be directly scaling back the benefits and rights that the Revolution had been 'fought' to win. Women had been granted through the revolutionary government equal rights to divorce and to help control or make decisions on their children and family property. With Napoleon, many of these protections were scaled back... and women found themselves once more with restrictions on their desires for divorce and their rights to make any decisions in equality with their husband on children of property. Males were once again legally and socially over women in even these private family matters. Women could even lose their French citizenship if they married a male that didn't have French citizenship.(This is a bit remarkable to me. As Americans, we require other people to give up their citizenship to become an American, but many other countries allow you to hold citizenship of more than one country. A friend of mine was born in Australia and has citizenship for both England and Australia. She married an American and so her children have access to citizenship to all three countries, but only if she continues to keep a green card and never becomes a American citizen. This experience was one I thought about when I read about this restriction and thought about how it limits her choices if she wants to expand her offspring's choices in this world.... and I wondered how much more it was limiting for women in the time frame of the early 1800's...? The revolutionary law that required equal distribution of property to children upon parental death was abolished, allowing male parents to distribute property to their children as they wished which was very likely to cause the traditional problems of disinheritance of daughters and even younger sons. (I am certain that kind of tradition dispersment also limits woman’s choices and makes the majority far more likely to live in poverty.) A true irony is that truth, wisdom and many virtues in French society are portrayed as women.

Other minorities also found their rights and new-found protections were curtailed of removed as well. The few rights that some group of Jews were given were pretty much removed. Napoleon, like many in his society... and even today if I think about it, really mistrusted people who formed Jewish groups- no matter what “Jewish” group they participated in. In one stance, Napoleon passed a law giving amnesty to peasants who owed members of the Jewish population money.... but he stood by and did nothing for peasants who owed other populations or people money -clear discrimination. While law had abolished slavery, blacks now had the misfortune to no longer have that protection... and Napoleon even went out of his way in some attempts in re-enslave black populations in colonies and have free blacks in France register with the police – again, clear discrimination.

Other freedoms that had been extended to all and not just to minority groups were curtailed or removed all together. Censorship became the norm not only for newspapers and other forms of entertainment like the theater, but also in relation to free speech. A secret police force was developed and funded to hunt of dissidents and the vocally 'disgruntled' and its existence must have made people much more wary about expressing themselves to others. Plays and other entertainment eventually had to be approved through the police/ government before any attempt at public performance could be had. There is documentation that Napoleon would 'edit' even specific lines in stories, articles, plays etc... to be sure that things read or were seen the way he wanted them to be. He also moved religious freedom back a little bit and while he allowed the worship of other religions in many ways, he put the Catholic religion at the top of governmental support and, as before, all clergy and other religious leaders were paid by the state to assure their loyalty to the state... and not to the Pope.

Lastly, one clear ideal of the revolution was representative government. Napoleon clearly had no wish to have any kind of representative government... unless it represented his view only. :) Bureaucracy was set and controlled in such as way that over time, Napoleon become the only leader and even other 'leaders' must get his approval for everything... and anything! In many ways, he was to return France to the form of government it had been following for hundreds of years – a hereditary absolute monarchy. His relatives and children were given territory and ruling positions over much of the conquered territory of Europe and it appears that his relatives in many ways answered to him as well. This was clearly not the ideal situation that most of the revolutionaries had fought for.

When we look at France through these ideas, it seems clear that Napoleon is a man that could be classified along with other 'enlightened' despots in history. Many of the changes that had been won through the costs of fear and blood were carefully and strictly removed. That said, he didn't disagree with or change all of the hard won changes of the revolution. The achievements of personal and private property were kept so that people could be assured that the government couldn't just swoop in and take their land... there had to be a good and lawful reason (which he only ignored in some instances). Religious freedom was still kept... OK, freedom of 'Christian' religions were kept... but that was certainly an improvement. :) Feudal rights continued to be abolished and were not reinstated... except for a few situations which again Napoleon conveniently ignored for his gain. A constitutional monarchy- even if in name only- was still a small step forward towards democracy. And certainly, one consequence of the revolution and its other great leader was control and terror. This standard and form of rule Napoleon would continue. With censorship and a virtual police state, Napoleon may not have used the guillotine to achieve his ends in the same way that Robespierre did, but he too used his intelligence, his oratory and persuasive abilities, ambition, and the addition of his military prowess to create a country in his image... and to take that image and use his armies to paint it across the entire European continent. Thankfully, life had in many ways improved for his constituents and they were able to have a chance at a more satisfactory life.

