Monday, February 6, 2012
UMBC HIST355: Life in the Colonial Wilderness
This week we have two disparate observations of the "wilderness" in New England and the tobacco fields of the Chesapeake. Besides the obvious differences in when the two accounts were written (roughly 150 years separates the two), how can we account for such different approaches to understanding the natural world around these two authors? Why did Bradford see New England as "wilderness" and what was his intellectual lens for framing the environment in such a matter? Why was the other author less fearful of the new world he encountered in the Chesapeake? You may respond to any of these questions and/or offer your own comments and questions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
when Bradford arrived in the new world, he and his group were ill prepared to deal with a new environment. until the native Americans intervened, they had been at the mercy of the wilderness. they lacked proper materials to stay warm in the winter, and knew little about gathering natural food and resources. the America the anonymous author observed was one that had been cultivated and optimized for it's natural resources. clearly the tobacco farmers had mastered the wilderness(and their labor force) as a source of revenue. rather than being dominated by the new environment as Bradford did, the farmers had gained the knowledge to survive, and thrive in the new world.
ReplyDeleteWhen Bradford arrived to the New World, he had to deal with something new. He had to adapt to new weather, make new set of friends to welcome him into his new home, make his own living (making homes, finding food...etc) and just adapting to his new life in the New World. When the Native Americans came into the New World, they taught the Englishmen to adapt to the new life by teaching them how to grow crops and to use natural resources.
ReplyDeleteWhen the other author arrived, tobacco was already planted in large quantities by the AmerIndians in which they planned on using as a commodity considering it was the most quick and easiest method of sale. The AmerIndians set up the tobacco fields for the English men unlike Bradford who had to learn the processes of how to grow crops and make/ use it as a commodity.
Both of the authors emphasized that in order to survive,they had to adapt to the new world. With out the adaptations, it was difficult to survive.
It seemed like with the anonymous author it didn't seem so difficult to establish their selves. There were already large quantities of tobacco already planted. Even though they had to adapt to the new world like Bradford did. Bradford had to deal with the harsh season of winter as well as making a new life for himself and fellow travelers. But when the Native Americans and the Englishmen united they were able to grow crops and make use of what was around them in order to survive.
ReplyDeleteBradford was forced to survive in a new environment. The wilderness simply surmises the lack of civilization and understanding of how to properly thrive in the new world environment. There were many problems with disease and food in the start of their journey. When the Native Americans began to show the Englishmen how they have survived, the new world people begin to understand what they must do to survive the new climates and obstacles which faced them.
ReplyDeleteThe views of the two authors were vastly different. Bradford was explaining how the settlers needed to learn how to survive in the new world. The colonists had learn from the natives how to farm the land and have their supplies last through the seasons. The other author demonstrated how over the years colonists seemed to master land cultivation and concentrated on the possibility of the mass profits that could be obtained through tabacco and other crops. The different views of the authors show me how in the ealier years of settlement the colonists were not yet adapted to their new environment and therefore seemed to have more respect for it but as decades passed the settlers learned to adapt and saw the land as not something to be respected but taken and used for their own gain.
ReplyDeleteI feel like it is very hard to ignore the 150 year difference between the two authors because Bradford's account follows a long journey at sea where the passengers are overjoyed to simply see the sight of land again and realize that it is all uncharted and new to them. Meanwhile the other author arrives in a Chesapeake region that has crops planted by other Euro-settlers after arriving on likely a more stable and faster ship not carrying over the first set of settlers. The other author has the benefit of knowing that people like him can survive and thrive in such a situation, because the Tobacco is tied to prices and "modern civilization." Bradford is in a struggle to survive and create a settlement, where the other author is looking at those struggling to make more profits.
ReplyDeleteThere is a significant time difference between the writing by Bradford and the Unknown writer which made it very interesting to read since the stories were extremely different. Bradford writes more about surviving the new environment and without the help of the Native Americans I have my doubts that they would have been able to do so. The Native Americans played an integral part in teaching the new settlers how to survive and thrive in the new environment. This was a much earlier look into the life of the new settlers whereas the Unknown writer was writing about life in 1775, a much different time period for the settlers. The Unknown writing looks into the way that the tobacco industry has helped the "economy" of the early times but it also mentions the fact that there are now states, trading, and slavery. A big difference between the two stories is that there is not much talk about the Native Americans in the Unknown writing, I find that to be very interesting since the natives were such a huge part in the writing by Bradford. I feel as though the writing by Bradford was very focused on how the Native Americans helped them survive but the Unknown author almost seemed to take their help for granted and act like the settlers did it all on their own.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the settler in New England ran into some depressed Patriots fans.
