The Destruction of the Bison: Isenberg describes the massive decline of North American bison from an estimated 30 million in 1800 to less than one thousand only a century later. He argues that the cultural and ecological interaction between Native Americans and Europeans in the Great Plains was the main cause of the near extinction of the bison. Specific ecological reasons include the incursion of domesticated livestock and other foreign species like the horse, which threatened the ecosystem of the Great Plains. New domestic animals also created a new methods of hunting that quickened bison depletion. While natives used to use the cliff technique to kill off bison, the horse quickened their rate of hunting. By including the role of Native Americans in bison destruction, Isenberg also challenges other studies that present natives not as savage impediments to progress but as “colorful primitives doomed to defeat by their clash of civilization. All the frontier histories viewed the near-extermination of the herds as a sanguine example of the Euroamerican conquest.”
Isenberg describes the European explorers view of the Great Plains as being mysterious and exotic. However, this was not true to all; other explorers the landscape seemed “cheerless.” Other explorers commented on the land as lacking in fertile land- adding further to this idea of comodifying the landscape.
Natives and Europeans were not the only ones depleting the bison population- so was drought. Isenberg lists several major droughts that occurred in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The unpredictable plains environment played a major role in constant the rise and fall of bison population. Do you agree with what Isenberg says that the environment was the major contributor to decline of bison population? (pg 30)
We also see the change of Native culture- all of a sudden they are becoming a part of material culture; trading instead of making their own goods. The trade of rifles especially contributed to the rise of bison hunting. We see the simultaneous destruction of the bison population along with a large change in Native culture- what does this say about the foundation of the Native lifestyle? Their connection to nature?
On pg 143 Isenberg says that “In just a few years, two dynamic forces- the plains environment and the American industrial economy- had combined to nearly obliterate the millions of bison that inhabited the grasslands.
On pg 146 Isenberg describes a new passion that arises in the 1870’s to protect animals and Indian humanitarianism. While the idea of preservation is progressive, these Indian reservations were equating Indians to captive animals. How was this “peace policy” flawed?
Pg 162-163 I found it interesting that the hide business turned out not being profitable- “most of the hunters found themselves no wealthier than before.”
Pg 167 Contradictory ideals for preservation and progression into the modern age- Was it possible to support both? -For instance while the leaders of the American Bison Society did not seek to profit from their goals to preserve the bison population, their emphasis on tourism still contributed to the economic desires of ranchers and railroad companies- was it possible to advocate preservation at the time with out it being about economic purposes- and even today is that possible?
I think the destruction of the bison as wild animals was inevitable. Isenberg at one point say that, “The social, economic, and environmental transformations that contributed to the demise of the bison were not separate categories of change, but embedded in one another,” (111). I think all three of these factors greatly contributed to the demise of the bison. A key way this changed with the arrival of the horses. The horse allowed the Native Americans a way to hunt that had not been previously available for many generations. With the horse Native Americans could kill the bison without driving them over cliffs, which made the hunting of bison of easier. With the hunting of bison being easier, the Native Americans were able to sell parts of the bison. This is a vast difference from the Native American society prior to the arrival of the Europeans. While I think it is obvious that the Native Americans traded prior to the arrival of the bison, one of the questions Isenberg’s book left me wondering was to what extent did the Native American’s trade bison prior to the incursion of the New World.
@Nicole "We see the simultaneous destruction of the bison population along with a large change in Native culture- what does this say about the foundation of the Native lifestyle?" I think the book shows that the Native Americans were very dependent on the bison. Isenberg is about the destruction of the Native American's way of living just as much as it was about the near decimation of the bison. I really think that both the Bison and the Native American nomadic way of life were doomed when the Native Americans started using the bison for more than just a subsistence living.
To add to your comment about the hide business being less profitable for the hunters, on Page 107, Isenberg goes into detail about the Native Americans being swindled out of money by the fur traders. Isenberg quotes Fanny Kelly who said "A buffalo-robe which the traders sell for from ten to fifteen dollars, bought from the Indians for a pint cup of sugar and a handful of bullets, " (107). In many ways it feels that the nomadic Native Americans were responsible for their own demise, as harsh as that sounds. However, it does not excuse the exploitation by the fur traders either.
The "Destruction of the Bison" was a very interesting read that went into depth on many of the factors that contributed to the massive near extinction of the species. As the picture depicts on the heading for this blog topic, the killings of bison were plentiful to say the least on a frequent basis. Although the number of bison skulls in the picture may seem inordinately large, the bigger picture suggests that this is just a small portion. As the figures the suggest, the initial population of bison when the Europeans first began arriving was around 30 million. Then within a century this number depreciated to less than one thousand. That equals a net loss of around 300,000 bison a year while taking into account to birth of new bison. Just as was referenced in the text, there is no other culprit than the Europeans and the Native Americans collaborating to wipe out an unnecessary magnitude of bison in an alarmingly short period. Therefore, it is more than fair to say that the arrival of Europeans acted as major catalysts to the immense depreciation in this species. Some of the major reasons for this were the accessibility of new hunting methods for bison. This included the integration of horses. In addition, other species of wild stock also contributed to the invasion of the habitat bison used to dominate. The integration of rifles in not only European hunting of the bison but primarily the Native Americans transition from bow to rifle really took its toll on the population. Another dimension that did not favor the animals' population was drought. Too often drought came through and had a significant negative effect on bison. It also seemed to provide a consistent unbarring struggle for bison to deal with on a monthly/biannual basis. My question is, how did the inhabitants of America see anything but this outcome in the very foreseeable future? Especially for such a popular and widely hunted animal?
