March 2014 – Page 4 – American Environments to 1893

March 16, 2014

War Upon the Land: The Differing Perceptions of Nature by the North and the South

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

There can be no doubt that wilderness played a very important role in the American Civil War. Lisa M. Brady’s War Upon the Land focuses on nature’s role in the conflict and the differing conceptions of nature by the North and the South. In order to understand this difference a definition of nature is needed. Brady utilizes Steven Stole’s definition in her narrative. Wilderness is “defined places and times when humans did not yet control their environment or where they had lost control.” This definition is similar to one that Brandon put forward in his post when analyzing the perspectives presented in Robert Marshall’s essay. “The Problem of the Wilderness,” is an area without permanent inhabitants, impossible to cross by mechanical means, and so vast that a person attempting to cross it must sleep out. In short, the wilderness is an escape from civilization.”

Both these definitions are very similar in that they portray nature as something that is separate from human control. While humans can interact with nature they cannot ever tame it. For my purposes I see nature as its own person. When considering the Civil War there is the Union and the Confederacy but I believe that nature/ wilderness is a third party that played an integral role in the struggle. This would be an idea that Brady would appear to agree with. Nature would fill a role similar to American Indians during the Revolutionary War, a group that had their own interests separate from the two main parties.

What I believe to be one of Brady’s most important arguments is the idea that the North and the South had dramatically different perceptions of wilderness and this reflected each regions placed importance on the agriculture and the land in general. For the Union Army, led by General Sherman, the land was something that was destined to be tamed and controlled. This mindset was reflected throughtout the war with Grant’s army and their refusal to abide by the limitations that nature placed. “Even more than reenvisioning the landscape in military terms, however, Sherman’s operations were predicated on gaining control over the landscape. Control- over nature, labor, and territory- formed the basis of the campaign.” (95) In some ways this mindset could be the result of northern industrialism where every aspect of the culture was controlled and able to be manipulated. The land itself was very much undervalued and the concepts of civilization led many to see anything “uncivilized” as an opportunity to civilize and demonstrate industrial strength over agriculture. Could this also be a reflection of Union exceptionalism?

On the other side the Southern states reliance on the land led to a very different relationship with nature. They did not see it as something that simply could be controlled. Their close interactions with nature made them understand that the best benefits could be contrived when living in harmony with nature instead of trying to overcome it. Those living in Vicksburg understood this idea. Where the Union Army tried to change the Mississippi River’s flow, the confederates understood that this was impossible and that was a major reason why Vicksburg was located where it was. The city of Savannah was another city that was built in harmony with nature. As a result nature provided the city many natural defenses that allowed the confederates to hold out for a considerable amount of time.

It is clear that the north and the south held very different perceptions on nature. Unfortunately, the North prevailed through their destruction of the land. The south was greatly devastetd for their reliance on nature was so great that they had failed to establish indpendent means for survival. Still despite the North’s victory, the Union still failed to understand the true identity of nature. While protectionism grew in the later part of the 19th century, most in the north never understood the benefits of living with nature instead of trying to isolate it through a paternalist mindset. In some ways this failure to understand coexistence may have set the US on the path of greater environmental destruction through unsustainable means being justified by the fact that a limited part of nature was being protected.

March 10, 2014

Collective Memory of the Frontier

The study of memory and its effects on people is becoming a rapidly growing field in the Historical community. Specifically, the study of ‘collective memory’ is becoming much more prominent. The keystone work on this subject is written by a French philosopher named Maurice Hawlbachs. His thesis is that a culture or a society can actually have a group memory that is dependent on the framework in which the society is constructed. He argues that society is full of not just individual memories, but a separate collective memory. Hawlbachs looks particularly about how societies remember episodes of tragedy and trauma. This memory is crucial in forming a national identity.

I believe this thesis can be used to add to Richard Slotkin’s chapter on Myth and Historical Memory. In fact, I believe that you can use Hawlbachs thesis in conjunction with Frederick Jackson Turner’s frontier thesis to help explain why Custer’s Last Stand is mythologized so much in our culture. The Myth of the Frontier is the longest living American myth according to Slotkin. I believe the Frontier Thesis is back this argument up. The ideological underpinnings of the frontier such as “manifest destiny” and “social Darwinism” have helped lay the frameworks for the framework of our culture. Slotkin points to the “laws of capitalist competition” and the system of supply and demand as direct results of the Myth of the Frontier. These ideologies don’t just effect the construction of our society, they also effect our collective memory.

The way we remember Custer’s Last Stand is crucial to our national identity not only because it was fought against Indians, but because it was fought in the new territory of Montana. I believe the environment that the battle was fought in is just as important as the people it was fought against. The fact that the battle took lace in what was considered the frontier at the time is probably what made this such a lasting memory and such an important part of shaping our national identity. I also believe that the time period is another important factor. Custer’s Last Stand occurred right at the end of the Reconstruction period. The country was desperately trying to find a new nationally identity after the devastation of the Civil War. Having a shared memory that all Americans could draw on had to help in this process. Slotkin argues that a term like “last stand” of “frontier” are not historical references. Rather they are metaphors that implicitly connect the events or places they are describing to a value system. In this sense, Custer last Stand is more than just a historical event because of the way we remember it as a nation.

This chapter also compliments Ian’s post on the Literature of the Environment. Ian’s discussion is very similar to mine about how people remember and wrote about their travels on the frontier. There are different individual narratives and reasons for each person who traveled to the frontier. However, as a collective memory, we often just attribute the same reasons for everyone such as manifest destiny. Slotkin’s work ultimately shows the power and the danger of collective memory.

