HST 201: ONLINE U.S. History F18 (Escobar)

In some ways I am inclined to agree and disagree in the distinction of an animal’s purpose with the Native Americans and Europeans. This is most likely due to my contemporary lifestyle intervening with some older practices that I still hold on to.

In “Backstory with the American History Guys” a podcast featuring Professor Virginia DeJohn Anderson, they delve into the meaning behind animals in the perception held by two vastly different cultures around the 17th and 18th century in the American territory. In it, she describes that the native population thinks of animals as carrying more spiritual weight and are not unlike human beings. I believe in aspects of the old tradition of hunting; I was taught by my family to always look for a quick and painless kill, and to give appreciation as ritual to the animal for its sacrifice. I also always believed that animals were never an inherent right of mine, but an organism that experience the same realm I exist in. This puts the animal and I on a level of equality.

I also do not solely rely on this tradition to feed myself as I have many other responsibilities in my life, which limits me to buying my food that has been prepared by machines and distributed to a local market. This removes me from a certain spiritual aspect, to a more modern diet. This is not to say that the English were wrong to think contrary to the natives. I am certain livestock was revered by their culture in some ways as a source of food for the settler’s family. In her book “Creatures of Empire: How Domestic Animals Transformed Early America Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002”, Anderson explains, “They were prudent and well-organized, following rigorous daily and seasonal routines dictated by climate, habit, economic goals, and their livestock’s needs” (pg.89). Another differentiating train of thought from colonials were, “animals were property over which they had a biblically ordained right to assert dominion”. I disagree that animals are a divine right to us as human beings, however, with the way society is currently, I would not be able to transition to a system more accommodating to animal populations.

Seeing as both traditions are still practiced, it means something to American culture as a whole. This topic can be a controversial one, given that the NRA (National Rifle Association) and PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) don’t exactly see eye to eye when it comes to the treatment of animals, but it’s an interesting concept that both sides of the coin influence America today just as they had done hundreds of years ago.

De john Anderson suggests the main problem concerning these new animals and their relation to Indians and Europeans was the ideas the Europeans packaged with their animals. You see Europeans’ thought of domestic animals as living property. Now animals to the natives are thought to be sacred or even spiritual. This caused a lot of issues between the Europeans and the Indians. The Indians don’t understand that the animals are not free game and the Europeans don’t understand that owning animals is a foreign concept to the Indians. In today’s society that’s not very different from how we all see animals. I see animals the same as the Europeans some animals are kept as pets and technically we own them. I also see the other side too like deer are not meant to be kept as pets they provide things for the land and to the people but I don’t see it very spiritually.

Podcast interview with De John Anderson: Time 1:36-3mins

Professor DeJohn Anderson suggests a few main problems in regards to the relationship between the English animals and the Indian people, some of the suggestions are the idea that animals were property in the mind of the English and the Indians had never thought of animals as property, and the fact that the English didn’t have control over their animals’ behavior.

The Indians as stated in the audio file thought of animals as “different than human but not inferior” (2:34) The synopsis of the book states that “The cow… symbolized English agricultural superiority” (Par 4) I had never thought about this, but the ability to control an animal, feed them, and use them for their bi-product does in a way portray to others that you are in control of that animal and do see them as inferior to yourself. So for them to come across people who thought of animals in such a different way I’m sure caused conflict in their day to day life. I know personally when someone introduces a new thought into my world it makes me think of things differently so although this may have caused physical conflict between the Indians and the English I believe it would also cause conflict internally with thoughts about who was ‘right’ and why the English seemed to think of goats, cattle, etc. as property but not the deer and other animals that were already in America.

The English on the other hand did not have control over their animals’ behavior causing the animals to trample the Indians fields and eating food that the Indians relied on. (3:20) In the audio Professor DeJohn Anderson states that if the Indians set a trap for deer and a cow were to be caught in the trap they were held liable for that (4:00) which would infuriate the Indians I’m sure as the English were not liable for damages their animals caused to the Indians crops. In my neighborhood if a chicken gets loose and gets hit by a car, the driver is not liable for the dead chicken, the owner who didn’t keep their animals under control is liable to buy themselves a new chicken.