Isenberg does an excellent job examining the history the bison in the United States and looking at a myriad of different angles and factors. It makes for a very interesting and entertaining read.
I think that the destruction of the bison was inevitable after the introduction of the horse to the Americas. The horse seems to be what got the ball rolling for everything: supports nomadism, which leads to bison hunting, which fragments groups, which makes it easier for European commerce to integrate into the lives of the nomadic Indians, which then leads to their involvement in the bison robe trade, and so on. On page 196 Isenberg asserts that “Without the rise of industry in the nineteenth-century United States, the bison would not have become nearly extinct”. Is this true? Is the rise of industry what really catapulted the bison into near extinction, or could the destruction of the bison have been accomplished without the rise of industry?
On page 62, Isenberg claims that “the transformation of many groups from woodland planter-hunters to grassland bison hunters was not a step backwards in human evolution.” My question is then, what exactly does constitute a step backward and a step forward in human evolution? I think the amount of cultural bias present in this statement is kind of shocking. When considering this great step forward (please note the sarcasm), I think it would be useful to consider the actual consequences of it in a Darwinian evolutionary context. If only the fit survive and evolve, and the Indians’ shift to bison hunting and nomadism was a step forward in their evolution, then why are there so few Indians today? I would argue that the switch to bison hunting and nomadism was not a step forward. It wasn’t necessarily a step backward, but definitely not forward. Bison hunting fractured the traditional Indian social structures, splitting them into small, independent groups. This allowed for the relatively easy spread of European commerce, which further broke down traditional Indian ways. A societal breakdown, especially one that creates many smaller groups, would, in my opinion, have made it much easier for the Americans spreading west to drive the Indians further from their homelands and ultimately annihilate the vast majority of them.
I think it’s interesting to see the kind of duplicitous nature of Americans’ views on Indians: on the one hand, Indians tended to be exalted as the “Ecological Indian” like we discussed earlier this semester, who are so great because they’re in tune with nature and don’t waste anything (a notion that Isenberg nonetheless dispels); and on the other hand how Americans viewed Indians as such savage peoples. It demonstrates how largely misunderstood the Indians were, due particularly to the cultural bias of Americans.
On page 182 Isenberg shows how the Indians were essentially sacrificed for the livelihood of the bison: the Indian reservations were taken away from them and transformed into reserves for the bison. What does this say about Americans and their prejudices against the Indians? They are so intent upon saving the bison, a wild animal, that they are willing to save it at the expense of the Indians. I was also wondering when/if does this ideology shift and Americans realize the Indians needed to be saved also? (I’m not trying to say they’re incapable or demote them to animal status).
I was surprised to see how even in the preservation of bison, economic incentives still played a major role in decisions, like trying to turn the reserves into spots for tourism. I was also very surprised to learn that the preservationists only cared about restoring the bison to a certain point, and once they reached it, the preservationists stopped caring and slaughters of the bison began again.
It was inevitable that the Europeans would begin to colonize the North American continent. Since the Europeans have a history of being rather destructive and blind to the consequences of their destructive tendencies, it was inevitable that the Native Americans were going to have to change their lifestyles and be displaced. The initial free-for-all, roaming lifestyle of European settlers as well as rapid expansion made it inevitable that the environment and its inhabitants would be shaken and changed around for the immediate convenience of the settlers. The bison population, therefore, had an equal share in this impending doom.
As we have discussed in class previously, the small size and spread-out nature of the Native American population meant that whatever destruction they might have inflicted on the land would have been minimal and therefore never devastating enough to significantly impact the land in the same way that the settlers impacted it. For this reason, the bison population did not face detrimental effects from the Indian hunters. Isenberg describes the nature of the plains, particularly the periodic droughts (27). Some droughts lasted for more than a decade, killing most of the vegetation and, in turn, the bison population would be greatly reduced for several years. The sporadic increase and decrease of populations of organisms proved problematic for when the settlers came and decided to wreak havoc on the land, partly for sport, partly for survival. The bison population might have been destined to decrease without the European settlers thanks to the shift in lifestyle on the parts of nomadic Indian tribes, which caused them to become all-out bison hunters (Isenberg 47). The enormous destruction that the bison population underwent as a result of European settlers, however, would not have been a problem for these Indian tribes.
The land and climate of the plains, which Isenberg discusses in detail, were not able to support the lifestyle of the growing human population in the West. The combination of Native American dependence on the bison and the destruction of the bison by Indians, Europeans, and climate changes became a deadly combination for all involved. Isenberg presents a comprehensive look at the mass overhunting of this animal, and even mentions how their bones were scattered across the plains (159). The lack of any sort of regulation, coupled with a very sudden increase in hunting, was the downfall of the bison population. With the influx of new people dominating a new land, something will be thrown off and someone always suffers.
While reading Isenberg's text, I did not realize that almost 300,000 buffalo were wiped out due to the Indian and European populations. The reasons that the buffalo population was depleted was the introduction of horses. The Indians were able to hunt the buffalo down easier than before. Also, what I think the other reason that the buffalo population was wiped out was because of the some of the droughts that occurred in the Great Plains. The Indians were forced to eat the buffalo due to long droughts, and they also used the buffalo for trade. Many would argue that the Indians and the Europeans were the culprits for the depletion of the bison, but climate was involved as well. The horse was the only other animal that resided in the plains, and they would eat all of the grass and drink all of the limited water. Finally, the buffalo population decreased because of the change of environment, change of the Indian culture, and the European settlers.
