Jun 3, 2023·edited Jun 3, 2023Liked by Terry Glavin
Enjoyed so much I subscribed in order to encourage more historical content. Politics, like the poor, are always with us. But these true stories from our shared past add immense richness to our lives.
What a great read. So much better getting an informative and compelling history than the same old pablum served up by nightly television news in their own own quest to foster reconciliation. This was excellent and I hope you have the time for more in the future. Also a nice respite from the present everyday news that is often more alarming than informative. I’m not sure what is passed off as history in schools today but this should be part of the curriculum. Compelling without preaching.
I knew about camas but not as much as you clearly. I appreciate this for two reasons: it gives us all more background as to what happened to the FN societies thanks to spread (almost entirely unintentional) of Europeandiseases. It also quite frankly gives you a credibility level when it comes to your knowledge and insight into the “other” topics you “bang on” about. Topics and perspective I did not expect from you, knowing your previous stances. Your insight is exquisite and you make my day every time I read one of your contributions.
Another page in the camas history book occurred on Wieppe Prairie, Idaho in 1805 when the Nez Perce treated the starving Lewis and Clark expedition to a nourishing meal. Lewis left detailed botanical notes, including a recipe.
The development of an agrarian lifestyle tends to bring private property in its wake. This is because agrarian activities typically require security of tenure so that the fruits of agrarian labour can be enjoyed by the ones who invest that labour. The general principle is that property becomes privatized when the cost of internalizing externalities is lower than the benefit (i.e. the benefit outweighs the cost). The cost of fencing in the prairies was high relative to the benefits of containing the buffalo, so it was not done. By contrast, when beaver pelts became valuable, the cost of defending a territory where beavers flourished was lower than the value to be obtained from trapping the pelts. SO: to the extent that pre-contact aboriginals were agrarian, they had also abandoned the state of nature with respect to land resources. Both myths have to be rejected if one is.
(Note that 'private property' is a relative concept. We normally think of *individual* private property, which is rare even in a developed post-industrial state. Most property is owned jointly. e.g. by a married couple, or in the form of a joint-stock company. A municipal park or public school is owned by the community, which has the right to exclude non-members of the community. Coastal waters are owned by the nearest country (up to 200 miles), which gives that country the right to exclude non-citizens from its use or enjoyment. Most pre-contact aboriginal resources were communally owned private property: they defended their territories from invaders. Some properties were owned by families, as Terry notes. Black-and-white thinking about "private property" and why it arises is the root of all manner of error.)
Terry, it WAS a welcome break! May you be banging on for years and years to come. Your blog is hands-down the most jaw-dropping and worthwhile out there imo.
Terry Glavin at his very best. I originally subscribed because I consider The Last Great Sea a terrific book and a primer for understanding the concept of eco-systems. A great way to start a Saturday morning. Thank you.
Great article Terry. Damn, yet another reason we need to teach actual history. Comparing the housing of northern Straits Salish to say the Inuit (Eskimo in old history books) really cements the difference between hunter/gatherer and hunter/gatherer/cultivator. The Inuit lived in temporary/portable homes; Igloos (snow) and skin houses. This is because they needed to chase their food sources and needed to easily change location. Contrast this the northern Straits Salish who built large permanent dwellings because they were cultivating multiple food sources and didn't need to move to eat.
This piece was worth the subscription price alone. Would welcome any more like it that you feel like writing.
You’re a bullcrap-code breaker. Thanks for this fascinating piece.
Thanks Terry. We need more stories like this.
An excellent story. My son did his Master's Thesis on First Nation History on Vancouver Island... what eye opener. Thank you for reminding all of us.
Enjoyed so much I subscribed in order to encourage more historical content. Politics, like the poor, are always with us. But these true stories from our shared past add immense richness to our lives.
What a great read. So much better getting an informative and compelling history than the same old pablum served up by nightly television news in their own own quest to foster reconciliation. This was excellent and I hope you have the time for more in the future. Also a nice respite from the present everyday news that is often more alarming than informative. I’m not sure what is passed off as history in schools today but this should be part of the curriculum. Compelling without preaching.
I knew about camas but not as much as you clearly. I appreciate this for two reasons: it gives us all more background as to what happened to the FN societies thanks to spread (almost entirely unintentional) of Europeandiseases. It also quite frankly gives you a credibility level when it comes to your knowledge and insight into the “other” topics you “bang on” about. Topics and perspective I did not expect from you, knowing your previous stances. Your insight is exquisite and you make my day every time I read one of your contributions.
Thanks. Helps to fill in some big gaps for me.
I throughly enjoyed! 👏
A whole universe of life on the coast neglected or forgotten by historians, except Nancy Turner. Thank you!
Another page in the camas history book occurred on Wieppe Prairie, Idaho in 1805 when the Nez Perce treated the starving Lewis and Clark expedition to a nourishing meal. Lewis left detailed botanical notes, including a recipe.
The development of an agrarian lifestyle tends to bring private property in its wake. This is because agrarian activities typically require security of tenure so that the fruits of agrarian labour can be enjoyed by the ones who invest that labour. The general principle is that property becomes privatized when the cost of internalizing externalities is lower than the benefit (i.e. the benefit outweighs the cost). The cost of fencing in the prairies was high relative to the benefits of containing the buffalo, so it was not done. By contrast, when beaver pelts became valuable, the cost of defending a territory where beavers flourished was lower than the value to be obtained from trapping the pelts. SO: to the extent that pre-contact aboriginals were agrarian, they had also abandoned the state of nature with respect to land resources. Both myths have to be rejected if one is.
(Note that 'private property' is a relative concept. We normally think of *individual* private property, which is rare even in a developed post-industrial state. Most property is owned jointly. e.g. by a married couple, or in the form of a joint-stock company. A municipal park or public school is owned by the community, which has the right to exclude non-members of the community. Coastal waters are owned by the nearest country (up to 200 miles), which gives that country the right to exclude non-citizens from its use or enjoyment. Most pre-contact aboriginal resources were communally owned private property: they defended their territories from invaders. Some properties were owned by families, as Terry notes. Black-and-white thinking about "private property" and why it arises is the root of all manner of error.)
Terry, it WAS a welcome break! May you be banging on for years and years to come. Your blog is hands-down the most jaw-dropping and worthwhile out there imo.
More!!
Terry Glavin at his very best. I originally subscribed because I consider The Last Great Sea a terrific book and a primer for understanding the concept of eco-systems. A great way to start a Saturday morning. Thank you.
Great article Terry. Damn, yet another reason we need to teach actual history. Comparing the housing of northern Straits Salish to say the Inuit (Eskimo in old history books) really cements the difference between hunter/gatherer and hunter/gatherer/cultivator. The Inuit lived in temporary/portable homes; Igloos (snow) and skin houses. This is because they needed to chase their food sources and needed to easily change location. Contrast this the northern Straits Salish who built large permanent dwellings because they were cultivating multiple food sources and didn't need to move to eat.