Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
In Nature’s Metropolis, the thing that struck me most was how from extremely early on, people seemed absolutely certain that Chicago was destined to become the great metropolis of the American West. We know that for two reasons. The first is economic; Cronon says that the 1830s was a period of ultra-lucrative land speculation, with the area that would become Chicago at the center. He references lots in the area being bought for $29 in 1829 and selling for over $100,000 just four years later. (29) Such an enormous jump in value clearly indicates that people in real estate saw big things in that area’s future. The other way we know Americans’ high hopes for Chicago was simpler—they said it. Cronon quotes 1830s real estate investor Charles Butler as saying the city was “marked for greatness” because the natural features around it made it a great nexus of trade and shipping. (34) So, Chicago’s natural features were the reason Americans saw such bright possibilities for its future. However, it would obviously take decidedly unnatural processes, namely the building of railroads and a canal, to realize Chicago’s potential.
At first, this point made me a bit doubtful in terms of how it supported Cronon’s central argument as presented in the prologue. As I understand it thus far, Cronon’s thesis is that Chicago is the perfect example of how the ideas of city and nature are not exclusive to one another. He seems to be arguing that the city is a part of nature. My initial reaction while reading about the speculation as to Chicago’s bright future was to wonder how true Cronon’s thesis could be given that, while natural features were important to Chiacgo’s value, it would take a radical changing of nature through the building of manmade structures for the metropolis to take form. How natural could the city remain if its existence was predicated on imposing things like railroads on the natural landscape? After grappling with that question for a bit, I came to realize that an important feature of Cronon’s argument was his redefinition of “nature” or “natural.” People generally take nature to refer to features of the earth that are there independent of any manmade processes. However, to Cronon, saying that something is “natural” means it is referring to something that seems to be in its normal place. When he refers to the city, the railroads, or the canal as natural, he means that the people of the time saw those things as proper—they felt they should be there and the reasons for that were practically self-evident given the already existing natural (in the more general definition) features of the land. Understanding that redefinition of “nature” is vital to understanding Cronon’s argument.