French Revolutionaries and Analysis on Minority Rights

After reading and studying the 'Declaration of Man' last week, I really wanted to try and figure out what the people who wrote the document meant by it. For instance, it seems obvious through language that the word man means all men, but it did not. So here are some thoughts on the research that I did and what I think the thoughts of the revolutionaries might have been.

To start, I will admit that I am not really sure about what the revolutionaries thoughts about rights for free Negroes in the Caribbean colonies and non-Christian groups within France. What does seem clear is that if you lived in the French Caribbean colonies, you tended to lean more towards an appreciation of slavery an if you lived in the country of France, then you tended to feel that slavery was not totally positive- I make this statement based on the idea that after an uprising in Saint-Domingue in 1791, the Assembly in May of that year passed a decree that gave full citizenship rights to all free nonwhite males born to free parents in a French Colony. This concession is clearly limited and didn't apply to any nonwhite male slaves not to non white who were free but had parents who were considered slaves, but this concession was considered unacceptable to the French (white) citizens of the colonies and they lobbied hard to have the decree annulled. (It appears that they would have been successful if not for the great slave rebellion in September 1791 that occurred again in Saint-Domingue and lead to the eventual abolition of slavery in 1794 and the colony's independence from France several years later.) The writer Montesquieu wrote in “The Spirit of Laws” many things suggesting that slavery is an affront to natural law, he also wrote that in some situations it can be justified- one quote states '… It is hard to believe that God, who is such a wise Being, should place a soul, especially a good soul in such a black ugly body.....The Negroes prefer a glass necklace to that gold which polite nations so highly value. Can there be a greater proof of their want of common sense? It is impossible for us to suppose these creatures are men because, allowing them to be men, a suspicion would follow that we ourselves are not Christian.' I will admit that I read the document three times and I think that I still do not understand what the writer meant, but it does appear to me that these statements give a justification of exploitation and slavery based on skin color, looks, and assumptions. Any thoughts from classmates who actually understood what Montesquieu meant are certainly welcome as I won't pretend that I did. :)

What does seem clear is that as enlightened as many of these revolutionaries were, they still had to deal with their own traditions and prejudices, the biases of others, and it is unreasonable to expect that they could literally change the world in a matter of weeks in regards to all the prejudices and class biases that existed at that time. What they did accomplish was pretty extraordinary in itself. Until the revolution, it appears that religious belief was an important characteristic that helped determine your citizenship; i.e., if you were Catholic you were a citizen and if you were anything else you were not. The revolution started the change in this by granting limited citizenship rights to all French Protestants in 1787- two years before the writing of 'The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen'. It is a little telling that it took an additional four years to grant the majority of French Jews citizenship rights in September of 1791... especially as I realized that the some of the nonwhite males of the French colonies were given citizenship rights four months previously. Another requirement for citizenship was that you had to be male, so this certainly left women out. :) I believe that another requirement was that you had to be born in France- so immigrants would never have any way of becoming a citizen. Any way you look at the process of trying to open up opportunity and rights to a majority that had not had then, it was not an easy process.

I suspect one reason that these particular groups were not naturally included and were considered separately is simply because in almost all aspects of life they were already looked at separately. Other groups such as the poor while separate,... in many ways looked like their group. Many white men were poor, etc... Non whites and Jews looked different, had different cultures, even different religions, making these groups seem more suspect and not immediately brought to the forefront. So these groups had to be considered separately when their plight or need for rights was brought to the attention of the Assembly. Otherwise, they hadn't been considered due to the tradition biases and prejudices of the revolutionaries in power. The one exception appears to be white protestants- their break with the traditional religion was not a hindrance and in fact seemed to be an asset in light of the anti-Catholic Enlightenment atmosphere of the time.