In response to the question regarding the destruction of the bison, I do not believe that the American bison’s destruction was inevitable prior to the arrival of Europeans(Euroamericans as referred by Andrew Isenberg). According to Isenberg, bison destruction involved the following economic, cultural and ecological factors. I will even go a step further to say that the Great Plains Indians were not initially hunting bison to trade with European traders; they would trade with other tribes that lived in villages. Prior to the arrival of the horse, an entire nomadic tribe would move to the location of the bison on foot and assist in encircling, hunting,or driving them over the cliff as a means of killing the bison. Hence, with horses only the Indian men would go hunting, they still surrounded the herd as before but would wait for a signal from their marshal to begin the attack by riding alongside and choosing which ones to kill. Like Nicole said, the horses change the “ecosystem of the Great Plains.”
I found it ironic that the Great Plains Indians established laws regarding hunting practices as if conscious of the bison’s fragile existence. The bison’s survival was dependent upon their mobility and the environment, which at times brought death to the bison as well as depleting their food source. The natural environment alone would not have eliminated the bison.
I do believe that the Great Plains environment and human choices did conspire to seal the bison’s fate.Both James and Nicole wrote about the droughts that occurred on the plains. Then there were lightning storms that would cause fires that killed and destroyed the grasslands. Also the arrival of Euroamerican emigrants and their livestock further diminished the grasslands.Once these nomadic Indians began hunting independent of one another to trade with the Euroamericans for their manufactured goods; the nomads left behind their communal ethics.
I think the destruction of the American Bison was inevitable. This is due to both human and ecological factors. It is important to remember the climate of the region when discussing the destruction of the bison. The plains are a semiarid environment. While containing fertile soil, this dry area does not pose great prospects for agriculture. Therefore, although the Plains Indians did farm, their way of life was centered on the bison, their most abundant and critical source of food. They, themselves, contributed to the ecological demise of the area. They depleted competitors of the bison through hunting or vegetation consumption, allowing the bison to flourish throughout the plains at an unchecked rate, greatly affecting biodiversity and plant life in the area. The notion of Imperialism has been around since the dawn of human civilization. We have never been benevolent enough to let our neighbors be when they might have something we want and cannot have. Therefore, I would venture to say it was inevitable for the European settlers to move west into the plains. What is most significant, however, is what the Europeans brought with them as they traveled. First, and probably most important, were domesticated animals, specifically the horse. As previously discussed in class, the horse fundamentally changed the way of life for Native Americans. It made hunting, especially hunting bison, significantly easier, and therefore hunting increased. Horses also allowed Native Americans to travel further distances, making other herds of bison more available. Furthermore, other domesticated animals, such as cattle, flourished in the Plains and started to take over the natural habitats of plains animals such as the bison. Old World diseases not only affected the plains people, but also their food sources, further pushing them to hunt bison. Lastly, the European economy greatly affected the Plains Indians. The sale and trade of bison hide were huge contributors to the bison slaughter and their ultimate destruction. Both the plains Indians and Europeans partook in this sale and trade. The environment took a huge toll on the bison population. Being a semiarid region, the plains were prone to drought. As we have seen through the Dustbowl, these droughts can last for long periods of time and be extremely harsh. Droughts decimated the bison population. Also, due to increased cattle ranching, bison were blocked from reaching water in other areas, furthering their onslaught. The drought decimated the food supply of the Plains Indians, and therefore they turned to eating more bison. With all of these forces combined, the bison held little chance of survival. Fortunately, we were able to reverse this mistake and bison are now thriving. What struck me most was the picture on page 146 from Harper’s Weekly. The picture is entitled “The Last Buffalo,” and portrays a man about to shoot a buffalo, with the buffalo offering up his hide in return for his life. In my global environmental problems class we often discuss deforestation on Easter Island, and have asked the question many times what the person who cut down the last tree was thinking. When looking at this picture, I found myself wondering if the people of the plains thought there was an end to the bison population, and what they planned to do once the bison were gone.
I think that the destruction inevitable. Due to the economic incentives to hunt the bison as well as the environmental consequences and the social implications of hunting them, the bison could not really avoid their fate. Much like what we talked about in a previous class discussion about disease and native populations. I do think that the environment and human choices did conspire to seal the bison’s fate. Ashley mentioned that both the Indians and the bison’s fates were doomed once the Indians started to hunt the bison for more than just subsistent uses and small scale trading. We can see similarities between this and the large plantations in the south that just group tobacco for cash it doomed them once the civil war started. This book raised up many preconceived notions about the west, bison and Indians that many people believe but are not actually true. Such as the notion of the “aboriginal ecologist” and that the Indians did not actually use every single part of the bison. The book included a quote from Blackfeet he said “now we are rich, but soon shall be poor, for when the beaver are destroyed we have nothing to depend on, to purchase what we want for our families.” Although this is a quote from over 100 years ago and is about a beaver this issue of resource exploitation and conservation is equally prominent then as it is now. The picture included in the blog post quite impressive and just shows how extreme this was.
