February 2014 – Page 3 – American Environments to 1893

February 14, 2014

Chigaco: Another Forest of the Wilderness

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

William Cronon’s Nature’s Metropolis Chicago and The Great West he introduces an interesting set of theories referred to as “booster theories.” These ideas comment on the fact that Chicago would become a great city because of its natural resources, thereby making it the center of trade for the region, its extensive natural routes of transportation, and finally, the global climatic forces that mysteriously made great cities (36). The existence of these theories and the way they are framed by Cronon illustrates an interesting argument for cities being a part of nature. Through these theories, it seems as though it was pre-destined for a city to inhabit these regions, alluding to an idea that God or some other force(s) crafted the region for this specific purpose. It all falls back to the question of if cities are a part of nature, just another “natural” development, or if they are something alien? Through Cronon’s descriptions of these theories, further elaborating on the perfect natural setting for a city, it seems as though he casts his hand with those who perceive cities as the next evolution of a natural ecosystem.

Cronon makes an interesting statement in his description of the rise of Chicago, one which frames the city as something almost organic. In relation to the countryside around the city, Cronon states that it would be “tributary” to give Chicago its new empire (43). I found it a little odd to describe the city in such a way, but when positioning this statement with Cronon’s previous ideas on the city as the next ecological evolution, it makes sense. If the city is part of nature, then it is in fact a “living” piece of the ecosystem, one which requires the resources to continue its existence. From this perspective, the vast country side that surrounds this great metropolis seems only logical as the “food” to help this city grow. Though many would disagree with this interpretation of a city, it is not too far off from our common conceptions of nature, where we often cast the neutral force as evil or against human existence.

I think by looking at Henry’s post on Cronon’s definition of nature, we gain a more concrete understanding of why he frames Chicago as something part of nature. After reading through Henry’s comments, I completely agree with his assessment of Cronon’s perception of natural as “something that seems to be in its normal place” (Henry). So many perceive nature to be something void of human contact and interference, yet there is probably no location on Earth that has not been inhabited by humans at some point in time. Though a city is a massive technological feat, with numerous components encompassing its complex, it can still just be viewed as the next step along ecological evolution, just like the human creation of the boat. If the land around Chicago made it a viable location for the construction of a city, who is to say that this is wrong or against nature? By using nature’s resources for various purposes, could it not be said that humans are simply doing as other animals doing in providing sustenance and shelter for their existence? Though I am sure these questions will lead to numerous amounts of critiques, it is something to think about when articulating a moral argument against human “alteration” of nature.

February 14, 2014

Final Paper Topic

“The Anthracite Alliances: Ethnic Divides in Northeastern Pennsylvania Coal Fields, 1850-1875”

While coal mining had existed in the United States since the early nineteenth century, the development of railroads and the rapid growth of American cities during the middle of the century heightened demand for coal. Anthracite coal fields were found in Northeastern Pennsylvania, and several coal mining companies emerged in this region. The plethora of jobs available as coal miners brought many American immigrants to Pennsylvania, and an ethnic partition of the region quickly ensued as the coal fields came to be dominated by men from Ireland, Wales, Italy, Germany, as well as a host of other European nations. Additionally, canals were carved out of the Pennsylvania landscape in order for mine companies to transport coal into cities like Philadelphia and New York. In my research, I hope to potentially answer some historical questions that arise from these events. I would like to discover how the rapid development of the coal region shaped the social dynamic of the anthracite region, and whether any racial tensions emerged between different ethnic groups, or even between miners and mine owners of different ethnicities. I might also like to find out how the creation of canals in Pennsylvania altered the landscape – both literally and demographically – and how it affected people – perhaps Native Americans – who were previously living on the land. In order to answer these questions, I would try to use a wealth of newspaper articles from the mid-nineteenth century to see how the attraction of coal created divided communities. I could also strive to find correspondence between mine or railroad owners. Lastly, I might like to find any foreign newspapers published at the time not only to learn about the sentiments of the groups of the anthracite region but also to signify the importance of ethnic connections in the coal fields.

February 14, 2014

Final Paper Topic

Daniel Boone and the Appeal of Kentucky Bluegrass: The 1775 Expedition through the Cumberland Gap

Daniel Boone is most well known for his westward exploration of North America. In particular, Boone is often associated with leading settlers from North Carolina and Tennessee through the Cumberland Gap and into Kentucky in 1775. This exploration, however, was not his first foray into Kentucky and the previous journeys had ended in failure. Nevertheless, Boone and others continued to return to Kentucky in spite of Native American threats and violent actions toward Americans. In order to gain a better understanding of why Boone persisted in his attempts to settle Kentucky, it is necessary to determine how the perceived fertility of the land led whites to view the Native Americans’ hunting culture as unworthy of inhabiting such promising agricultural territory. Another important aspect in understanding Boone’s migration is ascertaining how much he viewed the settlement of Kentucky as part of Americans’ rights to the entirety of the North American continent. In order to answer these questions the writings and journals of Daniel Boone and other earlier settlers will be useful, as well as other prominent Americans writing on expansion.