I can absolutely see how the relationship between the Indians and the English animals would be infuriating and cause turmoil. I personally do see animals such as livestock and goats as property but mostly because that’s what I have been taught my whole life. I was taught “if you didn’t buy it you don’t get to have it” so if a farmer paid for his cattle and sheep, why should I have free reign to kill or take possession of them? On the other hand, going back to the chicken example I gave earlier, it also isn’t my fault if someone’s goat walks into my cougar trap. I can see both sides of this conflict.

The English brought new animals with them when they came as settlers, most of which the Indians had not seen before. So, to me it makes sense that they would be more confused when seeing these strange creatures rather than meeting another human.  The main problem concerning the Native American with the new animals, according to DeJohn Anderson, was in the way the English kept them as property. Native Americans believed that animals were equals to humans and had a spiritual connection with them and the land. Whereas, the English domesticated animals and kept, sold or traded their animals. In the audio clip, DeJohn mentions that the animals being property of the English became a problem because they animals were not kept contained. The animals ended up roaming into the Indians territory and if they Indians were to kill the animals; the English would punish them.

How I look at animals depends on the type, I suppose. For house pet, I view them as a person’s property that should be treated like a member of the family. With livestock, I also see them as the property as the farmer and, unfortunately, as food. But with wild animals, I don’t think they should be anyone’s property.

Creatures of Empire

              I felt that the points raised by Virginia DeJohn Anderson in this week’s audio clip were informative and interesting. I had never thought about the fact that animals that today are considered common in the United States were once as foreign as the Europeans who brought them here. I also found the contrast between the Indian and European perspectives on animals intriguing. DeJohn Anderson tells us in the audio clip that the main problem essentially stemmed from the Europeans regarding their domesticated animals as property, whereas “Indians did not conceive of living animals as anyone’s property,” (Audio 1:54 minute mark). Before reviewing this material, I had never considered this angle in the history of conflict between these two groups. In the audio clip, DeJohn Anderson paints a picture of a native people working to live a subsistence lifestyle every day, and then along come the Europeans with these bizarre animals that had never been seen on this continent. As she explains “The English did not have full control over their animals’ behavior,” (Audio 3:15 minute mark). The animals enter a land without pens, fences, or barns, a land in which crops are already being grown as a subsistence practice for the Native Americans. The animals are naturally drawn to the Indian food sources and run amuck, “…creating real damage to the Indian’s subsistence practices,” (Audio 3:30 minute mark). A passage of the Murrin textbook echoes this problem by saying, “The colonists’ growing settlements shrank the Indians’ land base, and their free-running hogs and cows wrecked the Indians’ cornfields,” (Murrin textbook, page 81).

In a world where the Indians thrived on living in harmony with nature as they knew it, a new group of animals were introduced into their environment and turned their ecosystem on its head. When I heard this section of audio, I could not help but think about all the invasive species regulations that are in place today for much of the same reasons. The Europeans landed with this group of invasive species that literally changed the course of history in the Americas. Today, we think of the American cowboy on horseback herding cattle. We think of the American Indian on horseback in battle and on the hunt.  “In the Great Plains, the Apaches developed a dynamic culture of horseback hunting and warfare and expanded their settlements at the expense of other native groups,” (Murrin textbook, page 81). Although the Indians eventually found use for most, if not all, of these animals, these beasts caused a great deal of frustration at the outset. According to DeJohn Anderson, “King Philip” the Wampanoag Sachem, told John Easton of Rhode Island that “…even when the Indians move thirty miles away…they still can’t keep their planting fields free from livestock,” (Audio 6:24 minute mark). The phrase that really stuck with me from this audio was when DeJohn Anderson recalls “…Philip himself identifying trespassing animals as sort of this phenomenally irritating aspect,” (Audio 6:44 minute mark). When I hear this audio, I cannot help but empathize with the Native Americans. Most of us have had neighbors with animals that annoy us, barking dogs, messing cats, whatever the case may be. I think that the annoyance reaches another level when that neighbors’ animal is breaking into our own crops and destroying our way of life. This audio segment gave me another perspective on the conflict between Europeans and Indians, and I hope that my summary helped you gain perspective as well.