After reading Isenberg’s text and gaining more insight to the extreme changes the bison faced as a result of colonization of the New World, I do not doubt that the extinction of the bison was inevitable upon the arrival of the settlers. On page 23, Isenberg points out that “the bison was so well adapted to the shortgrass plains that until the end of the nineteenth century, the species was ubiquitous in the region.” Until the introduction of the Euroamericans to the west, these creatures managed to adapt, survive, and thrive and no doubt could have continued to do so. The settlers brought with them the expanding and potentially lucrative system of trade. “The enormous number of bison and the readiness of the nomads to supply fur traders with roves attracted a horde of traders to the northern plains” (106). Whereas the nomads and natives who remained in villages had previously sought out bison for purposes of subsistence, this was incentive for greater numbers of buffalo to be hunted by the American Indian populations as “commercial hunting” became more prevalent. I found it shocking, in the section of the book regarding the return of the bison, that as recent as the late 1990’s over 90 percent of the bison population in North America was privately owned with the sole purpose of slaughtering them in order to sell their meat. I believe that based on the trend of human behavior, between the trade market, expansion of Euroamericans into the west with trains and settling, and even the modern meat market, there is no way that the bison could have survived the westward expansion. Aside from random twists of environmental fate, had the settlers and expansion not been factors, I feel the bison would have been able to adapt and survive, at least in a decent population, the elements and Native American hunting.
Their were two aspects of Isenberg's book that I enjoyed. First of all, Isenberg argues that no single event caused the bisons demise. Rather, it was a host of interactions, such as Indians, Euro-Americans,wolves, drought, capitalism, fire, etc.. I appreciate this, for many people tend to lump things together as black or white, good or evil, solely to promote their own agendas. Isenberg allows us to see how situations tend to be far more complex then they appear.
My favorite concept from this book is how Isenberg bases his notion of nature and history on chaos theory. He rejects the notion that environments tend toward order and equilibrium unless disrupted by humans. "The High Plains grasslands did not need people to make them volatile and dynamic. Irregular periods of rain and drought ensured their unpredictability". Although the bison thrived in these environments, they died in large numbers as well.
Based on Isenberg's book, I believe the destruction of the bison was inevitable. In most cases, the environment is the first affected and the last to be considered. This is true especially with the case of the bison. While much of the bison's demise was due to increased facility of hunting, they were also at the mercy of American wants and needs. As Americans moved west, they brought with them their Manifest Destiny attitude that the land and the continent was theirs for the taking. The bison were not only displaced, but over hunted. As settlers brought horses and livestock such as cattle westward, they brought with them competition for the already harsh environment.
The American will was not solely to blame for the destruction of the bison. The landscape of the Plains was not conducive to an abundance of large, grazing animals. The grasslands that were consumed by livestock lead to food shortages and more difficult conditions for the bison. This, in combination with the harmful actions taken by the Native Americans, settlers, and the US Army settled the bison's fate in almost being wiped out.
Instead of acting before things looked incredibly bleak for the bison, the US was slow to actually do anything. The promises of the American west were too good to put any limitations on, and the bison suffered for it.
After reading Isenber, it made me think about many things. First was the belief that Indians were naturalist and conservative in manner. With the introduction of horses and rifles, you see the Indian increasing hunting the bison. This makes me believe that before this, it was very hard to kill bison in cliff killings, and they were not trying to conserve the bison, but killed what they could, which turned out to be not that much. Also in the readings the social, economic and enviromental causes of the destruction, were in fact all wrapped up together. The droughts, hide hunting, domestication and introduction of new animals in the plains all occured in one big whirlwind. It is evident, the massive destruction of bison happened quickly, but not due to one cause.
I think the destruction of the bison was destined to occur due to the psychology of being on the frontier. After the frontiersmen began killing large amounts of bison, that destructive mentality crept into their consciousness. To put it differently, the more bison a hunter killed, the less he would think the act morally objectionable. To some degree I think that we could say that the desensitization of killing enemies in combat is similar to shooting bison. The act might be reprehensible at first, but it gradually becomes ingrained as instinct. I think that the Simpson’s episode about the frontier illustrates this mindset to a certain extent. In that episode, the last bison alive in the west approaches the wagon circle of a group of settlers. Most of the people in the wagon circle declare that the bison needs to be saved, but Homer’s frontier character whips out his gun and shoots the bison dead.
Also, I think that Isenberg’s discussion on gender roles in regards to bison is not something that we often consider. In the Indian communities, the men killed the bison and the women dressed the skins and hides. It appears simple, but a system had to be developed for efficiency to be achieved. In addition, Isenberg’s argument that Indian women actually lived a relatively good life in terms of freedom and independence seemed interesting.
Many factors came into play in the destruction of the bison population, but I believe the destruction of the bison became inevitable when the Europeans entered the picture. With out the introduction of the horse, and changes in American Indian lifestyles both brought on by the arrival of old world settlers bison as a species would have been able to adapt to the extreme and variable environmental conditions. The environment cause fluctuations in the bison population, but this is a natural occurrence in all animal populations and American Indians acted as a sort of predator to the bison. With the arrival of the Europeans and introduction to the horse the Am. Indians became increasingly dependent on bison as a sole food source as well as an economic support through trade. At this point it was only a matter of time until the bison were destroyed.
I think that the destruction of the bison population was pretty much inevitable once the Europeans came to America and started spreading westward. Along with Europeans, horses also played a key role in the destruction of the bison because it allowed humans to kill the bison in larger quantities than they had been used to. Another thing that I think could've played a part in it is the idea that there was an unlimited supply of bison. I don't know if they really felt this way but I know that I would've if I saw as many bison as Thomas Farnham had seen while he was on the Santa Fe Trail. But overall in my opinion Europeans combined with the uses played the largest role in depleting the bison population. I know that the changes in the environment also caused a large portion of the bison to die, but I just feel like their destruction was also caused by Europeans.
WOW @ the photograph!