ReplyDeleteOn a separate note, it is possible that the environment was harsher in New England than in the Chesapeake region. Temperatures were lower than down south, more rivers and open fields with which to grow their crops. It took less time for "seasoning" in the Chesapeake area and was more hospitable to foreigners. Just a thought.
When Bradford was writting his account of his experience when coming to New England he saw a world that was much different from that of which he had known. There was no modern society in New England at the time. Not much of the area had been settled and not much was known of the area. He and the other English settlers were not equipped to deal with the type of environment they encountered there. They relied on the help of the native Amerindians to help them survive in what seemed like a harsh "wilderness" to the new settlers. The Amerindians showed the English settlers how to cultivate the land and what crops to grow and helped them survive the harsh winters which they were not accustomed to. The other others was less fearful of the environment mainly due to the difference in time period. The second account was written much later when more of the new world had been explored and settled. He obviously was accustomed to the environment and must have lived there for quite some time because survival was not an issue in the second account, only business and making a profit on tobacco was.
ReplyDeleteFrom the posts above, we seem to broadly agree that the level of established civilization the authors find is what mainly causes their different assessments of the environment. Scraping sustenance out of an uncharted New England wilderness is quite a different prospect than becoming the umpteenth Chesapeake tobacco and vegetable farmer. As Anthony put it well, "[Anonymous] has the benefit of knowing that people like him can survive and thrive in such a situation," and following in others' footsteps is always easier than trailblazing.
ReplyDeleteI think Nathan's point about the different climates of the two regions is also relevant. Bradford's company landed in New England in late autumn/early winter and half of his people perished before the spring. Such conditions would be enough to sour anyone on a particular climatic region.
Bradford's intellectual lens, or point of view, is that of a British national. He compares the New England wilderness he finds to the established civilization of the Old World. "Being thus past the vast ocean... they had now no... inns to entertain or refresh their weatherbeaten bodies, no houses or much less towns to repair to, to seek for succor."
To land in the unsettled New England wilderness late in the year and then lament the absence of inns, houses, and towns speaks powerfully about the settled, civilized, and comparatively comfortable life to which Bradford and his company were accustomed, and against which the untamed natural environment could surely be judged "hideous and desolate."
Bradford describes wilderness in some words as almost evil at the beginning of the passage. Also, that only god can save them from this "evil" wilderness and their troubles. He equates wilderness as something that is hideous and personified wilderness . He detailed the perils of the crew being alone in the wilderness. He told of the harsh conditions of the winter and disease that him and his crew were not prepared for and that ravaged them. He describes the Indians as savage and wild men. The only exception was the indian named Squanto. He viewed Squanto as an instrument sent by God for their good because Squanto gave gifts and helped the crew establish a way to prosper in new england by showing ways to grow crops.fish hunt etc. and that Squanto spoke Bradford's native tongue.
ReplyDeleteThe other author seemed to be comfortable in the environment because the wilderness had been tamed. Also, that the view that the environment was an asset to business.
Bradford entered the new world coming from a partially-civilized environment. The new world at this time was not settled nor cultivated through the eyes of the English. Bradford was not accustomed to the different amount of flora and animals which differed from those of England. The Amerindians showed the English how to cultivate and acquire resources in the new world.
ReplyDeleteThe second author entered the new world coming from settled environment and entered another settled environment. He didn't go through the assimilation phase like Bradford did. The New World, for as far as they know, had been settled. I understand why Bradford labels the New World as "Wilderness" because it makes sense. He was in a very unfamiliar place as opposed to the second author. The second author didn't have much of a culture shock because at that point in time, it would have been the same experience as England would've been.
Bradford comes from a perspective of a society that would be considered civilized compared to the Amerindians. In addition, Bradford believes the Amerindians should assimilated in to what would of been "proper" just like the Old World. If the Amerindians had not intervened paths with the English, then English settlers would of struggled and not adapted quickly to New England's brutal wilderness and harsh climate. Both sides had a beneficial relationship until the English decide to take control over the Amerindians in order to expand their own society.
ReplyDeleteThe second author travels in the new world having some a preconceived idea that the Amerindian have been exposed to the English. In addition, the environment was utilized for means of economic development and the birth of slight globalization.
