Creatures of Empire, written by Virginia Anderson depicts a compelling account on the role domesticated animals played for the settling colonists and natives in America. The core of the conflict began with differing ideologies surrounding the treatment of animals as components in their respective communities. The colonists from England believed in dominion rule over the animals. Complete control was essential in their domestication of the livestock; this control existed within the values of their religion, making domination a vital part of their society. The natives on the other hand believed in manitous. This was the belief of an animal spirit, one that practiced the value of reciprocity--not strictly dominion as colonist views encompassed. …show more content…
Native treatment of animals revolved around a mutual respect, where rituals were often performed that were vital to the coexistence of the “creatures.” The ultimate tragedy culminated to the inability for natives and colonists to coexist. Although I believed Anderson refers to the animals as the creatures in the title of the book, the colonist and indians can be defined as creatures themselves; distinct entities with vastly different cultural, societal and religious views, all culminating into the clashing of ideologies. In understanding why the natives and colonists eventually clashed, it is essential to understand that colonist entered with a degree of dominion not only over the animals, but the natives as well. Although the natives inhabited the lands first, the colonists believed they had a leg up as a functioning culture. The English entered America with livestock not yet introduced to to the native people. These animals brought along the possibility of expansion and efficiency within their cultures. The idea of husbandry--the care, cultivation, and breeding of crops and animals--was essential to the progress of their society. The colonists used the domesticated livestock to measure the shortcomings of the native society. These shortcomings came in a barbaric form from the colonist point of view; anger festered as the natives inability to civilize despite the presence of domesticated livestock for several years. The colonists took a laissez-faire approach to domestication, causing inefficient husbandry.
Time and labor were sparse as many women were not present--who, back in England, were often the ones taking care of the animals that were fenced in. The colonist attempted to rectify this problem by labeling the livestock they owned, leading to a free range approach to domestication. Many issues arose from this free range approach; natives in the surrounding areas were often paid unwelcomed visits from colonist livestock, often leading to trespassing in corn fields and villages. Colonists also began to accuse natives of stealing livestock if they went missing, causing problems surrounding property rights and local laws. To portray the trouble this problem caused Anderson uses the example of the native american named Chickwallop in the beginning of the book. To summarize, Chickwallop had a confrontation with an unknown domesticated animal stuck in the snow. Startled by the foreign creature, Chickwallop ran back to his village to show his community. The natives attempted to save the animal but to no avail. In the months following, the owner blamed Chickwallop for shooting his animal; as the story circulated around, a man named John Pynchon caught wind of it and represented Chickwallop in the case and won. This story is a display of proper handling of property and individuals rights--an occurrence that would not stay consistent involving later disputes between the natives and …show more content…
colonists. In some towns, local governments abused their powers, ruling in many cases that the natives were guilty in stealing all missing livestock, and often even selling the stolen livestock back to the colonists. Natives sought to deal with the issue of wandering livestock in more barbaric ways than the colonist; often, the natives would engage in warfare because of the colonist territorial progression. The colonists were on a quest for expansion. After entering the New World with only hundreds of people, the colonists quickly grew their numbers; “by 1670 to more 50,000 in New England and over 40,000 in the Chesapeake, and the number of their livestock vastly exceeded those figures.” (207) Colonist began to outnumber the native people in many areas. The colonist had an origin of protestantism to uphold, making it difficult to find any common ground with the natives from the start. The medium of dispute revolved around the livestock. “Indians principally directed their vengeance against colonial property, not persons. And no form of property offered a more tempting or appropriate target than livestock.” (226) Although this statement is true, there was a strict dichotomy between the basic views of the natives and colonist. The introduction of livestock into native society forced them to assimilate; however, this attempt to conform to new ideals put the natives on the defensive with their new neighbors. Negotiations and agreements put forth to deal with tensions and disputes between the two groups always seemed to favor the colonists. Indians reactions to trespassing of colonists livestock on their property often resulted in the killing of those animals, an act the colonists did not seem appropriate. Anderson points out “that the challenge for everyone involved lay in figuring out how to reduce the incidence of animal incursions and to forgive whatever trespasses still occurred" (190). However, ruling still stood firm in the favor of the colonists; often colonists would not even consider feeling sympathy towards the natives. The colonists continued to expand their territorial advances, the Indians were forced to comply and leave, or face aggression from the colonists. New generations of the colonists believed there wasn’t enough room for them to expand, native positioning had halted expansion. The colonists followed the Roman Law concept of res nullius which was governed by the principle that uninhabited lands are ownerless and could therefore become the property of those who could improve them. This form of governance was foreign to the natives as their stance of property was viewed differently. The colonists negative progression of husbandry led to the dispersion of livestock, claiming the land their animals now treaded upon as their own. Although livestock played a significant role in the disturbance between the two groups, the livestock were the catalyst--or even the cherry on top--to an inevitable war.
