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/

Did the Russian State... Part IV by Nils Johann (On the 'Miracle' of Western Europe)

A challenge that one faces when entering into the debate of an eastern or western culture dominating Russia, is the terminology itself. What is 'The West'? Is 'The West' something definable? Or rather, can it be used as a definition? It is a term that is inherently used, and it simplifies and creates order in one's mind. But does it help to understand something, or does this categorization lead us astray... or make us lazy? The suspicion arises that the category contains a lot of praise, to one self, one's own. Because it is to be understood positively, is it not? When our 'Anglo-Saxons' write about 'The West', they write about their own, their identity, and self-image. They show how they would like to portray themselves today, often at the risk of sacrificing historical fact, in favor of tunnel-vision, with regards to sources and interpretations.

The claim made by Landes and other 'Eurocentrics' (rather 'Occidentofiles') is that 'European' institutions that arose during the industrialisation, and the Industrialisation itself, can be traced back into 16th century, to their 'embryonic' state, without causing huge problems of verification. (Landes even claims the 15th century holds the 'seeds' for future industrial development.) This is best illustrated by the discussion that broke out, after David Landes and Andre Gunder Frank both brought out a book on the subject of 'world economic history' during the same year. They positioned their works extremely antithetical to each-other. In “ReOrient- Global Economy in the Asian Age” (1998), Andre Gunder Frank manifests the economical superiority of Asia for the period before the disjunction that happened around 1750 to 1850. -Something that is not widely contested. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz, Adam Smith, and other Europeans in the time were well aware of this, and they idealised China as a model for copy, and a 'Europe of the East'.

David Landes in his Wealth and Poverty of Nations (1998) does however not want this to be true. In his grasping for straws, he alleges to have found exclusively English (and when he can't force them to be English, they are Dutch) 'seeds' for explaining the Industrial revolution, back in the 15th century. This, despite the general problem of finding or constructing data-series that reach further back than 1750. His attempt at writing a 'world economic history' must be seen as a failure, because the book is mostly about Europe. His effort at documentation for his narrative is good, but rather eclectic- we might call it a case of historical tunnel-vision. Landes, as Max Weber did in 1950, also places a lot of weight on cultural exceptionalism. But it ends with a circular argument where culture is special because it is special. Of course we can agree that culture is special. But it should be noted, that it is also highly plastic, adapting itself to, and echoing, changing material circumstances. The same goes for alleged, peculiar western institutions. They are made for fulfilling a pragmatic purpose, and the institutions that do not 'bend with the wind', will eventually 'break'. The 'sexual revolution' of the 1960's could be an example... be seen as a 'breaking down' of cultural mores by beatniks and French philosophers, and a loss of 'Christian Values'. But was it not also caused by the discovery of penicillin and 'The Pill'?

As a matter a fact we know 'Europe' only takes the economic lead after about 1800, and we know that this is due to the 'industrial revolution'. The exploitation of the western colonies in order to gain surplus currency to access oriental markets, had been important up to that point. (Occidental gold and silver, and shipping, because few 'Western' product were of high enough quality, to be of interest to the Asian market, until the westerners also started dealing in drugs and erotic art.) Frank does not completely decline the plausibility of 'inherit qualities' or a longer period of preparation for this jolt in European productivity, and he explains it best in his own words:

“But it was not so thanks to any of the 'qualities' and 'preparations' alleged by Weber, Marx and their many followers, including Landes still today, who observed nothing in Asia and only myths in Europe...Instead he [Vries] makes repeated references to possibly peculiarly European institutions. Since Vries does [can?] not specify or even name any, he conveniently also protects himself from any specific rebuttal. But I can assure him again, as the book already did, that every previously alleged European institutional exceptionalism has long since been knocked down as a straw man. To illustrate the point, I quoted what Hodgson wrote over thirty years ago already: "All attempts that I have yet seen to invoke pre-Modern seminal traits in the Occident can be shown to fail under close historical analysis….This also applies to the great master, Max Weber." If Vries can do better, let him.; but he would be well advised not just to refers us back to the tired old shibboleths of David Landes.”