What are your thoughts? How do you think that our country which had the same difficulties as France has overcome them? Do you think that we have overcome them....?

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)

Environmental History: Viewpoints on Native Americans, Europeans and the New World in 1490 part 1

This post is 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! :)

There are several differences between the cultures of the Native Americans and their European counterparts when it came to gift giving and trade. For the Pueblo Indians there is a clear reciprocal protocol that must be followed with gift giving. In short – a gift should be accepted with the giving of another gift making both givers the equal and not indebted to each other. If only one side had a gift to offer, then the person who accepted the gift still had a non-tangible gift to give- which was unending obedience and respect. This knowledge and acceptance of the gift giving relationship between parties was no limited to only human beings in the sense that the Indians believed that God had given them many gifts that they could not reciprocate and so they 'owed' obedience and respect to God always. Gifts were offered to animal spirits to help with the hunt and to continue the important role of gift giving and reciprocity. In the European culture, gift giving does not have the same connotations. It is considered that a gift doesn't need to be reciprocated in many instances. Therefore, it was inevitable that conflict would arise between the two communities based on this one cultural difference alone. In many cases, Europeans thought the gifts were simply 'tribute' and was the conquerors due, not a gift to be acknowledged and returned. Trade was similarly disproportionate between the two groups. Europeans would trade quick cheap materials, tools or products to the Indian for the very expensive fur. And the tools of the 'western men' made more sense to use when taken into conjunction with the success and strength of Christianity and the European marketplace.

There are a few ecological roles that animal spirits, rain chiefs and shamans play in Native American society. In the case of the Pueblo Indians, they believed that people and the natural word were connected and that all objects and animals had a spirit. So before using or killing natural resources the spirit must been appeased and respected or the spirits could work against the people. They believed that animals have emotions just as we do and they are capable of fighting back if their resources are overused and not respected. Micmac tribes believed that the world was filled with magic and power and is a world filled with magic or spiritual beings – not objects. So, for the majority of native Indians, these spirits helped focus and control their use of natural resources by giving animals a respect and reverence due them because of the fellow relationship with the tribal members and nature. Animals may have been a 'separate nation, but they were considered a nation to be carefully used, respected, and rituals followed to keep the relationship between the nations of animals and people open and healthy. For the Micmac communities, hunting was even called a 'holy occupation' and was mainly performed for need alone... In fact, the belief that over-consumption could cause retaliation in the animal world by either invalidating the hunter's way to hunt causing inability to get food or the similarly terrible calamity of the living animals/members of the over-consumed 'nation' leaving the vicinity of the tribe and their hunting grounds. The arrival and active influence of the Franciscan and Jesuit missionaries to convert and change the spiritual beliefs of the Native Americans proved quite effective. These Europeans appears to control animals with a power that the leaders of native groups could not match. The 'corn mother', a sacred fertility goddess, was transmogrified by the missionaries in the Virgin Mary and other gods were pushed aside. Conversions were acquired by trickery (when I pray for you and you feel better, you will convert), ridicule of the native religion, better food production, and physical protection if needed. Even the disease that was brought by the Europeans caused spiritual harm as the ways of medicine for the tribe were unable to help these new illnesses and the 'whites' seemed to be almost immune to the problem, leading credence to the Europeans Christianity. Those native societies that fell hardest under the influence of the European cultures found woman’s right severely curtailed, many of their feminine cultural gods and ceremonies removed as demonic or sinful, and only the more masculine Gods continued to be worshiped or acknowledged after the erosion of the native culture by the Europeans- even the Christian names given to the male children helped subvert the rights of women. And by subverting the spiritual base of the relationship between man and animals, the relationship between them was more open towards more exploitation with fear of retaliation.