The colonists were set on a course of aggression for riches, they wanted to find this in the form of gold as the Spanish had done before, as well as develop profitable plantations for crops such as tobacco. Land conquest came with this, it was impossible for the colonists to grow and develop without expansion, and the natives were in there way. The tool that was brought over from Europe and sought to enrich and revolutionize the way each people's society operated divided them on a basic level where, "cooperation gave way to competition and, eventually, peace gave way to war." (210) The animals themselves played a key role in the eventual clash, however, it was the colonist abused the power the livestock had. Although both the natives and colonists found room in their lives for livestock, each community approached their utility in very different ways. Ultimately the colonist were unable to successfully coexist along their less civilized
neighbors.
In King Phillip’s Herds: Indians, Colonists, and the Problem of Livestock in Early New England, Virginia DeJohn Anderson described livestock in early New England, brought over by European colonists and used in the unsuccessful attempt to assimilate the Native Americans, led by King Phillip, into English ways. King Phillip’s bad relations with Indians, stemming from livestock, caused him a title transition from livestock keeper to war leader. The use of livestock by the Native Americans was ineffective to their way of life due to their previous hunting practices, gender roles in society, their spiritual beliefs and practices and land boundaries; causing growing tensions between Native Americans and European settlers during the 1600’s, arguably
When the colonists set sail for the New World, they knew that they would not only have to find a way to survive in the wild new habitat, but would also have to deal with rival nations that were claiming their own share of the new land. There had been long rivalry between France, England, and the Dutch. They had read the stories of Columbus and his voyages, and heard rumors of the wild and strange native people who were considered primitive. The Spanish had two different experiences with the Indigenous
In the introduction, Hämäläinen introduces how Plains Indians horse culture is so often romanticized in the image of the “mounted warrior,” and how this romanticized image is frequently juxtaposed with the hardships of disease, death, and destruction brought on by the Europeans. It is also mentioned that many historians depict Plains Indians equestrianism as a typical success story, usually because such a depiction is an appealing story to use in textbooks. However, Plains Indians equestrianism is far from a basic story of success. Plains equestrianism was a double-edged sword: it both helped tribes complete their quotidian tasks more efficiently, but also gave rise to social issues, weakened the customary political system, created problems between other tribes, and was detrimental to the environment.
The New England colonists were in constant contact with Indians since their arrival. Conflict was unavoidable between the two polar opposite cultures. The colonists sought to convert the Indians into Christians and attempt to civilize the "barbarians." Also, the expansion of colonies into Indian Territory was a major concern among the Indian tribes. King Phillip's War was the result of the ongoing tensions between the two cultures. Both the colonists and the Indians grew increasingly suspicious of each other eventually leading to war.
Since the settling of the English colonies in the early 17th century, pioneers have been destined to expand into the North American frontier and to domesticate it with their Christian faith and progressive nature. In their exploration of the frontier, however, the Puritan colonists often encountered Indians whose savagery challenged their discipline and morals. Just as the colonists expanded, Indians also saw their native lands of many years vanish. The situation naturally compelled the Puritans and the Indians to fight each other for their mutual interests. Thus, while most accounts of Western history focus on the heathen threat, both Indians and colonists experienced the harshness of the captivity myth and its evolution into other mythology that defined American history.
It was a difficult life for the first colonists; they had limited labor and were constantly raided by Native Americans. Colonists tried to use the Native Americans as a source of slavery. Most of the colonist’s farms were in forest areas so Native Americans would just leave in to the woods. Colonists were afraid of pressuring them from the fear of getting ambushed by gangs of Native Americans. Another reason Native American men made bad slaves was because the women in the tribes did the agricultural work in the Native American villages.
The English wanted to establish settlement to own more land, which leads to more power, and follow the idea of merchantism. In chapter one, the English wanted to go to the Americas not only for religious freedom, but to practice the idea of merchantism. During the time of English’s exploration of the Americas, the country was one of the last European countries to explore the “New World. Such items the colonists began to trade were furs, animal skins, meat, and crops such as: wheat, barely, and oats. In contrast, the colonists came to North America to have religious and economic opportunities, and freedom. What the colonists do not seem to realize is that England was using the colonist to gain power over the “New World” and to gain profit from foreign trade.