February 14, 2014

Final Paper Topic

Out of Place, In Place: American Utopian Communities and Their Environments, 1830-1890

The number and prominence of utopian communities in America grew during the middle of the nineteenth century. The founders and members of the communities had ideas about the alternative ways of life, and those ideas necessitated living apart from the rest of the country. I hope to explore the ways the members of these communities interacted with and thought about the natural environments where they chose to live. The following historical questions will direct my research. What ideas did members of utopian communities have about their natural environments and their relationships with those environments? What role did ideals of “living close to the land” play in the formation of these communities? How did members of utopian communities practically interact with their environments? Are there any tensions between the ways members of utopian communities thought about and practically lived in their environments? If so, what were those tensions between thinking and living? I expect to use diaries, letters, and periodicals as primary sources for my paper. These sources will give insight into the daily lives of community members as well as insight into their ideas about the communities.

February 14, 2014

Redefining Nature in Cronon’s Argument

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.

February 13, 2014

Final Paper Topic

America’s Last Great Beast: The Bison and Their Hunters

For my paper, I plan on studying the different ways the bison were perceived and interacted with by both Native Americans and American Pioneers/Americans. Through this research, I will compare the similarities and differences between the two people and their interactions with these creatures, noting any cultural norms, economic significance, as well as any other factors that contribute to the way they saw/used the bison. In terms of a time frame, as of now most of the 19^th century is open to explore, but I will most likely narrow this period down as my research accumulates. There are a number of questions I hope to answer through this study regarding the various perceptions of these creatures. Naturally, what differences existed between the ways the American Indians interacted with the bison compared to their human counter parts of American Pioneers and other American citizens? Did the perceptions and interactions with the bison for both sets of people change over time, or did their views generally remain the same even with a dwindling population? Were there different perceptions and usages of the bison in different regions of the West for both parties, i.e. Northwest vs Southwest? Finally, was the destruction of the bison a necessary side-effect of human progress, or was it simply another way to stifle Native lifestyle in an attempt to integrate their people into Anglo American culture? In order to answer these questions, a number of different types of sources addressing both American and Native American perspectives will need to be analyzed. In terms of the American perspective, I believe newspapers from western towns would be a great place to find out some information on their ideas of the bison. Though they will be more difficult to find, any comments made in speeches or memoirs by Native American chiefs will do wonders to display their relationships with this magnificent creatures. Furthermore, by potentially looking at any records of trade or advertisements in newspapers, it will be clear what economic values the bison might have had for white individuals in particular, but also the Native Americans.

February 12, 2014

William Cronon’s Changes in the Land

In Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England, Cronon uses a two-pronged approach to understand how the ecological and cultural changes in New England during colonization. The changes in modes of production between Indian and European dominance are central to his thesis, which contends that the complex ecological and cultural relationships are tied directly to the influence of capitalism in early America. Capitalism drove the most robust changes in not only how the Europeans treated and organized the land, but also how the New England Indians reacted to these changes. Though, “capitalism and environmental degradation went hand in hand,” Cronon makes it a point to show that the Indians also shaped their environment, for better or for worse, just as the Europeans did. (14)

To construct an ecological history, the backbone of evidence came from descriptions made by travelers and naturalists. Part of the difficulty in using this wealth of information was judging both their naturalist skills and ideological commitments. (6) Also, the patchwork nature of local descriptions means they cannot be perfectly representative of a regional landscape. Another source is court, town, or legislative records, but they are more vague. However, these can still be used for relatively accurate accounts of deforestation, the keeping of livestock, conflicts between Indians and colonists over property boundaries, the extermination of predators such as wolves, and similar matters.

For Cronon, part of the challenge of writing this book was using ecological evidence outside of the historical discipline. For example, Ecologists have analyzed tree rings, charcoal deposits, rotting trunks and stumps to discover the history of New England woodlands. (7) Archaeological evidence can be used to assess human interactions with their environment over time. He does a very convincing job at seamlessly weaving the different disciplines together.

