How are early European colonialist views of the relationship between

mankind and the natural environment similar to and different from

environmental attitudes and practices in the United States today?

Sadie Schafer

Senior Project Advisor: Ashley Carruth

Abstract:

Today, the natural environment is used and abused by man more than it ever has been in the past.
This thesis focuses on the relationship between mankind and the natural environment in the
United States through history. Attitudes and behaviors relating to the US environment have
shifted through time, but this essay focuses on only the arrival of European colonists in the US,
and modern day environmental policies and perspectives including those of the GOP,
Democratic party, and modern day Native Americans. As well as discussing different groups of
people through history, this thesis examines individualistic, collectivist, instrumental, and
intrinsic values, and how both new age and old age environmental attitudes relate to theses
values. This essay compares the past with the present to understand how environmental attitudes
have evolved, and how we should move forward in creating a healthier relationship between
mankind and our natural US landscapes.

12th Grade Humanities

Animas High School
March 11th, 2019
 Part I Introduction:

"Like winds and sunsets, wild things were taken for granted until progress began to do

away with them. Now, we face the question whether a still higher 'standard of living' is worth its

cost in things natural, wild, and free" (Leopold).

I live at the base of the La Plata Mountains in southwest Colorado. In the winter my

house, and the surrounding landscape is completely covered in snow, the mountains are

shimmering white, and the snow is everywhere. Around six o’clock each evening, the sun sets,

and the mountains are illuminated in pink. Light streams over the horizon, shining on the peaks

of the white mountains before the sun sinks beyond the horizon turning the sky dark. This is

called alpenglow.

Beauty like this can be found in thousands places across the US. It is obvious that nature

is beautiful, but in mainstream American culture its beauty does not make it important. With

their arrival, European colonists introduced the idea that the environment is solely valuable

because it can be used to create profit. Before the arrival of colonists in “The New World”,

Native Americans had an entirely different relationship to the environment. Through US history

mindsets regarding the relationship between men and the environment have changed placing us

where we are today with GOP and Democratic environmental policies. To this day though, the

relationship between mankind and the environment is unbalanced. To create a stronger

relationship between humans and our environment, individuals need to understand the

importance of our natural US landscapes.

1
 Part II Context and Background:

In 1492 a fleet of three ships captained by Christopher Columbus came ashore on either

Samana Cay or San Salvador island in the Bahamas. This was the first arrival of European

colonists in the “New World”. What then ensued was an invasion; a hostile entrance into a new

and unknown territory. In the name of religion, and in the interests of distant powers from across

the ocean, the Spanish began an assault of people, elements, and anything else that could be

carried off for their personal benefit. Barry Lopez describes the hostile arrival of colonialists in

his essay “The Rediscovery of North America”:

First, this incursion, this harmfull road into the “New World,” quickly became a ruthless,

angry search for wealth. It set a tone in the Americas. The quest for personal possessions

was to be, from the outset a series of raids, irresponsible and criminal, a spree, in which

an end to it- the slaves, the timber, the pearls, the fur, the precious ores and, later, arable

land, coal, oil, and iron ore- was never visible, in which an end to it had no meaning. (10)

With the arrival of European settlers, expansion and religion became highly influential

environmental attitudes in the US. These attitudes are in some scenes still present to this day

though there has been a large shift in attitudes regarding the environment through time.

For the purpose of this essay it is important to know that the idea of environmental ethics

was born in the 1900’s. Several factors lead to the emergence of environmental ethics and

environmental awareness. In 1962 Rachel Carson’s book ​Silent Spring​ was published, in which

she discusses environmental and human health problems caused by synthetic pesticides and

2
proves the harmful effects of man-made substances on the health of people and landscapes.