From the time Christopher Columbus first set foot on America, Native Americans were viewed as savages. To the Spanish, they were like slaves that they could tame and force to work for them. The British colonist though, saw them as harmful pest that they needed to remove from their god-given lands. Thus, the first successful British colony, Jamestown, never held good relations with the Indians and was barely able to survive whereas other European colonies immediately thrived due to their friendship with them with them. During the course of British colonization, relationships with the Indians worsened as they were pushed from their lands through treaties and the Indians tried to resist. Then came the French and Indian War, where most Indians decided to join France’s side against the British. If the French were to win, they were promised that the British would be removed
In Chapter 1 of From Trust to Domination: An alternative history of human-animal relations, Tim Ingold describes how humans have risen above and became in control of both nature and their selves. Ingold distinguishes pastoral care versus hunter-gatherers and their relationship with animals being that of trust versus domination. Pastoral care is defined as humans who care for and use livestock, while hunters exploit wild resources. Numerous examples are presented on the viewpoint that hunters are human-beings but are far from being human, due the impact that the animals in their environment have on them. Ingold displays the differences in the relationship between pastoral care and hunters towards animals; from their differences between humanity
Both “Animal Liberation and Environmental Ethics: Bad Marriage, Quick Divorce” by Mark Sagoff and “All Animals Are Equal” by Peter Singer seem to ignore a fundamental defining characteristic of animals, namely their level of domestication. These two essays’ assumptions and exclusions inspired me to think more about domestication. Partially through the process of brainstorming and outlining my arguments, I read “Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair” by J. Baird Callicott, which at the very least dealt with domestication, but I found that his version of the land ethic dealt with wild animals better than with domesticated animals.
At first the Indians acted very aggressive towards the colonists because of their past experiences with the Spanish explorers. They attacked one of the English ships before it could even reach their land. The Indians eventually took pity on the colonists and began to offer food and perform traditional Indian hospitality. The English failed to plant crops and perform work that was necessary to run their colony, so they became dependent on the Indians to provide them food. Powhatan, the leader of many tribes around the Chesapeake Bay, soon became angry because the English did not return his
Netflix’s first foray into feature films looks to be a wise, wise choice; there’s been talk of Beasts of No Nation becoming a major Oscar contender by the end of the year, and it’s not hard to see why. The film follows Agu, a West-African child that, after being separated in vicious circumstances from his endearing family, is forcibly enlisted and raised by a ruthless yet engaging ‘Commandant’, to become a child soldier. It’s harrowing, relevant subject matter, and the film doesn’t shy away from the tragedies and awful consequences that arise with the recruitment of youngsters to fight in a savage, territorial war.
The continuous shaping of America’s overall social, economical, and political systems correlates with how humans and animals interact. Helen Horowitz, Andrew Isenberg, Bonnie Clause, and Etienne Benson are some of the historians that have connected the treatment, view, and placement of animals in the American society throughout the developing of the country. These historians showcased animals that were used for things such as medical research, the displaying of wealth, as well as monetary gain. Although each of them focused on different animals, points in time, and issues; they all we similar by the way they valued and related human and animal interactions to how America’s history formed.
The Native Americans or American Indians, once occupied all of the entire region of the United States. They were composed of many different groups, who speaked hundreds of languages and dialects. The Indians from the Southwest used to live in large built terraced communities and their way of sustain was from the agriculture where they planted squash, pumpkins, beans and corn crops. Trades between neighboring tribes were common, this brought in additional goods and also some raw materials such as gems, cooper. seashells and soapstone.To this day, movies and television continue the stereotype of Indians wearing feathered headdresses killing innocent white settlers. As they encountered the Europeans, automatically their material world was changed. The American Indians were amazed by the physical looks of the white settlers, their way of dressing and also by their language. The first Indian-White encounter was very peaceful and trade was their principal interaction. Tension and disputes were sometimes resolved by force but more often by negotiation or treaties. On the other hand, the Natives were described as strong and very innocent creatures awaiting for the first opportunity to be christianized. The Indians were called the “Noble Savages” by the settlers because they were cooperative people but sometimes, after having a few conflicts with them, they seem to behaved like animals. We should apprehend that the encounter with the settlers really amazed the natives, they were only used to interact with people from their own race and surroundings and all of this was like a new discovery for them as well as for the white immigrants. The relations between the English and the Virginian Indians was somewhat strong in a few ways. They were having marriages among them. For example, when Pocahontas married John Rolfe, many said it has a political implication to unite more settlers with the Indians to have a better relation between both groups. As for the Indians, their attitude was always friendly and full of curiosity when they saw the strange and light-skinned creatures from beyond the ocean. The colonists only survived with the help of the Indians when they first settler in Jamestown and Plymouth. In this areas, the Indians showed the colonists how to cultivate crops and gather seafood.The Indians changed their attitude from welcome to hostility when the strangers increased and encroached more and more on hunting and planting in the Natives’ grounds.
Since the Neolithic Revolution, humans have domesticated animals. The positive effects of this are that the animals are fed and kept clean. Despite this, the animals must sacrifice their freedom as wild creatures. For example, cows were kept and bred to provide milk, food, and clothing. Chickens must live in small coops and lay eggs; only to have their babies stolen from them and cooked for breakfast. Horses are forced to bare a human’s weight on their backs, and carry the human where he or she pleases. In “Buffalo Gals” Horse said that his kind were used to bring the “new people” to the animals’ land (Le Guin 37). These domesticated animals had no free will and were virtually slaves to humans throughout history. Animals today can be trained for specific tasks, such as a Seeing Eye dog or a talking parrot. Dogs are kept by homeowners for protection and used by law enforcement to sniff out drugs or bombs. This type of human-animal relationship only benefits the people; the animals’ abilities are just being taken advantage of.