When I started to read the summary of Professor Anderson’s book “Creatures of Empire,” it struck a note on a personal level. The British colonists brought over herd animals to the colonies to sustain their needs for livestock. One of the most important animals was the cow. (Pg. 1 Summary) This led to a key issue however. Due to the free-roaming husbandry that the British were practicing, Indian’s suffered in the short and long run. Where it was normal to “deal with” or kill a trespassing animal in the eyes of the Indians, the British viewed it as an attack on their property. Even though it was the Indian’s property that was originally damaged or assaulted, they were the ones who received the punishment for defending their crops and land. (Audio 4:32)

Where the heart of the issue lies is with the idea of ownership. As Dr Matthew Ward phrases it in his summary, “Ownership of animals was a concept completely alien to Native Americans.” (Pg. 2 Summary) While it may have been normal for the British to own an animal who they could sell or trade away, the Indian’s viewed it as a spiritual matter. The Indian’s believed each animal, especially deer, all contained a form of spiritual power that should be respected. (Audio 2:50) This led to a great deal of conflicts, especially when land disputes were involved.

I appreciate that Professor Anderson is focused on this section, and I agree with many, if not all of her points that I have seen. The idea of bringing foreign livestock into an area without clear and concise control methods in place is never a good idea. This happened in my local area over 100 years ago with a type of plant. It has nearly wiped out the native species now and it continues to damage local property. While it may have been the human leaders who started the idea of colonization, one thing is for certain, the animals that the British colonists brought with them spurred on the conflicts caused by British expansion.

One of the biggest problems concerning the animals that the Europeans brought over, was the way the animals were viewed. The Indians saw animals as being different from them, but not inferior. They would often call them “Other than human persons” (audio 2:28). The Europeans saw the animals as property and nothing more. I tend to see animals the same way as the Indians (for the most part). I agree when it comes to the smaller animals such as dogs. I believe dogs are not inferior to humans and deserve to be treated with respect (as do all animals). However, when it comes to live stock, I can see why they were viewed as property. They were used for the owners fit and that was it. If a Native American were to, for some reason, hurt or kill one of the Europeans live stock, then they could be held accountable.

After listening to the podcast and reading the synopsis of Anderson's book, in my opinion, the animals were not more important than the humans in the history of the settlements and relationships between Native Americans and Europeans.

Although, I do agree with her that the English animals clearly did not help in the relations between the two peoples, I don't think that made them more important than the humans of that time.

For many reasons, the animals created conflict. Two of the reasons that the podcast mentions is that the animals would destroy Native American land, and that they would get killed in traps so the Native Americans would have to go to court to be held responsible.

So, it's clear that animals created conflict, but I think both groups could have overlooked this if there wasn't many other fundamental differences in the way the people lived. The Europeans came over and took the Native American lands, and would create contracts that would take more from the Native Americans than what they originally agreed upon. Europeans saw Native Americans as savages and inferior. I think those human thoughts and actions created the wars and the turmoil more than the conflict with the animals. I think people did a lot more damage than the animals.

Therefore, I don't believe the animals were more significant than the humans during this time.

The religious differences between the Indians and the Europeans caused a rift that was very difficult to overlook. On the one hand, we have the Native Americans who viewed animals as “Other than human persons,” (Audio 2:26). The Native Americans perception of animals was that they “…were living beings sharing the earth, who were different from human beings, but not necessarily inferior to them,” (Audio 2:30). In a culture that centered on man’s relationship with nature, this was a huge focal point. Animals were needed for survival, not only for their meat, but also their hides and bone. The hides were used to make clothing and shelter, the bones used to make tools and weapons. The Indians respected the animals as an equal and necessary part of life as they knew it. The Europeans, on the other hand, viewed animals as property to be bought and sold. Professor DeJohn Anderson tells us that “Indians did not conceive of living animals as anyone’s property,” (Audio 1:54). The Europeans came from a strong Judeo-Christian tradition in which God proclaimed that man should “…rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground,” (Genesis 1:26b, The Bible, new international version). To the Christian Europeans, this was a very clear proclamation of their absolute dominance over the earth and its animal inhabitants. There is no mention or inference to animals being equal to man. Later on, in Genesis 9:2-3,  God expands on this point when addressing Noah and his family after the great flood, “The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands,” (The Bible, new international version). The Europeans had a clear and long-standing belief that they were masters of every other species on the earth. When this belief met the beliefs of the Indians, there was inevitable conflict. These two cultures each encountered a people who believed almost the exact opposite of what they had believed for as long as anyone could remember. Generations of families were brought into these various camps through storytelling, tradition, and religious doctrine. Each culture felt that theirs was absolutely the more civil and justified based on his understanding of the laws of nature.