Carson’s book led to the ban on DDT and other pesticides and started the movement that led to

the creation of The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Another significant factor that lead to this shift in environmental ideals were the first

photos of the earth taken from space. In December, 1968 with the launch of Apollo 8, the first

photo was taken of the earth from space. The photo, known as "Earthrise", is an image of Earth

resting in space over the lunar landscape and it became an iconic reminder of our planet’s

isolation and fragility. With the first photos of the Earth from space there became a greater

appreciation for, and awareness of our home .

Then, in 1970 Nixon proposed the National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act,

and Environmental Protection Agency. 1970 was also the year of the first earth day.

To compare environmental perspectives through history and between different groups of

people I will be discussing individualistic and collectivist views as well as instrumental and

intrinsic perspectives.

Individualistic views are ideas highly focused on the success on individuals rather than of

a community. An individualistic culture prioritizes individual rights, non-conformity,

independence, and freedom with limited government regulation. Collectivist cultures are more

community based; the family and community successes supersede those of the individual.

Whether a society is more individualistic or more collectivist greatly influences its attitude

toward and relationship to the natural environment. Individualistic cultures tend to see nature for

3
it’s instrumental use. Instrumental environmental attitudes are based on the idea the the

environment is important but, that it is important because it can be used as means to an end. For

example, plants have value because they can be used to make medicine or create something for

human use. Collectivist cultures, on the other hand, view nature from a more intrinsic lens.

Intrinsic environmental values are based on the idea that nature has value in and of itself. In other

words, nature is valuable without a need for it to be “of use” to others.

Part III Research and Analysis:

European settlers brought an imperialistic relationship to the environment based on

conquest, cultural superiority and religious perceptions of the relationship between humans and

the natural world. Theses attitudes are what shaped the way in which white settlers treated both

the environment and other people inhabiting the “New World”. To this day, these attitudes

remain present in political environmental policies.

European colonists Barry Lopez argues in “The Rediscovery of North America”​ t​ hat imperialism

and expansion were present from the very first day the Spanish arrived in the Bahamas. He

describes this as an imposition of will and ideals:

What we see in the New World under the Spanish is an imposition of will. It is an

incursion with no proposals. The Spanish impose, they do not propose. I think it is

possible to view the entire colonial enterprise, beginning in 1492, in these terms. Instead

4
 of an encounter with “the other” in which we proposed certain ideas, proposals based on

assumption of equality, respectfully tendered, our encounters were distinguished by a

stern, relentless imposition of ideas- religious, economic, and social ideas we deemed

superior if not unimpeachable. (11)

The way in which European settlers treated the environment was based on expansion and

development without proposals or compromises. This perception of how men should interact

with and treat the environment was somewhat rooted in religion. White European settlers used

Christianity to justify unfair treatment towards Native Americans, as well as their own

desecration of the landscape. In Leo Marx’s essay “The Idea of Nature in America” he describes

how the immediate impressions of nature in the US by early European colonists were informed

mainly by, “religious preconceptions about the nature of nature”(9). Marx explains how the

Christian idea of nature as Satan’s domain was effective in portraying nature as a lawless state

separate from human kind. Marx quotes the Pilgrim leader William Bradford as saying that he

saw the US wilderness as “a hideous and desolate place, full of wild beasts and wild men.”(15)

This perception of nature as Satan’s domain separated colonists from nature and labeled native

people as beasts. The religious idea that white men are separate from the natural environment

created a distinction between white settlers and Native American people by classifying native

people as untamed. Native Americans were easily named as savages, slaves, and cannibals

because they lived more closely off the land. They were unfairly and inaccurately classified as

less developed, and therefore closer to beasts than white men.

5
 However, wilderness as Satan’s den, full of savagery and lawlessness was not the only

way in which early European colonists viewed nature. Rather, they had a dualistic view of

nature: either as Satan’s den or as blank slate, a Garden of Eden of sorts before the original sin,

which could which could only flourish with the proper cultivation by white men. This is the idea

of the “Garden”. The “Garden” was based on a religious perception of nature that it could be

altered, controlled, and changed by humankind to make it pleasant, peaceful, and pastoral.

