Analysis of the Ecological and Political Impact New England Colonists Inflicted on Their Land - Essay Example

?Analysis of the Ecological and Political Impact New England Colonists Inflicted on Their Land William Cronon portrayed the vital impact the British colonists impressed upon their natural environment in his book Changes in the Land. He explores how a foreign population directly affected the new land through specific elements. The elements such as bounding the land, taking the forest, use of fire, changes to the animal population, and disease are what led to the alteration of the land by a political colonist society in comparison to Indian culture. When English colonists initially settled in the new world, the notion of bounding the land arose. This is where Cronon starts to heavily contrast Indians and settlers. The Indians made it a point to move from location to location as a form of survival. Cronon says, “To take advantage of their land’s diversity, Indian villages had to be mobile” (54). Colonists disagreed with this practice because it constituted change, one that they were unfamiliar with and it led to criticism. They wished to mirror their settlements from the old world in New England by remaining in one place and only traveling village-to-village if need-be. Although, the Indians did not suffer from hunger, the settlers disapproved of their lifestyle as it reminded them of the poor people in England: “To those who compared Massachusetts Indians to English beggars, Morton replied, ‘If our beggars of England should, with so much easy as they, furnish themselves with foode at all seasons, there would not be so many starved in the streets’” (55). They saw Indians as starving people despite the truth. Cronon describes settlers as saying, “Indian poverty was the result of Indian waste: underused land, underused natural abundance, underused human labor” (56). Since the Indians “failed” to utilize all of the land, the colonists considered it to be wasteful. This is ironic because the settlers’ practice of hoarding every thing affected the ecological system most negatively because once they took it all, they did not give back; or at least not in the proper way. The settler’s political agenda in remaining bound to the land imposed an imbalance of nature and the land. Instead of taking just a little here and there, moving on, then returning later once the land has been replenished like the Indians, the colonists robbed the land of its resources. They cut down trees, uprooted plant-life and later, introduced agriculture without the means to accurately replenish the soil. It also brought up the question of property lines. This was a concept that the Indian’s did not enforce because they did not need to when moving as often as they did. Land boundaries reinforced the need for property rights given to individuals in a New England colony. This also affected social wealth and trade. The act of taking a forest and what that meant in relation to the settlers and the land was important because it characterized the difference between ownership and items free-for-the-taking. For example, trees as they are rooted in the forest, untouched by man, are considered lacking ownership. The actual act of ownership came into play when the trees were sawed down and made to form ships and homes. Property as defined as “…to represent boundaries between people; equally, it is to articulate at least one set of conscious ecological boundaries between people and things” (58). English settlers believed in possession rather than a community pool of property. Where the Indians differ is how they attributed ownership. Cronon says, “What the Indians owned - or, more precisely, what their villages gave them claim to - was not the land but the things that were on the land during the various seasons of the year” (65). The Indians had to abide by this over what the settlers believed because they frequently moved across the land as an act of continued existence. The colonists, on the other hand, prone to mimic British society, desired to remain in one spot on the land: “English fixity sought to replace Indian mobility; here was the central conflict in the ways Indians and colonists interacted with their environments” (53). Whether or not the land had any thing to offer in form of food, water or shelter, it was assigned to a colonist, which is a contrasting concept from the Indians. Cronon adds, "In the long run, it was this latter conception of land - as private commodity rather than public commons - that came to typify New England towns" (74). Settlers decided any object or piece of the forest made with an individual’s hands was considered their private property. The political practice of ownership among the colonists impacted the environment in a huge way. Instead of taking from the land like the Indians, the settlers took the land and reshaped it to their standard. In essence, trees were mowed down, often wastefully. The abundance of their supply lowered their value and led to more waste. Ecologically, if there is a massive tip on the balance scale such as deforestation, it creates a domino effect and the ecosystem suffers. The demand for supplies never abates. When the supply is being overproduced and eventually runs low, its value increases. So not only is the environment crippled, the settlers had to pay higher prices for the trees, which they utilized in their daily lives. Farmers added to the problem by clearing the land without recognizing the correlation between soil and trees; one does not grow without the other. Again, the disappearance of one part of the ecosystem affects the rest. Now that the colonists took the forests, the soil lacked proper nutrients: “In their [native species] place were hordes of European grazing animals which constituted a heavier burden on New England plants and soils” (159). Crops were difficult to grow, but most importantly, the change to the land invited hoards of pests like rats, cockroaches and fungi. Cronon briefly touches on this when he says, “[farming] unintentionally