Changes in the Land is split into six different sections pertaining to the ecological transformations of New England. The first section focuses on Indian manipulation of the landscape before European contact. He emphasizes that while Europeans first encountering New England believed that they were seeing forests and habitats unchanged by humans, the environment had in fact been modified by the same people for over 10,000 years. Rather than being passive beneficiaries of a virgin landscape, the Indians (and later the Europeans) “sought to give their landscape a new purposefulness, often by simplifying its seemingly chaotic tangle.”(33) The most significant instance of this was the practice of periodically burning the underbrush to make the topography more manageable on foot. The Indians of Southern New England also practiced agriculture, resulting in an ecological patchwork.

The periodicity of New England’s temperate ecosystem resulted in a mobile way of life for the Indians. However, “English fixity sought to replace Indian mobility.”(53) The Indian way resulted in more ephemeral housing and landscape alterations. When the English settled in what were empty settlements, the Indians returned with the season to find the place they knew was gone. The conflict was over two ways of living and using the seasons of the year, and it expressed itself in how two peoples conceived of property, wealth, and boundaries on the landscape.

The landscape was directly affected by different concepts of property and ownership. The Indian idea of property involved co-ownership, or basically no ownership, and resulted in open forests pockmarked by communal fields tended by the women. The English idea of ownership introduced hedges and fences, and established roads and massive pastures for domesticated animals. The deforestation that went along with the English concept of property ownership and land usage changed the ecosystem where it occurred drastically. The English saw it as the “progress of cultivation” rather than deforestation. (126)

The commodification of resources in New England based on capitalist principles not only brought colonists in large enough numbers to transfer epidemic diseases, but also changed how the Indians hunted. Before the introduction of a demand for furs, Indians took only what they needed because a mobile lifestyle did not lend itself to accumulation of wealth. This created needs and wants which were not present in the Indian mode of production before.

Cronon, William. Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. New York: Hill and Wang, 1983.

February 9, 2014

Humans as Actors in Nature: Ecological Imperialism

After reading Alfred Crosby’s Ecological Imperialism and considering his argument, I am beginning to question the ways we defined and the ways we look at nature during our last class meeting. I am specifically struggling with the idea that Reed Noss suggests; Wilderness can manage land better than we can. After reading Noss’s argument I basically accepted it without much though. Nature, if given true-self determination always seems to find a way to persist and thrive. When looking at the effect of Human’s on nature it is difficult to think of a completely positive one. However, Crosby shows that in many ways, “Nature” acts as imperialists just like humans. He cites McNeill’s law and the importance of microbial diseases as “invaders” and “conquerors.” Crosby elaborates, arguing that an invading organism can decimate an invaded region to the point that they render the old ecosystem vulnerable or actually take over the environment and inhabit it. By personifying these organisms, Crosby is bridging the gap between humans and nature. He may even be suggesting that perhaps humans are just another actor in nature. Obviously we have an effect on the world around us, but what if we are actually just another “invader” or “conqueror” of what we perceive as Nature. McNeill’s law and Crosby’s nature suggests that humans are just another actor in the process of nature. Humans and our conception of “nature” are effected by each other in the same way that a type of animal from one country can be infected by an invading disease form another.

Crosby continues to challenge this idea with his discussion of the Aboriginal peoples of Australia. Crosby contends that the “first wave” of Aboriginal people to Australia were instrumental in the eventual settling of it. He argues that the people killed off or otherwise displaced a number of species of megafauna that were native to the country. By killing these animals they created new ecological opportunities and places for new settlers to inhabit. Were these “first wave” aboriginals just one form of an inevitable organism that would have killed these animals or destroyed their environment? Did we just accomplish what “nature” itself would have done anyways? While there is obviously no way to know

I would use this idea to respond to (iasolcz)’s previous discussion on the spread of disease. He argues that the spread of disease is not only perceived as a negative occurrence. Sometimes disease can be beneficial to an invading party, particularly if the party is trying to take over or displace an indigenous population. By looking at disease in this way we can continue to reshape the way we perceive nature and our relationship with it. While humans do carry diseases and spread them, animal can do the same. Rats in particular were the initial cause of the bubonic plague. If we bridge the gap between humans and our conception of nature, we can argue that humans are just another actor in the spread of diseases and the destruction of populations.

February 9, 2014

Weeds – Europe’s Miracle Gro?

At first daunted at the task of reading about “The Biological Expansion of Europe,” I was pleased to find Crosby’s Ecological Imperialism an enlightening read about the “biogeographical advantages” Europeans held in their conquest of the “New World” (5). Within the book, Crosby investigates the success of what he calls “the portmanteau biota” of Europe, and explains that while humans were largely responsible for the spread of this biota, the success of European ecological imperialism was “a team effort” by plants, animals, humans, and even diseases throughout the “Neo-Europes” of the world (293).