Native American society had quite a few gender differences that existed in their cultures before the arrival of the Europeans. The Pueblo Indians had a culture that allowed for both independence as well as interdependence of their genders, giving men and women relatively equal status in the group. Jobs were gender based as women spent much of their days preparing food, community work as well as the traditional tasks of clothing preparation, childcare, cleaning, etc... Men worked in the corn plots owned by women usually a family member, collected necessities such as firewood, performed the hunt, and were responsible for the community's relationship with the Gods. In these societies, land was mostly owned by women and women had rights to their children, labor, land and even the seeds for the growing of food. The arrival and upheaval caused by the Europeans altered the way that all native societies functioned and altered the roles of both gender changing the balance of power clearly towards the masculine gender and severally limiting the rights of the native women (and their own actually :)

The differences in belief and attitudes towards property and the environment between the Native American and the Europeans are stark. As both sides viewed the world around them in such differing way culturally, socially, and spiritually, it can come with little surprise that there was so much conflict and anger between the two groups. (While it is incorrect to lump all native peoples into one group as the Native Americans had many differences in their cultures depending on their location and groups, for this discussion I will discuss the generic beliefs of all Native American cultures versus the attitudes of the European groups.) Native Americans saw personal property as something that could be carried-such as tools, etc... land was owned by all beings including the animals and inanimate objects in nature. So, many native groups had areas were they lived and commenced their work, but no one in particular owned that land and all people used the land to keep it useful and ready for the next generations- a believe that this generation was essentially renting the land from the next generation. Their religion reminded them that they must use natural resources with respect and dignity... otherwise the spirits of nature could retaliate against them. Things that were passed on in kinship groups would pass down the matriarchal line and there was no distinction between communal or personal property in kinship groups. The Europeans with a rich history of Judea-Christian thought saw the environment very differently. One view that was held by these groups was that God had given Adam (the first man) the order to dominate nature.... and our intelligence gives humans the ability use science to learn about nature and improve and alter it which puts the human being on a dominant scale in relation to all others forms of nature and the environment. Europeans tended to see forests and densely filled land with superstitious thoughts of it being the devil's place (of filled with satanic forces) and so they saw it as they right- nay, duty to conquer and tame the land to make room for appropriate civilization. It also must be mentioned that Europeans believed in the concept of private property; that land could be owned permanently by one or more person and that land gave a person wealth and power. They believed that land could be owned by those who worked the land and this thought was one of the justifications for taking the land from the natives (as they were not working it like the Europeans.) Essentially, the Europeans saw land as a constantly marketable commodity and passed these commodities through paternal lines of kinship. The Europeans biased views allowed them to decide that Native Americans were lazy, poverty stricken because of their laziness and their duty to civilize both the natives and the environment. Native religions helped keep the overuse of the natural resources to a minimum while European religion justified European overuse and relentless usage of the natural resources.


The concept of the 'Ecological' Indian is a stereotypical 'idea' that was given to the Indians by the early environment conservation movement. This stereotype suggests that Indian culture was so pure and conservationist that it never left a mark or any harmful action onto their environment. However, like all stereotypes, there is only a little truth to the concept and while native communities did cause less negative impacts on their environment as a whole, they still did cause alterations, damage, and differing impacts on their environment. While, it can truly be said that the influence of the European and the assimilation of his culture made both the native and European population more exploitative of the land and its resources... it is true that native communities did cause a higher environmental impact on nature and their surroundings after assimilating parts of European culture and apostatizing from their own beliefs. Stereotypes also tend to make the object or community that is stereotypes simple and plain and doesn’t allow for the complexities and details of their culture to be seen or understood... and tend to make the details seem useless and unimportant. I have certainly found that any stereotype or 'label' that is used in my life to describe something or someone rarely is able to do more but merely scratch the surface of the beauty, complexity, and true understanding of the person, culture, etc....

There were a few reasons that European monarchs were looking for a new route to the 'East', but only one real focus. The aristocracy and monarchy of the European countries had been able to grow wealthy from trade with the east and were also able to enjoy luxuries that they were not able to easily or cheaply make themselves such as silk, spices, gold and jewels. However with only one route to the east and one way to trade and make money, trade and wealth for the monarchs of Europe was always contingent on control of the way to the East. When the 'silk road' was blocked by the Turks around 1490 and trade was on the decline, monarchs such as Queen Isabela of Spain were desperate to find a new way to get to India to continue trade. It didn't hurt that the Europeans themselves had already exploited so much of their natural resources that times were a little difficult- land was scarce and overworked, peasants worked land that belonged to wealthy people or institutions, and overcrowding was the norm. So this is the time that Kings and Queens sent out explorers to find new lands or ways to the East to find more resources.