He then proceeds to illustrate his point, by comparing the European surge by the rise of mammals, after the wiping out of the dinosaurs, meaning that the external economical factors of Indian and later Chinese relative decline, made room for European growth. Only because the surroundings changed, expansion was made possible.

“But Europeans [sic: Some European historians] have wasted nearly 200 years of time erroneously and uselessly examining their own allegedly obviously exceptional navel instead of looking for possible exceptional qualities that only became particularly useful due to an event largely extraneous to ... Europeans themselves.” In the wake of this feud, some good work was done to explore the subject further. Jack Turner's documentary 'What the Ancients knew' (2005), gathered a wealth of evidence supporting what Frank already claims, especially in relation to Chinese economic-force-superiority up until the 19th century."

An other example from the 'Occidentofile' perspective is Robert Bucholtz' lecture-series on the rise of modern western civilization. It is even more fitting for the place and period that will be discussed later in the paper. Bucholtz specialization is the English royal court, and he is therefore, quite familiar with England. Bucholtz' 'West' therefore, is a constantly eastwards growing
'West', into areas less known to him. The eastern border is at the outset of the lecture, in the period after the black death, drawn alongside the Rhine river, and, including Italy in the south. 'The West' to Bucholtz is as much a state of mind, as it is a geographical term, and as time progresses, more areas mature into this proposed (English) mindset. It is an Anglo-centric proposal, connecting to 'The West', things that are considered virtues in Bucholtz' culture today. A more critical interpretation of the lecture would give us, that what happens actually has the opposite causal effect of what is suggested by the narrative of Bucholtz. -As England integrates values and techniques from abroad, this shapes England. The protestant reformation takes place in the 'Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation', and as we know, some of its principles are adopted in England. Suddenly the H.R.E. is party to Bucholtz' narrative of the 'West'. It is a case of 'tailor-fitting' the data to fit with a preordained result.

This poses a problem to us, because it follows that 'The West' of Bucholtz, Ferguson and Landes is seen from a tunnel, opening in the direction of what they express to hold dear. Then, the 'West' is not the dictatorships of Franco or Pinochet, even though both were situated in the the West? Is it not the slums of former 'Western' colonies? Is it not the 'antebellum' United States, where the Congressmen wrote in high-born poetic prose about freedom, to hide the fact they were owning slaves? - And something that is too often under-communicated: The situation of the African slave, is not all to unlike to the situation of the European peasant from the 16th to the 19th century. Is 'The West', not the cheap labor of children in the coal-mines of South Yorkshire, that fueled the industrialization of England, and the constant state-sponsored murder of those that opposed the exploitation? Winston Churchill may not have had Gandhi murdered, as Adolf Hitler allegedly suggested to him. But the Great British Empire surely had no problem with starving away, both the Irish, and Indians, or the inhabitants of White-chapel. The Royal Navy did in the end contribute its bit to halt the slave-trade, but only after the criminalization of the trade in 1807. It took, however, until the late 1860's, before total compliance to this act was forced through. We could go on, the examples are many, -of what 'we do not want' 'The West' to be. But what is 'The West', or rather, what would we like it to be? -In this context, it is Parliamentary systems, the rule of law, and the freedom of private enterprise and property. Liberty and justice, checks and balances, prosperity and the right to voice ones opinion. Features that Niall Ferguson in his latest book dubbed “the six killer-apps of western civilization”. A problem is of course that many of these institutions, and freedoms, first materialize much later than even 1800. Through unions and 'class-struggle' (*in a broader sense of the word). Equal voting and legal rights, never materialised during the existence of the Great British Empire, and on the mother-isle, they only became reality in 1928. In Ferguson's U.S.A., It took until 1965 for these basic civil rights to be signed into law by president L. B. Johnson.