William Cronon explains this concept in “The Trouble With Wilderness” where he explains the

attitudes expressed in the Bible towards the natural environment:

When Adam and Eve were driven from the garden, the world they entered was a

wilderness that only their labor and pain could redeem. Wilderness, in short, was a place

to which one came only against one’s will, and always in fear and trembling. Whatever

value it might have arose solely from the possibility that it might be “reclaimed” and

turned toward human ends- planted as a garden, say, or a city upon a hill. In its raw state,

it had little or nothing to offer civilized men and women. (2)

Europeans considered the land to be theirs to use and profit from, whereas Native

Americans had a more collectivist perspective of the relationship between man and nature. One

important example of Native American attitudes towards the environment is a speech by Chief

Seattle in 1854. Chief Seattle was a Duwamish chief native to western Washington. The city of

Seattle, Washington was named after the chief. His speech was called to discuss the sale of land

to white settlers. The speech criticized imperialist attitudes and increased development by white

6
settlers. In his speech Chief Seattle discussed rapid development and disrespect for the land. It

was one of the first instances in which concern over accelerated expansion was expressed. He

warned of western expansion and emphasized the need to protect nature. This is why Chief

Seattle’s speech is acclaimed with such high esteem:

Every part of this soil is sacred in the estimation of my people. Every hillside, every

valley. Every plain and grove, has been hallowed by some sad or happy event in days

long vanished. Even the rocks, which seem to be dumb and dead as the swelter in the sun

along the silent shore, thrill with memories of stirring events connected with the lives of

my people, and the very dust upon which you now stand responds more lovingly to their

footsteps than yours, because it is rich with the blood of our ancestors, and our bare feet

are conscious of the sympathetic touch. Our departed braves, fond mothers, glad, happy

hearted maidens, and even the little children who lived here and rejoiced here for a brief

season, will love these somber solitudes and at the eventide they greet shadowy returning

spirits. (Chief )

Chief Seattle’s is renowned as one of the first advocates of environmental protection. He argued

for the protection of US landscapes, not only because they are the basis of human life, but also

because they should be considered a part of our community. Hi speech speaks about the

environment as though it is an essential part of his identity and the identity of his people. He is

connected to the land and has a deep sense of its importance.

7
 Private Property is one examples of the differences between European settlers and Native

American perceptions about the relationship between humans and the U.S. landscape. The idea

of private property was brought to the U.S. by Europeans, previously there was no such idea in

Native American cultures. Private property is land owned by a person or group kept for their use

exclusively. Before the arrival of Europeans, land wasn’t divided into separate plots per person,

it was shared between the entire community. This idea is still present in some Native American

nations. The Navajos nation for example, is not divided into private properties, and is instead one

entire area of land with no separations. When Europeans colonized in the U.S. they began

separating the landscape into plots of private property. Essentially, whatever land was available,

could be claimed for private use. Private property supported individualistic mindsets toward the

environment and helped create an instrumental mindset towards the natural world. Land could be

taken by anyone and used for their personal use, helping them make profit. You could make

money off the land by farming or mining or by some other means, so the land was important

because it could make you wealthier. This supports the instrumental idea that because the

environment can be used to create something, it is valuable.

The environmental views and attitudes introduced by early European colonists in the US

are both different and similar to those of current day political policies. The GOP, Democratic

party, and Native Americans all see the environment differently, but all these perspectives have

been affected by the environmental attitudes that were set in place by European colonists in the

US.

8
 There a several ideas that emerge from the GOP environmental statement that show

modern day perspectives and attitudes regarding the natural environment. The main attitude is

that the US landscape and environment is a tool that should be used to improve human success

and further development. The GOP’s stance is that jobs, growth, and expanded trade should be

the most important focuses on the US agenda. Goals that emerge on the platform are expansion,

limited regulation, and economic growth.