ReplyDeleteThe Destruction of the Bison:
Isenberg describes the massive decline of North American bison from an estimated 30 million in 1800 to less than one thousand only a century later. He argues that the cultural and ecological interaction between Native Americans and Europeans in the Great Plains was the main cause of the near extinction of the bison. Specific ecological reasons include the incursion of domesticated livestock and other foreign species like the horse, which threatened the ecosystem of the Great Plains. New domestic animals also created a new methods of hunting that quickened bison depletion. While natives used to use the cliff technique to kill off bison, the horse quickened their rate of hunting. By including the role of Native Americans in bison destruction, Isenberg also challenges other studies that present natives not as savage impediments to progress but as “colorful primitives doomed to defeat by their clash of civilization. All the frontier histories viewed the near-extermination of the herds as a sanguine example of the Euroamerican conquest.”
Isenberg describes the European explorers view of the Great Plains as being mysterious and exotic. However, this was not true to all; other explorers the landscape seemed “cheerless.” Other explorers commented on the land as lacking in fertile land- adding further to this idea of comodifying the landscape.
Natives and Europeans were not the only ones depleting the bison population- so was drought. Isenberg lists several major droughts that occurred in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The unpredictable plains environment played a major role in constant the rise and fall of bison population. Do you agree with what Isenberg says that the environment was the major contributor to decline of bison population? (pg 30)
We also see the change of Native culture- all of a sudden they are becoming a part of material culture; trading instead of making their own goods. The trade of rifles especially contributed to the rise of bison hunting. We see the simultaneous destruction of the bison population along with a large change in Native culture- what does this say about the foundation of the Native lifestyle? Their connection to nature?
On pg 143 Isenberg says that “In just a few years, two dynamic forces- the plains environment and the American industrial economy- had combined to nearly obliterate the millions of bison that inhabited the grasslands.
On pg 146 Isenberg describes a new passion that arises in the 1870’s to protect animals and Indian humanitarianism. While the idea of preservation is progressive, these Indian reservations were equating Indians to captive animals. How was this “peace policy” flawed?
Pg 162-163 I found it interesting that the hide business turned out not being profitable- “most of the hunters found themselves no wealthier than before.”
Pg 167 Contradictory ideals for preservation and progression into the modern age- Was it possible to support both?
-For instance while the leaders of the American Bison Society did not seek to profit from their goals to preserve the bison population, their emphasis on tourism still contributed to the economic desires of ranchers and railroad companies- was it possible to advocate preservation at the time with out it being about economic purposes- and even today is that possible?
I think the destruction of the bison as wild animals was inevitable. Isenberg at one point say that, “The social, economic, and environmental transformations that contributed to the demise of the bison were not separate categories of change, but embedded in one another,” (111). I think all three of these factors greatly contributed to the demise of the bison. A key way this changed with the arrival of the horses. The horse allowed the Native Americans a way to hunt that had not been previously available for many generations. With the horse Native Americans could kill the bison without driving them over cliffs, which made the hunting of bison of easier. With the hunting of bison being easier, the Native Americans were able to sell parts of the bison. This is a vast difference from the Native American society prior to the arrival of the Europeans. While I think it is obvious that the Native Americans traded prior to the arrival of the bison, one of the questions Isenberg’s book left me wondering was to what extent did the Native American’s trade bison prior to the incursion of the New World.
ReplyDelete@Nicole
"We see the simultaneous destruction of the bison population along with a large change in Native culture- what does this say about the foundation of the Native lifestyle?"
I think the book shows that the Native Americans were very dependent on the bison. Isenberg is about the destruction of the Native American's way of living just as much as it was about the near decimation of the bison. I really think that both the Bison and the Native American nomadic way of life were doomed when the Native Americans started using the bison for more than just a subsistence living.
To add to your comment about the hide business being less profitable for the hunters, on Page 107, Isenberg goes into detail about the Native Americans being swindled out of money by the fur traders. Isenberg quotes Fanny Kelly who said "A buffalo-robe which the traders sell for from ten to fifteen dollars, bought from the Indians for a pint cup of sugar and a handful of bullets, " (107). In many ways it feels that the nomadic Native Americans were responsible for their own demise, as harsh as that sounds. However, it does not excuse the exploitation by the fur traders either.
The "Destruction of the Bison" was a very interesting read that went into depth on many of the factors that contributed to the massive near extinction of the species. As the picture depicts on the heading for this blog topic, the killings of bison were plentiful to say the least on a frequent basis. Although the number of bison skulls in the picture may seem inordinately large, the bigger picture suggests that this is just a small portion. As the figures the suggest, the initial population of bison when the Europeans first began arriving was around 30 million. Then within a century this number depreciated to less than one thousand. That equals a net loss of around 300,000 bison a year while taking into account to birth of new bison. Just as was referenced in the text, there is no other culprit than the Europeans and the Native Americans collaborating to wipe out an unnecessary magnitude of bison in an alarmingly short period. Therefore, it is more than fair to say that the arrival of Europeans acted as major catalysts to the immense depreciation in this species. Some of the major reasons for this were the accessibility of new hunting methods for bison. This included the integration of horses. In addition, other species of wild stock also contributed to the invasion of the habitat bison used to dominate. The integration of rifles in not only European hunting of the bison but primarily the Native Americans transition from bow to rifle really took its toll on the population. Another dimension that did not favor the animals' population was drought. Too often drought came through and had a significant negative effect on bison. It also seemed to provide a consistent unbarring struggle for bison to deal with on a monthly/biannual basis. My question is, how did the inhabitants of America see anything but this outcome in the very foreseeable future? Especially for such a popular and widely hunted animal?
