Driver for Dissemination of Domesticates
“Without Squanto to teach [the settlers] the arts of New World agriculture the Pilgrims’ future was likely to be short indeed”
Thomas R. Wessel
From the earliest meeting between Europeans and Indians, agriculture played an elemental role in white destinies in North America. The infamous Thanksgiving story of the Wampanoag people sharing a meal with the pilgrims of Plymouth plantation inscribed a false reality of the relationship between Indians and white. The people of Squanto tried to pass on the knowledge of Indian agriculture to the pilgrims of Plymouth and Jamestown. However, the settlers’ failure to learn Squanto’s agricultural teaching has forced the colony to rely on food supplies produced by Native farmers. Native crops and farming techniques sustained the early settlements. Furthermore, agriculture was a major factor in the fur trade, serving as the major vehicle for Indian assimilation in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It is evident that as new settlers land on the 'New World,’ Indian agriculture has been manipulated to support white destinies. Issuing the transition from foraging to farming and the dissemination of domestication in the Americas.
Indian farmers served as bare subsistence for white settlers by producing food in quantity. Within four years after Plymouth's arrival, the settlers profited from Indian agriculture and established a relationship that dominated Indian-white contacts. “Indian agriculture accounted for over 65 percent of the native population’s diet and surplus production for trade and storage”(Wessel, 10). The reliance on Native farmers during early settlement is reflected in the treatment of Indians. Because settlers depended on Indians to supply food, Indians were treated as a critical role in the development and progress.’ Wessel suggested that Indian agriculture demand “relative peace with close neighbors in the Confederation”(Wessel, 11) and encouraged the expansion of agricultural land. In return, it expanded the Huron trade route and heightened the competition between tribes to gain dominance of the trading system. A relationship was built between the hunting and agricultural people, extending communication from Upper Missouri to the Pueblo plateau in the southwest. As the frontiers pressed for more land, the conflict with Indians and whites arose, specifically during the agricultural year.
The relationship between Indians and whites has shifted from partnership to eradication during the early 1800s. For the first two hundred years of American history, agriculture was primary in the woodlands area. Native growers understood the balance of agricultural production with sustainability. Historically, Indians throughout the Americas bred varieties of plant seeds specific to the growing conditions of their region. A popular practice was interplanting corn, beans, and squash, also known as the three sisters, to produce abundant harvests that had sustained Native communities and encouraged fruitful trade economies. As Euro-Americans settled permanently in the 1800s, they imposed policies that nearly eradicated three sister agriculture and other Native farming practices. The fundamental role of Indian agriculture was no longer suitable to meet the demands of white settlers and threatened the federal government. In 1779, General George Washington ordered John Sullivan to destroy Iroquois growing crops and to ensure the crops' inability to be replanted. “Persistent destruction of Indian fields reduced many tribes to relying almost exclusively on the hunt and conforming to a life whites insisted the Indian savages represented”(Wessel, 14). The success of Indians in the fur trade and farming influenced land-grabbing schemes of frontier governors who found no value in Indians. By the time technological innovation came into wide use, the federal government persistently pushed policies to affect the metamorphosis of Indians. With the lack of governmental representation of Indians, the notion concluded the savagery of the Indians and supported the frontier’s belief that they were the vanguard of civilization.
In 1830 President Andrew Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act, allowing the removal of Native peoples from their home location onto subpar lands. The federal government enforced Euro-American style monoculture onto Natives to limit the production and success of Native communities. An agricultural program for Indians was established to confine to individually held plots and instruction and ‘aid’ in agriculture. Allotment policies were confined to small plots, further limiting Indian’s access to land and preventing them from practicing communal farming. The cultivation was limited to nothing larger than small garden plots. The allotment displaced Indians on infertile areas, meanwhile white-owned-and-operated farms reside on what was once Indian land. The U.S. government was pushing Indian assimilation toward anglicized farmers and upholding white destinies ideals. Native children were forced to attend boarding schools, where they are unable to learn Native agriculture techniques and foods. These children were forced to eat Western food, supporting the white values that were held.
Agriculture remains to be a major source of the United States economy. However, the effects of dissemination of domesticates and colonialism are evident in today’s indigenous communities as suggested by their economic mobility. Indian tribes are land-rich but lack economic opportunities, therefore, agriculture plays an important role in their financial stability. Although native-led farms are twice the size of other farms in the U.S., their sales are three times smaller. The Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Indian Affairs has underserved Indian farmers, forcing tribal nations to seek alternative methods to find funding. There has to be a revision in the existing agricultural program for Indians, one of which is the Federally Recognized Tribes Extension Program (FRTEP). The FRTEP funding is insufficient because of its instability and inconsistency to provide funding to all marginalized Indian farmers. It is also evident that the transition from native farming to agrarian has worsened the soil condition and increased desertification. This opens up the debate on how well agricultural science and technology have performed in increasing agricultural production and alleviation of world hunger.
In the article Using Indigenous Knowledge to Improve Agriculture and Natural Resource Management, Billie R. DeWalt explores the strengths and weaknesses of both scientific and indigenous knowledge systems. DeWalt states that the role of social scientists can interlink both systems to ensure a more sustainable agricultural approach. He emphasizes that biological scientists have to work with social scientists to articulate possible technologies and policies required to make this transition, assuring that small farmers and marginalized groups will equally benefit. Given the world’s growing population, it is necessary to develop land-intensive strategies and labor demanding to build employment opportunities.
The impact of colonialism and white dominance has negatively impacted the wellbeing of Indians and worsened Earth’s natural system. The transition of partnership to eradication represents the self-interest of white settlers. There’s a calling for change in America’s agricultural system to adopt sustainable practices that uplift native farming methods and minimise environmental harm. Indian’s practices have been dismissed and neglected since the permanent settlement of euro-american settlers. Modern agriculture has to take into consideration the native wisdom to ensure a sustainable future.
DeWALT, B. (1994). Using Indigenous Knowledge to Improve Agriculture and Natural Resource Management. Human Organization, 53(2), 123-131. Retrieved March 2, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/44126875
Wessel, T. (1976). Agriculture, Indians, and American History. Agricultural History, 50(1), 9-20. Retrieved March 2, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3741903