Before the discovery of the Americas by Christopher Columbus, Europe is described by the documentary (America before Columbus) in stark and harsh terms. In 1491, Europe is crowded, the wealth of the rich and noble is at risk due to restricted ability to trade, the land is overworked, scarce, and overrun, the borders of countries are torn and damaged by wars, thirst for power, religious fervor. Europe is crowded with 100 million people, all natural resources have already been exploited, most people work for others as peasants, the main diet of the majority is fairly simple and unchanging (mostly grain products like bread and porridge). Water and wind are harnessed for power to increase yields on land that is small and overworked. The population of Europe is so large and the domesticated animals help by providing meat and dairy, fur hides and clothing, physical labor, and leather. Between the large number of people and the domesticated animals controlled by human owners, Europe is to crowded and cannot continue to really survive... let alone thrive without finding more resources to use. (or exploit). Even the seas and rivers have been exploited as a form of cheap protein and have been so over-fished (as well as the damage/ pollution caused by over farming the lands and the runoff and sediment), that the yields of fish diminish. The rivers also had diminished fish yields not only because of pollution but also the damming of the waterways to produce power and to help with irrigation which disrupted spawning and fish growth. Due to wars, need for fuel, buildings etc... the forest in Europe have been depleted. Wood is used for fuel as there is not much coal and while many buildings like cathedrals are made of stone... a lot of wood is used for roofs, pillars, foundation, ceilings, etc... Wood is also used for tools (for both wood tools such as ax handles, but also for the smelting fires to make the metals into weapons and tools) and furniture as well as transportation such as cart wheels. And forests take up badly needed land for food production. Wood in many ways is scarce and what is left is owned by the powerful. Venice itself is literally floating on wood and seriously depleted all the lands around it for the wood. Europe is simply in a desperate state and needs to find more resources or collapse whether through war, famine, etc... There is little to lose in exploration and much potential to gain.

One interesting civilization of note was the civilization of the Anasazi in Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. The reason that this civilization is important to study and acknowledge is that even though this group of people used resources as correctly as they could, their civilization still declined until extinction and assimilation to another place. In 1491, this land looks much like it does today- barren, little vegetation, no water and few animals. Before this time the land was full of forests and vegetation and was the home of the Anasazi. From 700 AD on, these people built huge buildings- the largest and highest in North America at that time. The Anasazi have left no written records to tell us about their civilization and so to discover what happened to this civilization of around 100 people, environmental historians can study the trees, rate nests, and other environmental factors to help us learn what happened to them. Archeology will give some clues but studying the environment will tell us that the world was like around the people we are studying. I think this story is important to study and understand because we can see clearly through the study of the Anasazi and Chaco Canyon that the environment can not only be changed by us, but it can control us and even change us in dramatic ways. While there is some debate about whether the Anasazi harvested too much wood causing the loss of forests or if the loss is due to drought... or both, in the end we know that the forest receded causing erosion and more difficulty in growing crops. We know that the population was too large and not enough agriculture could be grown during the drought to feed the people... so they had to leave. (This seems to me to be a great metaphor for Europe in 1491 and the desperation of the population to find a another place to move to and more resources to use.)

Thoughts on the Document 'Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen'

I thought it was interesting to read this document and how different times and cultures would read and interpret it differently. One word that stuck out to me as up for varying interpretations was the word nation. The text of the 'Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen' is in some ways vague about who actually makes up the French 'Nation.' The word is only used in the third declaration which is:

The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.

