Economic & Ecological Frontiers William Cronon’s Changes in the Land

Ecological and Economic changes in the New World went hand-in-hand.

As Hunter-Gatherers, and small scale farmers, the natural environment dictated the lifestyle and livelihood of the Indians. Changes in the land meant change for the Indian way of life.

A key word in understanding the lifestyle of the Indians is MOBILITY.

Why Mobility? Bands moved from location to location based on the seasonal availability of food. (hunting seasons, fishing, small-scale farming, gathering of wild plants, winter camp.)

Contrary to the myth that Indians lived in an environment undisturbed by humans, they, in fact, made their own changes to their surroundings:

“Controlled” Burning of the forests Cleared the underbrush, facilitating hunting, movement of humans Allowed new small vegetation to flourish for wildlife food. Could be used to clear areas for farming plots Fires sometimes set to drive wildlife for hunting purposes

Alterations to the landscape to facilitate farming “Girdling” trees – stripping off bark so that tree dies, exposing ground to sunshine. Trees not removed, but let to rot in place. Fertilizing of soil (typically with fish carcasses)

The Indians endured in the winter a “time of hunger.” They did not often stockpile sufficient food. Why was this?

According to Cronon’s Changes in the Land, the Indians were able to control their population during this time of hunger. It is unclear whether or not this was intentional, but it seems to have been the end product. The seasonal movement and subsistence off of nature worked for Indians largely because of their relatively few numbers and low population density.

Enter the English

English Perspectives: Came from England where both land and natural resources were scarce (wood, game, space) Arrived at times when resources were abundant (edible plants, wildlife) and assumed it was a year-round 24/7 phenomenon. Didn’t understand the seasonality of nature’s bounty Were unaccustomed to constantly moving around like Indians Discovered quickly that while there were more resources than in England, one could not live off of the land and live like an Englishman at the same time

English impressions of the Indian way of life: Thought the Indians were lazy (did not take advantage of opportunities) Believed that those who improved the land should retain the land. Thus the Indians were unworthy of holding land. Thought the hungry time was nearly insane (could not understand “want in the midst of such bounty.”)

As opposed to the mobility of the Indians, the key word to understanding English Settlement was FIXITY. (permanent, unmoving settlement.)

Hence, FIXITY vs. MOBILITY – an essential conflict because these two ways of life are largely incompatible in the same land.

At the heart of this conflict lies two very different concepts about the ownership of land: Indians believed in land ownership in the sense that one could have RIGHTS to USE the property. In a mobile society, owning the actual ground didn’t make sense. Tribes often fought wars over the right to use land When Indians “sold” land to the English, they conceived that this meant the USE of the land, hence they sold the same piece of land more than once. Indians did not believe the sale to be a complete and enduring transfer of title – rights to the land lasted only for a finite period of time.

The English, of course, held views of land that were very foreign to the Indians: The resources on the property and the LAND ITSELF belonged to an individual owner That individual owner held a legal deed to that property and could in turn sell it or pass it on to his heirs. The owner of the land, as a responsible owner, will make “improvements” (fencing, dwellings, barns, mills, dams, etc.) to the land.

This, of course, leads directly to “Changes in the Land” which will ultimately end the Indian way of life: The English will cut forests to build towns, clear fields, fence fields, and to fuel fires. The forest will forever change. They will dam streams for mills, ponds, stopping the spawning of many species of fish (ending seasonal food) Fixity means an eventual wiping out of most game species in an area. Livestock will bring new diseases, but also new PLANTS (in the seeds of the bellies of animals.) These grasses will take over native species. Livestock will forage in the woods for food, competing with wild game.

Other changes came to Native society along with these major alterations to the environment. The Indians came to desire English trade goods: English cloth replaces hides Better steel tools and weapons replace stone tools Guns Alcohol

How are the Indians going to pay for all of these trade items? Largely with hides, meat, and fur.

Indians are slowly absorbed into the market economy with the English. The wild game that they hunt changes from a necessity of subsistence to a commodity of trade.

The Indians, in order to pay for these English goods: Start hunting and trapping far in excess of what the environment will support, exhausting resources Push further into the regions of other tribes, creating more conflict, and competition for survival

The Indians begin to acquire more “stuff” from the English and become less mobile. This contributes further to the complete alteration of their way of life.

With things like beaver pelts = money, the Indians also become more sensitive about their “ownership” of certain hunting grounds. This is ownership in a more European sense. This concept helps to break down communal ties.

In the end, the English alter the landscape directly through the creation of fenced fields, towns, farms, etc. The English indirectly accelerate this changing landscape through trade (with a good bit of help from the Indians.)