ReplyDeleteIsenberg does an excellent job examining the history the bison in the United States and looking at a myriad of different angles and factors. It makes for a very interesting and entertaining read.
ReplyDeleteI think that the destruction of the bison was inevitable after the introduction of the horse to the Americas. The horse seems to be what got the ball rolling for everything: supports nomadism, which leads to bison hunting, which fragments groups, which makes it easier for European commerce to integrate into the lives of the nomadic Indians, which then leads to their involvement in the bison robe trade, and so on. On page 196 Isenberg asserts that “Without the rise of industry in the nineteenth-century United States, the bison would not have become nearly extinct”. Is this true? Is the rise of industry what really catapulted the bison into near extinction, or could the destruction of the bison have been accomplished without the rise of industry?
On page 62, Isenberg claims that “the transformation of many groups from woodland planter-hunters to grassland bison hunters was not a step backwards in human evolution.” My question is then, what exactly does constitute a step backward and a step forward in human evolution? I think the amount of cultural bias present in this statement is kind of shocking. When considering this great step forward (please note the sarcasm), I think it would be useful to consider the actual consequences of it in a Darwinian evolutionary context. If only the fit survive and evolve, and the Indians’ shift to bison hunting and nomadism was a step forward in their evolution, then why are there so few Indians today? I would argue that the switch to bison hunting and nomadism was not a step forward. It wasn’t necessarily a step backward, but definitely not forward. Bison hunting fractured the traditional Indian social structures, splitting them into small, independent groups. This allowed for the relatively easy spread of European commerce, which further broke down traditional Indian ways. A societal breakdown, especially one that creates many smaller groups, would, in my opinion, have made it much easier for the Americans spreading west to drive the Indians further from their homelands and ultimately annihilate the vast majority of them.
I think it’s interesting to see the kind of duplicitous nature of Americans’ views on Indians: on the one hand, Indians tended to be exalted as the “Ecological Indian” like we discussed earlier this semester, who are so great because they’re in tune with nature and don’t waste anything (a notion that Isenberg nonetheless dispels); and on the other hand how Americans viewed Indians as such savage peoples. It demonstrates how largely misunderstood the Indians were, due particularly to the cultural bias of Americans.
On page 182 Isenberg shows how the Indians were essentially sacrificed for the livelihood of the bison: the Indian reservations were taken away from them and transformed into reserves for the bison. What does this say about Americans and their prejudices against the Indians? They are so intent upon saving the bison, a wild animal, that they are willing to save it at the expense of the Indians. I was also wondering when/if does this ideology shift and Americans realize the Indians needed to be saved also? (I’m not trying to say they’re incapable or demote them to animal status).
I was surprised to see how even in the preservation of bison, economic incentives still played a major role in decisions, like trying to turn the reserves into spots for tourism. I was also very surprised to learn that the preservationists only cared about restoring the bison to a certain point, and once they reached it, the preservationists stopped caring and slaughters of the bison began again.
It was inevitable that the Europeans would begin to colonize the North American continent. Since the Europeans have a history of being rather destructive and blind to the consequences of their destructive tendencies, it was inevitable that the Native Americans were going to have to change their lifestyles and be displaced. The initial free-for-all, roaming lifestyle of European settlers as well as rapid expansion made it inevitable that the environment and its inhabitants would be shaken and changed around for the immediate convenience of the settlers. The bison population, therefore, had an equal share in this impending doom.
ReplyDeleteAs we have discussed in class previously, the small size and spread-out nature of the Native American population meant that whatever destruction they might have inflicted on the land would have been minimal and therefore never devastating enough to significantly impact the land in the same way that the settlers impacted it. For this reason, the bison population did not face detrimental effects from the Indian hunters. Isenberg describes the nature of the plains, particularly the periodic droughts (27). Some droughts lasted for more than a decade, killing most of the vegetation and, in turn, the bison population would be greatly reduced for several years. The sporadic increase and decrease of populations of organisms proved problematic for when the settlers came and decided to wreak havoc on the land, partly for sport, partly for survival. The bison population might have been destined to decrease without the European settlers thanks to the shift in lifestyle on the parts of nomadic Indian tribes, which caused them to become all-out bison hunters (Isenberg 47). The enormous destruction that the bison population underwent as a result of European settlers, however, would not have been a problem for these Indian tribes.
The land and climate of the plains, which Isenberg discusses in detail, were not able to support the lifestyle of the growing human population in the West. The combination of Native American dependence on the bison and the destruction of the bison by Indians, Europeans, and climate changes became a deadly combination for all involved. Isenberg presents a comprehensive look at the mass overhunting of this animal, and even mentions how their bones were scattered across the plains (159). The lack of any sort of regulation, coupled with a very sudden increase in hunting, was the downfall of the bison population. With the influx of new people dominating a new land, something will be thrown off and someone always suffers.