Bradford was so uneasy in the new wilderness because he began exploring in the very early days of colonization, when there were not many people to tell him what it was like or to give him advice as to how to live in this new area successfully. He talks a lot about not having the kind of comforts they had at home, and he seems to have a kind of regret for not knowing what they found out about the new world before they got there. It took them a while to get completely comfortable there. When they finally had, more ships with more people arrived, without the necessities to take care of themselves, and so added pressure was placed on all the people already there. Although they did receive help from Squanto, I'm sure it was hard to learn from someone with a language barrier there, even though he knew some English. It seems as though the effects of diseases also scared the settlers a lot, because they had not seen it as widespread before and they thought it was odd that the Indians would abandon one another when they got sick. They experienced cultural differences in a new world, and so it was wilderness to these new European pioneers.
ReplyDeleteThe broad differences between the accounts of Bradford and Anonymous demonstrate the many changes that the New World experienced in the span of 150 years.
ReplyDeleteBradford viewed the New England landscape as wilderness because it was so unlike the European way of life he was used to. Being accustomed to a certain standard of living, I might feel similarly if I were dropped off to live in a remote corner of the Earth today. The fear of the unknown seemed to be great, as the settlers encountered "beasts" they had never seen, "barbarians" that wanted to "fill them with arrows", disease and death. Settling in New England appears to have been a very humbling and trying beginning.
The settlers were fortunate to have made relationships with the Amerindians through Squanto. I found Squanto's life-story to be intriguing. I am not certain, but I feel that his experiences must be remarkable for that time period. I am sure a great deal of research has been done on him and I am curious enough to read more about him.
It was interesting to note, after reading the exerpt from Anonymous, that the greater concern around 1775 had shifted from survival to commerce. In the Chesapeake, Anonymous was already part of an established and developed society-on the verge of becoming an independent nation. So many advancements had been made between his time and Bradford's time, that Anonymous had little to fear aside from a bad crop of tabacco.
I think the reason the two others differ in their fearfulness of the New World is because the anonymous author is writing over a hundred years after Bradford. When Bradford was writing, the New World had barely been touched and was still extremely natural. When the anonymous author was writing in 1775, Europeans had been in the New World longer; they had already been there long enough to describe how to cultivate tobacco.
ReplyDeleteWeek 2 Blog Response to Bradford and Anonymous
ReplyDeleteBradford: I think it is amazing the ignorance and stupidity of the English settlers who are trying to settle in Cape Cod area in the winter. There are obvious reasons for why the Indians did not great and help the new arrival of Englishmen, for they brought nothing but trouble. First off, it is winter and the Indians new not to stay in that area during those months. Second, English and Europeans brought disease and took with them only selfish things like Indian gifts and perhaps the Indians themselves. I am sure that when the weather got warmer, the Indians were returning to that land, cautiously of course, for these white intruders were not there when they left. And so I suppose the Indians showed the English settlers how to farm because they had settled in the lands that they were going to use for farming. Just like how the Mid-atlantic Indians stopped farming tobacco and only bought there need from the English, the Cape Cod indians probably had the same intentions. Farming is tough.
Anonymous: As for the Tobacco writing, it is interesting to be to see how the mid-atlantic colonies had the perfect climate for tobacco farming. I also thought it was interesting to see how the farmers would use (up) the fertile land until it was pretty useless for tobacco farming and then would move on up the rivers finding more virgin land for cultivation. Its interesting to see how the landowners look at their wealth, not in land area, but in terms of how many workers (slaves) they had. I can also see the system of mercantile capitalism in respects to the inspectors. There seems to be corruption at the very bottom level starting with the planters themselves who would stuff there prized tobacco in with the hogshead creating the illusion of high quality tobacco. Seems like there is corruption with the buyers too. The planters would include more than enough tobacco in there hogs heads regardless of the fact that each hogshead would cost the same price as long as it met the minimal weight.
Not really sure if this is what I was suppose to blog about... I feel like I could write a ton more but not sure if I am suppose to write this much. Whatever, hope you got something from it.
~Dave Foye
The above is what I wrote on the week 1 blog. The last comment about not really knowing what I was suppose to write can be ignored. I now see that there are some guided questions. Anyways, thanks for letting me copy/paste my response for credit.
Thinking back, I wonder what the earlier settlers would had considered as acceptable or something that is a non-fiery version of hell. If it is a non-settled part of America, probably nothing, even if it was in the middle of spring. We probably would had done the same thing. Take the national parks as an example. We can say "oohhhh" and "aaaahhhhh" now, but that is in the comfort of knowing that the park is protected and maintained by some of the world's most over dedicated public servants. Now, if we stumble into a similar area, lost, but with no hint of civilization, I think we would all turn suicidal by the end of the week.
ReplyDelete