The GOP believes in agricultural growth, expanding trade opportunities, and creating

new markets for agriculture. The party also supports limited government regulation related to

agriculture. The GOP platform states that they, “must ensure that domestic policies do not

compromise our global competitiveness through overregulation and undue interference in the

marketplace”(Republican). The GOP also expresses opposition to mandatory labeling of

genetically modified food, which in the platforms’ words, “has proven to be safe, healthy, and a

literal life-saver for millions in the developing world”.

Regarding limited regulation, the GOP is opposed to agricultural regulation with the goal

of keeping costs low and continuing economic growth as seen in its critique of the Democratic

party’s stance on regulation:

The Democratic Administration’s sustained support for additional regulation of

agriculture has directly resulted in higher costs of production for those who produce the

food we eat. This federal regulatory overreach has resulted and will continue to result in

9
 higher food prices for Americans. These higher food costs are particularly challenging for

those Americans struggling to make ends meet (Republican).

The republican stance is that regulation extends government jurisdiction. Their argument is that

state government, not Washington are best equipped to manage land and environmental policies.

This argument applies to both the EPA and the WOTUS (The EPA’s Waters of the United

States). The GOP argues that federal agencies should not have control over waters on farms,

ranches, and other privately held property. Their argument is that WOTUS exceeds government

jurisdiction and must be invalidated. This position also means that federal efforts to protect

waters in the US should not exist through the government and that states should be responsible

for environmental decisions within individual states. The GOP explains this by arguing, “we

must never allow federal agencies to seize control of state waters, watersheds, or groundwater.

State waters, watersheds, and groundwater must be the purview of the sovereign

states”(Republican).

The GOP’s perspective on environmental policy is instrumental and individualistic.

Republicans believe that the environment should be developed, and used as a tool to help

expansion and economic growth. The GOP values economic growth over regulation, arguing that

regulation could compromise expansion and advancement. Their stance on limited regulation

support the individualist view that less regulation supports individual success and allows

individuals to use the environment as a means to become more affluent.

10
 The first difference that arises between the Democratic and Republican stances on

environmental policies is their acknowledgment of climate change. The Democratic

environmental stance is based on taking action on climate change while also maintaining a stable

economy with good paying jobs:

We will take bold steps to slash carbon pollution and protect clean air at home, lead the

fight against climate change around the world, ensure no Americans are left out or left

behind as we accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy, and be responsible

stewards of our natural resources and our public lands and waters. Democrats reject the

notion that we have to choose between protecting our planet and creating good-paying

jobs. We can and we will do both (Party).

The democratic environmental stance is based on creating a more sustainable relationship with

the environment and improving the way we use our natural resources:

We are committed to getting 50 percent of our electricity from clean energy sources

within a decade, with half a billion solar panels installed within four years and enough

renewable energy to power every home in the country. We will cut energy waste in

American homes, schools, hospitals, and offices through energy efficient improvements;

modernize our electric grid; and make American manufacturing the cleanest and most

efficient in the world (Party).

With sustainable energy sources in mind, the Democratic Party has announced its opposition to

the Keystone XL pipeline and ensures that landowners, communities of color, and tribal nations

11
are at the table. The Democratic environmental statement describes how all people will be

considered in moving forward with environmental policies:

The impacts of climate change will also disproportionately affect low-income and

minority communities, tribal nations, and Alaska native villages—all of which suffer the

worst losses during extreme weather and have the fewest resources to prepare. Simply

put, this is environmental racism (Party).

With the democratic stance mainly focusing on climate change and shifting American policies

towards a more sustainable and climate friendly approach, they emphasise that the shift must not

exclude coal mining communities in the US:

The fight against climate change must not leave any community out or behind—including

the coal communities who kept America’s lights on for generations. Democrats will fight

to make sure these workers and their families get the benefits they have earned and the

respect they deserve, and we will make new investments in energy-producing

communities to help create jobs and build a brighter and more resilient economic future.