I found Crosby’s argument about weeds the most interesting in this work. Crosby asserts that weeds were critical in the development of Neo-Europes, despite their perceived uselessness by settlers. I was convinced by Crosby that weeds were integral to creating a suitable environment for the portmanteau biota particularly because the encroachment of these foreign weeds upon (mainly) America and Australia was an injection of the Old World’s flora in the New World’s land. While the presence of these often-agitating plants may have disgruntled European agriculturalists, these weeds were consumed by the livestock that were also brought from Europe. Thus, these plants were likely familiar fare for the chickens and pigs that were brought to the New World, and could have contributed to their near immediate success in new lands. Weeds became especially important as land was overgrazed by cattle and overused by farmers in Central America in the sixteenth century (151-152).

Because weeds were opportunistic plants – as Crosby asserts – they grew rapidly in disturbed and nutrient deprived lands. Comparing weeds in the New World to the modern Red Cross, Crosby argues that weeds kept otherwise arid soils stable for the planting of crops in the future (168-169). With respect to my colleagues, I would like to add to Ian’s post about Europeans manipulating the land “towards their directives.” While Ian focused on the intentional shaping of the land for profit in examples like Australia and the production of sugar, I think Crosby also demonstrates the sheer luck Europeans had in establishing Neo-Europes. The presence of European weeds in the New World allowed many farmers to continue planting the same lands season after season. Without any knowledge on behalf of the farmers, the weeds were also helping to manipulate lands to theses farmers’ directives year after year. Without this inadvertent import from Old World European culture, the agricultural successes of the Neo-Europes may never have occurred.

I also appreciated Crosby’s definition of a “weed,” and I enjoyed how he employed the term throughout the rest of his work. According to Crosby, weeds spread rapidly and fought against other plants. They are not always disliked, and they are not always harrowing to the other organisms around them. (149-150). He notes that weeds are “colonizing plants,” similar in many ways to the colonizing European imperialists (170). Additionally, near the end of his book he concludes that the expansion of Europe was due in large part to weeds. “Weeds, in the broadest sense of the word,” Crosby argues, “are more characteristic of the biotas of the lands anciently affected by the Old World Neolithic than any others” (292). With this quote in mind, weeds were truly characteristic of the settlers that brought them to the New World – these humans were opportunistic, fought aggressively for their land, and were often (but perhaps mistakenly) seen as a torment by those who could not get rid of them.

February 9, 2014

The Environmental Story of European Expansion

A major theme of Alfred Crosby’s work Ecological Imperialism is the merging of human societies from the “Old World” and natives living in the neo-Europes. Crosby discusses the intersection of separate human cultures as well as the introduction of new animal and plant species into unsuspecting habitats. The role that disease played in the European conquest of the New World is well documented by Crosby, but he also provides an explanation for the proliferation of Old World animals in North America. Old World animals experienced more success and expansion in the neo-Europes than did the animals of the neo-Europes in the Old World. According to Crosby, this is because the Old World animals were able to fill a vacated niche in the New World ecosystems. Crosby argues the large animals, such as mammoths, that evolved in the absence of humans were not prepared to hide and defend themselves from hunters and thus were easily eliminated by the human civilizations that crossed the ice bridge and entered North America. This in turn created an opening that was filled by grazing animals of the Old World such as cows, horses, and sheep (278). The terrific success of Old World animals in North America had always baffled me and gone largely un-discussed in previous works I read on the expansion of Europeans into North America. Crosby’s argument, however, provides an explanation that I find quite compelling.

Another interesting aspect of Crosby’s book is the difference between the Europeans and the natives in their willingness to join together to fend off a foreign threat. In the lands that eventually became New Zealand and Australia, the natives were at first unwilling to unite their tribes to defend the land against the Europeans. Crosby mentions that some tribes even aided the Europeans in their efforts to exterminate other tribes on the islands. Eventually they joined together, but not until it was too late to defeat the Europeans. While disease and immunity obviously factors largely into the eventual success of European expansion, I believe Crosby underemphasizes the importance of having a common goal. The Europeans, in sailing to and establishing themselves in new lands, shared the common goal of spreading European society. Natives, on the other hand, often times did not realize the importance of their encounter with the Europeans or the Europeans’ intentions until it was too late. Had the natives understood that the Europeans endangered their society and their best chance of resistance was to unite with other tribes, perhaps European expansion would have played out differently.

As far as the field of environmental history, I completely agree with Sean’s assessment that Ecological Imperialism “took away any doubts I may have had about environmental history as a field of study.” Crosby wrote on a topic, European expansion, that I have heard about and studied many times. His approach, however, was completely unique from anything else I have read about colonization. Disease and environmental factors were always mentioned as aspects of European expansion, but never were they the main focus. Crosby’s work told a compelling story of European expansion sculpted and shaped by environmental and ecological factors.