In my own belief system, I am a follower of the Christian doctrine. I was raised to believe that the Bible is the perfect word of God. I understand the Native Americans viewpoint, and I certainly respect it, however my belief system does not allow me to believe that animals are to be treated with the same level of reverence as human beings. I believe that animals were put on earth to be used by human beings, and that we were commanded to be their masters. I certainly have a lot of respect for animals, and I am thankful for the fits that mankind draws from their resources, but in the end,  I believe that man is superior. I know that this is not a popular opinion, but it is what I believe. I welcome any counter-arguments and I am certainly willing to discuss this with anyone as long as it is in a spirit of mutual respect for beliefs. I think that we are all here to learn from one another and I am open to anyone else’s interpretation.

As colonists settled and spread increasingly into Native American territories, the killing of livestock became a powerful means of retaliation against European settlers. Because animal husbandry and European farming practices didn’t take hold among natives as the settlers had expected, the very different belief systems held by these populations caused significant disputes. Europeans saw animals as property. Conversely, Native Americans felt deep spiritual connections with all animals (Reviews in History: Creatures of Empire: How Domestic Animals Transformed Early America, page 1).

Interestingly, this battle is ongoing even in modern American society. Native American tribes frequently find themselves in opposition with the United States government regarding issues including sustainable fishing practices, the effect of oil drilling and fracking on the environment and wildlife habitats, water quality on native lands, protection of national wildlife refuges and endangered species, etc. These issues all hark back to deeply held native beliefs that animals “possessed a spiritual power” and that hunting should be “reciprocal rather than exploitative”. During American colonization, English settlers had “turned animals into commodities for trade” (Reviews in History: Creatures of Empire: How Domestic Animals Transformed Early America, page 2). They saw animals as a form of property and wealth, but natives did not believe humans were superior to animals. Therefore they did not understand the concept of ownership and hunted imported livestock, causing increasing tensions between settlers and native tribes.

Another great modern-day example of this deep conflict is salmon fishing and the impact it has had on the southern resident Orca whales in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Washington state. Decades of overfishing of the Chinook Salmon off the coast of Washington by commercial fishing operations has contributed significantly to the decimation of southern resident Orca whale population. The pod's flight received a lot of national media coverage in spring and summer of 2018 due to the recent deaths of two whales and the pod's inability to birth a healthy calf in over three years-- in large part due to a lack of ample Chinook salmon to sustain the 75 or so whales in the pod. Local native tribes have been calling upon the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the United States government to ban or limit Chinook salmon fishing so that the Orca pod could get proper amount of nutrition and regain health.

In modern day America, it is these same fundamental differences in belief and levels of respect for wildlife which cause such passionate cultural clashes. One modern example is the Native American protests to the Dakota Access Pipeline near the Standing Rock Indian reservation. Popularly known as water protectors, the native activists protesting the oil pipeline have protested since 2016 and publicly voiced serious concerns over the dangers of a pipeline crossing dozens of rivers and streams. The main concerns were for the effect this would have on the quality of their drinking water, and the effect on fish and wildlife habitat in the region. As during colonization, natives are forward thinking to issues of sustainability of such practices.

Virginia DeJohn Anderson states in the podcast interview, in Backstory with the American History Guy, (1:36) "The problem is not so much dealing with the animals themselves as with a package of ideas that the English settlers brought with them about their domestic animals."  The English thought of their livestock as their property, where the Indians, did not think of livestock as any ones property because they were living animals.  DeJohn Anderson explains, Indians thought of the animals as living beings sharing the same earth who were different from human beings but not inferior to them.  To the Indians a lot of different kinds of animals such as deer were thought to be spiritual protectors.