We will also oppose threats to the public health of these communities from harmful and

dangerous extraction practices, like mountaintop removal mining operation (Party).

There is also a strong emphasis on protecting the US’s natural landscapes including parks and

public lands. They claim this effort can also be as source of economic growth. The Democratic

party is committed to doubling the size of the outdoor economy and creating new jobs and

economic activity, “by actively engaging all Americans in the great outdoors and protecting

natural landscapes and cultural sites that tell the story of the US’s complex history. To help meet

12
these goals, we will work to build a diverse workforce in agencies that manage US public lands,

waters, and cultural sites” (Party).

The Democratic position on environmental policy is mainly based on collectivist ideals.

Democratic statements are in support of bringing all American communities to the table in

relation to environmental policies. This includes landowners, communities of color, tribal

nations, and coal mining communities. Democrats acknowledge climate change and argue that

we need to take steps to battle climate change because the environment is the basis for human

life. Regarding climate change, their values are more aligned with intrinsic views. The argument

for climate change activism is based on the matter that without the environment humans can not

live. If the environment is destroyed by climate change humankind will not survive, meaning that

we need the environment to live. Their policy is based on an intrinsic view that the environment

is valuable because it has use to us.

Native American attitudes on the natural world and the relationship that we have with the

environment tend to resonate more closely with collectivist ideals. Most Native American

cultures believe the land is sacred and a part of the community. This idea may come from the

fact that Native Americans have inhabited U.S. landscapes for nearly thirty thousand years.

Native people are truly at home in the United States, they have a deep and profound connection

to the land which may explain the different perspectives they have towards the environment. N.

Scott Momaday, a Kiowa novelist, short story writer, essayist, and poet explains the relationship

between Native Americans and the natural world in his essay “A First Man’s Views of His

13
Land”​ a​ s having evolved from the recognition of beauty. Referring to Native Central Americans,

Momaday writes:

He made beautiful boxes and dishes out of elm and birch bark, for example. His canoes

were marvelous, delicate works of art. And this aesthetic perception was a principle of

the whole Indian world of his time, as indeed it is our time. The contemporary Native

American is a man whose strong aesthetic perceptions are clearly evident in his arts and

crafts, in his religious ceremonies, and in the stories and songs of his rich oral tradition.

This, in view of the pressures that have been brought to bear upon the Indian world and

the drastic changes that have been affected in its landscape, is a blessing and an irony.

(574)

A modern day example of Native American love for the land can be taken from the Navajos of

the Four Corners. Navajoland is located between four sacred peaks, Mt. Blanca to the east, Mt.

Taylor to the south, San Francisco Peak to the west, and Mt Hesperus to the north near Durango,

Colorado. Coal mining has been present on and around sacred Navajo land for many years,

destroying and mutilating the landscape. A power plant in the same region pollutes the air,

visible from miles around, yet the Navajo love and celebrate the land is if it were a member of

their community. Though their land has been noticeably pillaged, their culture celebrates the

beauty of the natural world. Traditional Navajo life is highly focused on religion, the culture is

based on maintaining balance between individuals and the universe and living in harmony with

nature. All living things are considered relatives, each containing its own spirit or inner form. It

is believed that Earth People of the Diné (the name Navajo people refer to themselves as) are a

14
central part of the universe, they must do everything they can to maintain harmony and balance

on Mother Earth. They were taught to live in unity with Mother Earth, Father Sky and many

other elements such as man, animals, plants, and insects. In Navajo culture, the land is the most

essential and central part of their religion and way of life. Their culture, like many other Native

American cultures has a connection to the land that is completely different from the typical

Euro-American perception of the environment. Native American culture includes the land into

their definition of community. The relationship that Native Americans have with the land is both

collectivist and intrinsic. Their environment is treated as a part of the community, and nature is

respected as an element of the world that man is not greater than, but rather a part of.