While reading Isenberg's text, I did not realize that almost 300,000 buffalo were wiped out due to the Indian and European populations. The reasons that the buffalo population was depleted was the introduction of horses. The Indians were able to hunt the buffalo down easier than before. Also, what I think the other reason that the buffalo population was wiped out was because of the some of the droughts that occurred in the Great Plains. The Indians were forced to eat the buffalo due to long droughts, and they also used the buffalo for trade. Many would argue that the Indians and the Europeans were the culprits for the depletion of the bison, but climate was involved as well. The horse was the only other animal that resided in the plains, and they would eat all of the grass and drink all of the limited water. Finally, the buffalo population decreased because of the change of environment, change of the Indian culture, and the European settlers.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the question regarding the destruction of the bison, I do not believe that the American bison’s destruction was inevitable prior to the arrival of Europeans(Euroamericans as referred by Andrew Isenberg). According to Isenberg, bison destruction involved the following economic, cultural and ecological factors. I will even go a step further to say that the Great Plains Indians were not initially hunting bison to trade with European traders; they would trade with other tribes that lived in villages. Prior to the arrival of the horse, an entire nomadic tribe would move to the location of the bison on foot and assist in encircling, hunting,or driving them over the cliff as a means of killing the bison. Hence, with horses only the Indian men would go hunting, they still surrounded the herd as before but would wait for a signal from their marshal to begin the attack by riding alongside and choosing which ones to kill. Like Nicole said, the horses change the “ecosystem of the Great Plains.”
ReplyDeleteI found it ironic that the Great Plains Indians established laws regarding hunting practices as if conscious of the bison’s fragile existence. The bison’s survival was dependent upon their mobility and the environment, which at times brought death to the bison as well as depleting their food source. The natural environment alone would not have eliminated the bison.
I do believe that the Great Plains environment and human choices did conspire to seal the bison’s fate.Both James and Nicole wrote about the droughts that occurred on the plains. Then there were lightning storms that would cause fires that killed and destroyed the grasslands. Also the arrival of Euroamerican emigrants and their livestock further diminished the grasslands.Once these nomadic Indians began hunting independent of one another to trade with the Euroamericans for their manufactured goods; the nomads left behind their communal ethics.
I think the destruction of the American Bison was inevitable. This is due to both human and ecological factors. It is important to remember the climate of the region when discussing the destruction of the bison. The plains are a semiarid environment. While containing fertile soil, this dry area does not pose great prospects for agriculture. Therefore, although the Plains Indians did farm, their way of life was centered on the bison, their most abundant and critical source of food. They, themselves, contributed to the ecological demise of the area. They depleted competitors of the bison through hunting or vegetation consumption, allowing the bison to flourish throughout the plains at an unchecked rate, greatly affecting biodiversity and plant life in the area.
ReplyDeleteThe notion of Imperialism has been around since the dawn of human civilization. We have never been benevolent enough to let our neighbors be when they might have something we want and cannot have. Therefore, I would venture to say it was inevitable for the European settlers to move west into the plains. What is most significant, however, is what the Europeans brought with them as they traveled. First, and probably most important, were domesticated animals, specifically the horse. As previously discussed in class, the horse fundamentally changed the way of life for Native Americans. It made hunting, especially hunting bison, significantly easier, and therefore hunting increased. Horses also allowed Native Americans to travel further distances, making other herds of bison more available. Furthermore, other domesticated animals, such as cattle, flourished in the Plains and started to take over the natural habitats of plains animals such as the bison. Old World diseases not only affected the plains people, but also their food sources, further pushing them to hunt bison. Lastly, the European economy greatly affected the Plains Indians. The sale and trade of bison hide were huge contributors to the bison slaughter and their ultimate destruction. Both the plains Indians and Europeans partook in this sale and trade.
The environment took a huge toll on the bison population. Being a semiarid region, the plains were prone to drought. As we have seen through the Dustbowl, these droughts can last for long periods of time and be extremely harsh. Droughts decimated the bison population. Also, due to increased cattle ranching, bison were blocked from reaching water in other areas, furthering their onslaught. The drought decimated the food supply of the Plains Indians, and therefore they turned to eating more bison. With all of these forces combined, the bison held little chance of survival. Fortunately, we were able to reverse this mistake and bison are now thriving.
What struck me most was the picture on page 146 from Harper’s Weekly. The picture is entitled “The Last Buffalo,” and portrays a man about to shoot a buffalo, with the buffalo offering up his hide in return for his life. In my global environmental problems class we often discuss deforestation on Easter Island, and have asked the question many times what the person who cut down the last tree was thinking. When looking at this picture, I found myself wondering if the people of the plains thought there was an end to the bison population, and what they planned to do once the bison were gone.
I think that the destruction inevitable. Due to the economic incentives to hunt the bison as well as the environmental consequences and the social implications of hunting them, the bison could not really avoid their fate. Much like what we talked about in a previous class discussion about disease and native populations. I do think that the environment and human choices did conspire to seal the bison’s fate. Ashley mentioned that both the Indians and the bison’s fates were doomed once the Indians started to hunt the bison for more than just subsistent uses and small scale trading. We can see similarities between this and the large plantations in the south that just group tobacco for cash it doomed them once the civil war started. This book raised up many preconceived notions about the west, bison and Indians that many people believe but are not actually true. Such as the notion of the “aboriginal ecologist” and that the Indians did not actually use every single part of the bison. The book included a quote from Blackfeet he said “now we are rich, but soon shall be poor, for when the beaver are destroyed we have nothing to depend on, to purchase what we want for our families.” Although this is a quote from over 100 years ago and is about a beaver this issue of resource exploitation and conservation is equally prominent then as it is now. The picture included in the blog post quite impressive and just shows how extreme this was.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Isenberg’s text and gaining more insight to the extreme changes the bison faced as a result of colonization of the New World, I do not doubt that the extinction of the bison was inevitable upon the arrival of the settlers. On page 23, Isenberg points out that “the bison was so well adapted to the shortgrass plains that until the end of the nineteenth century, the species was ubiquitous in the region.” Until the introduction of the Euroamericans to the west, these creatures managed to adapt, survive, and thrive and no doubt could have continued to do so. The settlers brought with them the expanding and potentially lucrative system of trade. “The enormous number of bison and the readiness of the nomads to supply fur traders with roves attracted a horde of traders to the northern plains” (106). Whereas the nomads and natives who remained in villages had previously sought out bison for purposes of subsistence, this was incentive for greater numbers of buffalo to be hunted by the American Indian populations as “commercial hunting” became more prevalent.