It seems, every time that non-European state-formations have stability, their governments can inherently within this discussion be described as despotic or tyrannical. “Freedom” from this sort of government supposedly leads to innovation and development, caused by market-like competition and exchange. There is a different perspective on development in general. There is a certain truth to the words of Hobbes; that the 'freedom' of the 'barbarian' might be nasty brutish and short. The least developed areas of today are at the same time the most unstable and conflict ridden ones. Order was prevalent in the East, when these areas up until about 1800, also had a technical lead, on poor, war-torn, Western Europe: Stability equals surplus of capital, surplus of capital; wealth, equals innovation, because it reduces relative risk when it is affordable to take a loss. In modern firms research and development is the relatively, most costly sector, and access to capital, and a large amount of surplus-capital, distributed among a large part of a population will open the possibility for innovation to a aggregated extent. In Ferguson's narrative the end of the Ming dynasty in China and the factionalism and wars that followed, are a definitive triggers of decline and stagnation of development. But he has no quarrels with portraying this same sort of contemporary fractioning, as the institutional strength of Europe, spurring proto capitalist competition. It is a total contradiction, spurring doubts about the reliability of the competition narrative, as a European advantage.

All in all, it is a question of perspective, of focus, and of intent, when one wants to write about 'The West'. Another challenge is of course also that the 'West' has changed over time. It has not always been as ideal, as the connotations to the term may imply. As we will see, historical thinking and historical accuracy can be a huge challenge. 'The Cult of British Exceptionalism' does in this regard also overemphasize and distort the subject when handled by many 'Western' historians, forcefully superimposing present structures on the past. Davis' “Late Victorian Holocaust”, is an exception from the rule. -A rare example of the opposite, as it rather focuses on the brutal, 'despotic' manner in which the 'Victorians' of Great Britain, spread 'Western Civilization' in order to exploit and enslave the world.

It seems quite likely that the 'Cult of British Exceptionalism', is a result of non-recognition of the exceptional ceterius paribus development, that the surplus accumulation of the Industrial Revolution, the harnessing of immense amounts of natural power for human needs, caused, for what it was: A brief fluke of West-European material-wealth-superiority. Because some gentlemen had unlocked the secret of turning heat into motion, giving them and their peers a leading role for two hundred years. Of course it was extraordinary, like the locomotive suddenly speeding up, next to the horse and cart. There was a need to culturally explain it, ex post factum, so historians and thinkers started making up stories, cultivating plausible explanations for the fluke. Like Marx, writing his short essay on the positive effect of British imperialism in India. Or Weber, inventing the tasty, elegant theory about how 'Jesus and Luther caused factories to be built'. It is about as verifiable as the Book of Genesis. It is of course also a philosophical question, where the person trained in a tradition of Hegelian idealism will undoubtedly be looking for 'the emperor's new robe' cheering, while enthusiastically not seeing it.

As a last thought on this issue; maybe it was not enough, or maybe it was to vulgar, for the Europeans, starting our craft of writing histories, back during their age of industrial revolution, that the 'political power had grown out of the barrel of a gun', -that had been mass produced. For Harald 'Haarfagre', one of the first kings in Norway, it had not been enough simply to be King, by holding
a sword either. He had traced his linage back to Methusalem The Old, Jupiter, King Priamos of Troy and the Norse God-King Odin. Caesar had claimed to be the heir of Venus, and Swedish noble houses of the 17th century traced them selves back to Atlantis of legend. So why not claim to be the noblest race? Have the purest blood? And a to be in possession of a special, inventive, mind? The
best Kings and the finest state-institutions, or the best culture? Or can we content ourselves with the fact, that turning heat, into motion, into work, into wealth, is miraculous enough? Landes' friend in arms, Samuel Huntington sums it up elegantly when he writes: “The West won the world, not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”

Comments? Questions? :)

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)