created habitats which many organisms found quite attractive” (151). Especially in regards to the fungi that attacked wheat fields, the pests rampaged the settlers’ environment, thus placing strain on their lives. Although the settlers criticized Indian society, the settlers did indeed adapt some of their practices. One of these practices happened to be the use of fire on the land. The Indians would burn weeds and underbrush that milked the land of the resources the tribes were seeking. Since fire is a natural restorer to an ecosystem because of its ability to enrich the soil, this practice was successful. The colonists molded this practice to their way of life by not only burning underbrush, but entire sections of forest, including the trees. They demolished areas with consequences. The land became negatively impacted because with the lack of wilderness came floods, higher temperatures in the summer and colder temperatures in the winter. There were no trees to buffer the land from the brutality of the weather. Not to mention the abuse on the soil indirectly created havoc in the form of erosion. Rivers that once held plentiful water became so engorged they dwindled and extended into rivulets of dirt that remained dry most of the season. Cronon demonstrates the interaction between society and nature when he says: Environment may initially shape the range of choices available to a people at a given moment, but the culture reshapes environment in responding to those choices. The reshaped environment presents a new set of possibilities for cultural reproduction, thus setting up a new cycle of mutual determination. (13) All of these radically negative results due to the settler’s burning the land did not faze them in the least. Cronon explains their reaction was that they “understand what they were doing in almost wholly positive terms, not as `deforestation,' but as `the progress of cultivation'" (126). The colonists remained focused on the task at hand, not in their future of survival. By thinking so narrow-mindedly, it impacts the environment and society on a long-term, usually permanent basis. Failure to grow specific crops like wheat is an example of a loss the settlers could inherit. A large amount of focus has been adhered to plant-life being impacted by the colonists, but that is not to say it is the only factor altered. Animals, too, were affected by the changes. Ecologically, any force that adjusts the plants will inadvertently affect the animals. The same occurred to the native inhibitors of the New England area. Due to destroyed habitat, animals were constantly losing their homes. Animals lost the bet against survival when their shelters were eradicated. Without shelter, they are unprotected from the elements and predators, and were unable to keep offspring alive. This affects a species’ population by greatly diminishing the numbers to possible extinction over time. It is not just their shelter that is impinged on, but their food and water sources too. The herbivores will suffer from the loss of the natural plant life while the carnivores lose the herbivores, thus each element’s population decreases. High flooding that leads to dry beds also affect the decline of a species’ numbers. Then, some animals were hunted for their fur to be used in trades between settlers and Indians. Beavers are a prime example of how the colonists’ impacted the animals’ populations. Beavers lost their shelter due to the cultivating of the land, which over-flooded some areas while drying up others, and to the lack of trees that were being utilized by man. They were also prized for their fur coats. These factors were not the sole contributors to the natural animal population’s deterioration. The livestock that settlers’ brought over like cattle from Britain impeded on the natural species in New England through devouring the resources. They purged the land of the native grass, which encouraged different grass, or wild plants to grow. Their presence also meant that the settlers had to fence them in, unlike how the Indians treated their stock, lest they consume their crops. Fences separated animal populations and encouraged pests such as weeds to grow. Fundamentally, one of the most critical economical impacts the settlers had on the land and the natives was disease. The dynamic and socialization between the native Indians and the settlers created a bridge for disease. Due to initial lack of exposure, many Indians fell ill and died. The colonists’ needs for trade, information and domination led to the impact disease had on the Indians. Cronon explains, “That sailors and settlers came to American in sufficient numbers to bring diseases with them was a direct result of social and economic transformations in Europe” (161). Cronon goes on to argue that, although disease was linked economically to the new world, it transformed into biology after time went by and the same diseases being introduced from new settlers were already in the New England environment (161). Livestock were excellent carriers for disease too. When insects fed on their blood or feces, the chances of them moving to another carrier and releasing that toxin into them body was high. Their mark on the land also meant that more and more disease-carrying insects would populate and disease would spread. There are no deficient factors in the New England settlers’ impacting the land both ecologically and politically. Multiple practices like eradicating the forests, the disinterest in roaming, utilization of fire, integration of livestock, and introduction of disease has reshaped the environment in a different manner than that of the Indians as indicated by William Cronon in Changes In the Land. Due to the fact that the colonists came from a dissimilar background, they acquired political ambitions that were unleashed on the land. Their aggressive motivations turned into actions that forever altered the natural world for better or for worse. Works Cited William Cronon. Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. 2003: Hill and Wang. Read More