ReplyDeleteI found it shocking, in the section of the book regarding the return of the bison, that as recent as the late 1990’s over 90 percent of the bison population in North America was privately owned with the sole purpose of slaughtering them in order to sell their meat. I believe that based on the trend of human behavior, between the trade market, expansion of Euroamericans into the west with trains and settling, and even the modern meat market, there is no way that the bison could have survived the westward expansion. Aside from random twists of environmental fate, had the settlers and expansion not been factors, I feel the bison would have been able to adapt and survive, at least in a decent population, the elements and Native American hunting.
Their were two aspects of Isenberg's book that I enjoyed. First of all, Isenberg argues that no single event caused the bisons demise. Rather, it was a host of interactions, such as Indians, Euro-Americans,wolves, drought, capitalism, fire, etc.. I appreciate this, for many people tend to lump things together as black or white, good or evil, solely to promote their own agendas. Isenberg allows us to see how situations tend to be far more complex then they appear.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite concept from this book is how Isenberg bases his notion of nature and history on chaos theory. He rejects the notion that environments tend toward order and equilibrium unless disrupted by humans. "The High Plains grasslands did not need people to make them volatile and dynamic. Irregular periods of rain and drought ensured their unpredictability". Although the bison thrived in these environments, they died in large numbers as well.
Based on Isenberg's book, I believe the destruction of the bison was inevitable. In most cases, the environment is the first affected and the last to be considered. This is true especially with the case of the bison. While much of the bison's demise was due to increased facility of hunting, they were also at the mercy of American wants and needs. As Americans moved west, they brought with them their Manifest Destiny attitude that the land and the continent was theirs for the taking. The bison were not only displaced, but over hunted. As settlers brought horses and livestock such as cattle westward, they brought with them competition for the already harsh environment.
ReplyDeleteThe American will was not solely to blame for the destruction of the bison. The landscape of the Plains was not conducive to an abundance of large, grazing animals. The grasslands that were consumed by livestock lead to food shortages and more difficult conditions for the bison. This, in combination with the harmful actions taken by the Native Americans, settlers, and the US Army settled the bison's fate in almost being wiped out.
Instead of acting before things looked incredibly bleak for the bison, the US was slow to actually do anything. The promises of the American west were too good to put any limitations on, and the bison suffered for it.
After reading Isenber, it made me think about many things. First was the belief that Indians were naturalist and conservative in manner. With the introduction of horses and rifles, you see the Indian increasing hunting the bison. This makes me believe that before this, it was very hard to kill bison in cliff killings, and they were not trying to conserve the bison, but killed what they could, which turned out to be not that much.
ReplyDeleteAlso in the readings the social, economic and enviromental causes of the destruction, were in fact all wrapped up together. The droughts, hide hunting, domestication and introduction of new animals in the plains all occured in one big whirlwind. It is evident, the massive destruction of bison happened quickly, but not due to one cause.
I think the destruction of the bison was destined to occur due to the psychology of being on the frontier. After the frontiersmen began killing large amounts of bison, that destructive mentality crept into their consciousness. To put it differently, the more bison a hunter killed, the less he would think the act morally objectionable. To some degree I think that we could say that the desensitization of killing enemies in combat is similar to shooting bison. The act might be reprehensible at first, but it gradually becomes ingrained as instinct. I think that the Simpson’s episode about the frontier illustrates this mindset to a certain extent. In that episode, the last bison alive in the west approaches the wagon circle of a group of settlers. Most of the people in the wagon circle declare that the bison needs to be saved, but Homer’s frontier character whips out his gun and shoots the bison dead.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think that Isenberg’s discussion on gender roles in regards to bison is not something that we often consider. In the Indian communities, the men killed the bison and the women dressed the skins and hides. It appears simple, but a system had to be developed for efficiency to be achieved. In addition, Isenberg’s argument that Indian women actually lived a relatively good life in terms of freedom and independence seemed interesting.
Many factors came into play in the destruction of the bison population, but I believe the destruction of the bison became inevitable when the Europeans entered the picture. With out the introduction of the horse, and changes in American Indian lifestyles both brought on by the arrival of old world settlers bison as a species would have been able to adapt to the extreme and variable environmental conditions. The environment cause fluctuations in the bison population, but this is a natural occurrence in all animal populations and American Indians acted as a sort of predator to the bison. With the arrival of the Europeans and introduction to the horse the Am. Indians became increasingly dependent on bison as a sole food source as well as an economic support through trade. At this point it was only a matter of time until the bison were destroyed.
ReplyDeleteI think that the destruction of the bison population was pretty much inevitable once the Europeans came to America and started spreading westward. Along with Europeans, horses also played a key role in the destruction of the bison because it allowed humans to kill the bison in larger quantities than they had been used to. Another thing that I think could've played a part in it is the idea that there was an unlimited supply of bison. I don't know if they really felt this way but I know that I would've if I saw as many bison as Thomas Farnham had seen while he was on the Santa Fe Trail. But overall in my opinion Europeans combined with the uses played the largest role in depleting the bison population. I know that the changes in the environment also caused a large portion of the bison to die, but I just feel like their destruction was also caused by Europeans.
ReplyDelete