Listening to Virginia DeJohn Anderson speak about the conflict that arose with the settlers and the Indians over the animals not only shed a new light for me about animals but that the role these animals had in history was important.  She discussed the fact that the English did not have full control over their animals behavior and there were instances of the English animals encroaching and trespassing on Indian planting fields, destroying crops, and creating damage to the Indians subsistence practices.(3:20) Some of the other animals ate the same bark and grass, the pigs would dig up the shellfish , that the Indians relied on for food. Indians without a sense of property and animals on their side when they encounter an animal creating a problem they kill it and find it is not the same thing to kill a piece of property.  I never would have thought about domesticated animals eating the park or grass that the natives gathered.  I was raised to kill animals that were a hindrance similar to the Indians,however, on the other end of the spectrum, I was raised that domesticated livestock were property. The animals played an important role because Due to the English allowing the animals free range they encroached upon native land causing problems for the Indians that were forced to deal with it or move on.  

One of the biggest issues Anderson talks about in her podcast is the conflict between Indians and settlers, and how animals play a role in that conflict. The English think of livestock as property, while Indians don't have a claim on them. Indians didn't know what livestock was at first, but became more acquainted with them as they started destroying their crops. Anderson gives the example of an Indian setting a trap, and if a cow walks into it and happens to be killed or injured in any way, the Indian that set it is liable and could be prosecuted (audio 4:02-4:18). At times, Indians wanted to kill the settlers' animals, but as stated before, their property being destroyed means trouble for Indians.

In today's world, we can compare animals being property to the criminal justice system and the incarceration of black people. In 2014, African Americans made up 34% of the correctional population (NAACP). Oftentimes, they will be arrested for a minor offense  and get a harsher sentence than white people. It is common for African Americans to go back into the prison system shortly after being released, due to the fact that they can't pay off debts for parole, can't find a job or housing within a short period of time, and many other factors. In this sense, the government has control over its prisoners, almost a sense of ownership and will prosecute people without a second thought.

This might be a very loose comparison but it made me think of the criminal justice system and how people are basically government property and thrown in without a second glance.

I don't agree with Anderson's argument about animals being more important than prevalent people in history. Sure, Indians were introduced to new creatures and livestock provided food, but I would consider them as more of the building blocks in our history due to the fact that they were there to help with work and provide sustenance, virtually. I partially agree with her "Creatures of Empire" concept. Livestock did create tension between settlers and Indians.

Taken from the online site, Reviews in History: "English livestock destroyed the habitats that supported native game and the plants that provided medicines and utensils. Hogs and cattle trampled on Indian cornfields and rooted out buried supplies of corn and other provisions. Perhaps most importantly, Indians and settlers clashed repeatedly over the ownership of animals that wandered all but wild in the forests" (pp. 4). Yes, the presence of animals did cause quite a rift between these two groups, but their overall dilemma appears to be more about religion and ideologies than mere livestock.

• What does DeJohn Anderson suggest the main problem was, concerning these new animals and their relation to the Indians (and Europeans) and do you look at animals that way?  

The Native American’s views animals as other living beings that inhabited the earth and coexist with us. They weren’t inferior to the native Americas and they had spirits which protected them. While I don’t necessarily believe that animals are protected by spirits I do not think that they are inferior to us and humans. However, don’t confuse that for me being a vegetarian or a vegan. I am very much a meat eater, but I do believe that animals inhabit this earth as co-existers. They are here too and they have a right to their habitats. A bear that is misplaced and wandering through town because its forests were cut down absolutely deserves a chance to make a home elsewhere. We as humans are trickling deeper and deeper into their habitats and because of that, we are hurting the ecosystem and the animals that live there. For instance, in Eugene and Springfield there was been quite a bit of cougar sightings in town, and while I understand the fear that people feel for this large cat, it also doesn’t mean that this cougar isn’t feeling fear itself. Why has it wandered into town? Why hasn’t it stayed in the woods. There is something that has moved it, and I do not believe that killing an animal is the answer. Animals are co-inhabitants of this earth and deserve to be treated as such. They do not deserve to be abused and mistreated for our fits. If an animal is to be slaughtered then EVERY PIECE of that animal is to be used NONE is to go to waste.