Part IV Conclusion:

Unlike Native American cultures, many individuals throughout American society lack

connection with the natural world. The land is abused and overused, and it has been since the

arrival of Europeans. Mainstream American culture is individualistic, it values the economic

benefits that come from the environment without considering the intrinsic value of the natural

world. So, what is the best way to move forward in creating a better relationship between

humankind and the natural environment? What needs to change are the perspectives in place

regarding the connection between mankind and nature.

Like almost all Americans, I drive a car, buy products from the supermarket that aren't

always organic, fly on planes, and participate in other activities that are harmful to the

15
environment. It would be almost impossible to return to a completely sustainable way of life with

a zero carbon footprint but it is possible to become more balanced as a society. The purpose of

this essay has not been to say that we need to entirely change our lives to mend our relationship

with the environment. If we think about the environment differently though, the relationship

between man and nature can become stronger. My idea on how we can become more responsible

for the natural world is inspired by Barry Lopez. In his essay “The Rediscovery of North

America”, Lopez argues that the only way to change our relationship with the natural world is to

find what he calls a “sense of place”. He says we need to find our “home”, a place, “where we

take on the responsibilities of adults to the human community”. Lopez claims that we need to see

the world in less of an instrumental focused mindset, but that we shouldn't take away

independence, just create a different type of independence:

We need to discover the difference between the kind of independence that is the desire to

be responsible to no one but the self- the independence of the adolescents- and the

independence that means the assumption of responsibility in society, the independence of

people who no longer need to be supervised. (15)

In reference to the environment, can we be independent and still responsible? This is possible,

but only if we understand the importance of the environment.

There is still a heavy emphasis on individualistic and instrumental uses of the natural

world in present day political ideas. The natural environment can be mined, farmed, and altered

for the benefit of mankind in many ways. It is important to emphasise though, that what we do to

the environment affect us. We live off the natural environment and are dependent on it for food

16
and shelter, but we are also a part of the environment. Rachel Carson describes the importance of

this in her short essay entitled “Of Man and the Stream of Time”. She writes, “nature does

indeed needs protection from man; but man too, needs protection from his own acts, for he is

part of the living world. His war against nature is inevitably a war against himself” (Carson). We

carelessly pollute the water we rely on to survive with domestic, chemical, and radioactive waste

as our world becomes thirstier as well as abusing the environment in countless other ways. We

seem to believe that we are still separate from the environment, that it should be used for our

personal development and advancement, and that it should only be protected when human life

will be endangered if it is not.

Works Cited:

Carson, Rachel. “Of Man and The Stream of Time.” Commencement Address 1962.

Commencement Address 1962, Scripps College, Scripps College.

Chief Seattle. “Chief Seattle's 1854 Speech.” Treaty Oration 1854. Treaty Oration 1854, Seattle,

Washington.

Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac.

Lopez, Barry Holstun. “Chapter 1.” The Rediscovery of North America, by Barry Holstun

17
 Lopez, Vintage Books, 1992, pp. 10–16.

Marx, Leo. “The Idea of Nature in America.” What Does It Mean to Be an American? -

American Academy of Arts & Sciences,

www.amacad.org/publication/idea-nature-america.

Momaday, N. Scott. “A First American Views His Land.” American Earth: Environmental

Writing Since Thoreau, edited by Bill McKibben, Literary Classics, 2008, pp. 570-581.

“Party Platform.” Democrats, democrats.org/about/party-platform/#clean-energy.

“Republican National Committee.” GOP, ​www.gop.com/platform/americas-natural-resources/​.

Schultz, P. (2002). Environmental Attitudes and Behaviors Across Cultures. Online Readings in

Psychology and Culture, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1070

Vucetich, John A., and Michael P. Nelson. “Distinguishing Experiential and Physical

Conceptions of Wilderness .” Distinguishing Experiential and Physical Conceptions of

Wilderness , 2008, pp. 616–621.

William Cronon, ed., Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in

18
Nature, New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1995, 69-90.

19