This statement suggests that when the word (nation) is used, the meaning is 'everyone'- that no person or individual is to be excluded and so any time that the word 'nation' is used the assumption is that it includes all human beings. That said, a thorough reading of the rest of the document seems to suggest that certain rights seem to have been given to men only while others were given to all citizens (which I assume includes women, children, and those of other races- I recognize that is a false assumption based on my current culture.) Taking the time to read and assess other documents from the current environment as the 'Declaration' for answers didn't make the definition much clearer. For example, one document states that nobles “opposed measures that they feared would increase ministerial power and insisted that the French 'nation' be consulted about fundamental changes in its constitution. And they saw themselves as the natural spokesmen for the rest of the nation.”
So the word nation in this sentence really seems to be the nobles who believe that they speak for everyone economically lower than them... which is most of the population of France. Emmanuel Sieyes, another contemporary writer at that time, stated that the Third Estate (most of the population) “has... within itself all that is necessary to constitute a complete nation... If the privileged order were abolished the nation would be not something less but something more.” This statement clearly suggests that the average commoner or anyone not a member of the 'privileged order' should be the actual meaning of 'nation'. So it appears that the definition of 'nation' changed depending on who uses the words and what their motives were.

This 'Declaration' has many pieces of it that are quite forward thinking and revolutionary for that time. French society before this time period was very stratified in nature with a small percentage of privileged and the 'inherited' classes on top, a small layer of wealthy and landed families, and a large layer of serfs, peasants, etc... The first declaration in this statement is that all men are 'born and remain free and equal in rights; social distinction can be established only for the common benefit.' This statement recognized and started the process of abolishing the separate layers of this clearly stratified society. The second declaration states that all men have certain natural rights that no government can or should infringe on which are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression - in later declarations these terms are described. Free speech is allowed, only actually lawfully forbidden laws can be punished and punishments must be reasonable, the presumption of innocence, the public’s right to be able to have information from the government, etc... However, in many ways this document is not that revolutionary. Women have no actual rights declared (until recently and in some cases in this country we still do) and unless a law specifies women then the law doesn't necessarily include them when the law uses the word 'men'. How this has been interpreted is that if the law is a negative such as stealing, women can be prosecuted under the law and they are. However, laws that are positive and provide benefits (such as owning property) tend to have be interpreted as excluding anyone except for men. So while some men gained more rights in France during this time, no one else did. Property was now considered a sacred right that could not be taken away by the government without due cause, but the property still belonged to those who had been of the privileged class... leaving the vast majority to have freedom, but no property so they were still in some ways tied to the land. The Declaration also seems to have been interpreted to only give white males the rights and so minority men could still be slaves and not covered by the law... in fact they could still be considered property so the law gave them no rights except for the sacred right of 'being owned'. So the privileged order may at that time be considered 'not as privileged', but they still had the land, the money... and now that the government was overthrown, they had that power to. It was in their interests to keep as much as they could and still keep the 'Third Estate' happy. Some rights were given to citizens but the definition of what a citizen was is not in the document and was left for other people to determine- again being able to interpret it in the ways that suited the wealthy and the property owning classes.... and their own biases.

When reading this document and trying to decide what the writers envisioned in a society that was governed under the 'Declaration of the Rights of Man...', I feel like these individuals were hopeful to make good change but also wanted to really calm down the rebellion. By making the new basis of government so vague, everyone could feel satisfied and calm down and get back to their everyday lives. During this time, the laws and government could then be made and as long as there appeared to be some benefits, the majority of people wouldn’t have revolted again. Getting the violence stopped and everything back to 'normal' would have been a key thought in the mind of these writers. I do believe that the writers did want to make the world they lived in more equal and to move away from the absolute monarchy, but I also think that this document is still based on the assumptions and biases of these writers- all of whom were white males of good family and not wrung out in poverty. So I envision them looking for a country without violence, more equality and a more representative government... but a country where white men still ruled and had more benefits than anyone else.

If you take the time to read this document (it is only a few pages), what are your thoughts on it? How do you read it and what does it mean to you? What do you think it meant to its contemporaries and its authors? This document is very like the American 'Bill of Rights' as many of the writers and contemporaries who gave voice to both documents thought were the same... Does this change how you feel about either of these documents?