March 10, 2014

The Fatal Flaw of The Fatal Environment

After reading Slotkin’s The Fatal Environment, I was impressed but unconvinced with Slotkin’s concept of the “Frontier Myth.” While Slotkin provides an extremely thorough examination of how the “myth” of the frontier has been molded to explain Westward expansion, I think the breadth of his work makes some parts of his narrative superfluous.

Much like Ian, I found Slotkin’s Part III – “The Metropolis vs. The Frontier” to be one of his most effective sections. I would like to add to Ian’s analysis that while Slotkin argues that “humanity does in fact exist in nature,” I think Slotkin also believes that in the minds of nineteenth century American industrialists, humans were very separate from nature (iasolcz). This is seen in “The Language of the Frontier Myth” when Slotkin discusses the dispossession of Native Americans. While arguing that Indians were human despite white industrialist ideas that assumed otherwise, Slotkin outlines nature as something “primarily inhuman” (79). He asserts that throughout the Indian wars and American industrialization, the myth emerged that an inherent struggle existed between this inhuman realm and that of human “civilization,” and that it was this conflict that fueled tensions during Westward expansion (79).

Additionally, Part III set the framework for the remainder of Slotkin’s narrative by juxtaposing both perceptions of the frontier in popular culture – as found in many of Cooper’s novels – and the expansion of democracy and politics to the West with the idea of a separate, civilized “Metropolis” that dominated American culture (109-110). I thought this section was particularly interesting because it covered similar topics to our previous readings, particularly Turner’s “Frontier Thesis.” Unlike Turner, however, Slotkin emphasizes the expansion of the frontier as a result of the specific economic, political, and national concerns that emerged within the Metropolis. For example, he ties the spread over the frontier in the 1840s to the increased prevalence of “‘Jacksonian’ ideology” in the early nineteenth century (114).

Slotkin’s section on the railroad also relates to our reading of William Cronon and the development of Chicago in Nature’s Metropolis. Both Slotkin and Cronon emphasize the importance of human actors in bringing change to the environment. They also argue that the development of the railroad and the opening of the frontier was a direct result of the injection of capitalist ideals into the economy –this brings us back to Cronon’s “geography of capitalism” (15, 26). Like Slotkin notes, railroads made access to “nodes of superabundance” increasingly easy (211). However, Slotkin also seems to take Cronon’s analysis one step further and questions whether capitalism might have molded the perception of the railroad opening the frontier. While questions like this are certainly intriguing, this kind of curiosity from Slotkin ultimately turned me away from his narrative. I think these questions detracted too much from an environmental history and instead created a massive study in historical psychology. This was only furthered when Slotkin included his chapters on George Custer. Although the story of Custer’s Last Stand was an effective lens to introduce perceptions of the frontier in the nineteenth century, Slotkin’s perpetuation of the hero myth throughout the book seemed to be a thoughtful, but unnecessary addition to his main argument.

March 9, 2014

The Fatal Environment: White Supremacy and Myth

Myth and history are not mutually exclusive. Richard Slotkin provides his own definition of myth in The Fatal Environment: The Myth of the Frontier in the Age of Industrialization, 1800-1890. “Myths are stories, drawn from history, that have acquired through usage over many generations a symbolizing function that is central to the cultural functioning of the society that produces them,” writes Slotkin. (16) His work rests on the foundation that myth is an essential part of history, shaping, influencing, and molding a culture’s perception of its own history and past. Slotkin’s main thesis revolves around the idea that the glorified myth of the frontier on the eve of the industrial age was in fact a warped vision of the true history of the frontier.

I almost found Slotkin’s argument, though believable, to be repetitive. He argues that the history of the frontier was not a completely romanticized dream, but a story about white supremacy and racial superiority. The doctrine adopted to white man’s treatment of the West revolved around converting savages and suppressing their otherness. Frontier ideology, epitomized by James Fenimore Cooper, “centered on the representation of the history of American development as the confrontation between warring races, Indian and white.” (100) Slotkin then goes on to explain, “In the triumph of the white and the vanishing of the red, the progress of civilization is achieved, in both moral and material terms.” (100) White Americans viewed the conquering of the Indian in the West as an ultimate conquer over nature, for Americans regarded the Indians as an integral part of nature and the wilderness itself. I agree with Ian that “in breaking down Slotkin’s definition, we can see his position in that humanity does in fact exist in nature, as human heroics are allowed to tread there.” In class, we often discuss the possibility that mankind and their workings are as much a part of nature as any other animal. Looking through a twenty-first century lens, I could find support in Slotkin’s work that man is in fact a part of nature and the wilderness. Looking through a nineteenth century looking-glass, however, it might have been hard to consider Native American Indians as “mankind” when they were so often looked upon as savages.

Slotkin’s discussion on the conquering of nature reminds me of different aspects of human nature. Men are afraid of defeat, afraid of destruction. When white Americans sought a controlled nature and suppression of the Indian race, it was due to their fear of the “Custer Complex.” This complex was based off of the drive to conquer men and nature at any cost. Americans feared a defeat similar to the defeat of General George Custer by the Sioux. They also used Custer’s defeat as justification to rid of the Indian population to “protect or avenge the imperiled female.” (377) Slotkin argues that Custer’s defeat became a prominent legend of American West mythology. (14) Not only did the loss become a part of American myth and legend, but also placed itself within a conversation of gender and racial discrimination. Slotkin’s literary and historical approach in his work present interesting arguments in a somewhat unusual way, but his thesis does not extensively add to a new historical argument about white supremacy and oppression.

March 9, 2014

The Flawed Methodology with Mythological History

Richard Slotkin’s The Fatal Environment is a study of the myth of the American frontier, as Slotkin analyzes the myth extensively using 19^th century literature, setting the frontier up as a divider between Metropolises and the native wilderness. The study is convincing enough, but Slotkin runs into the same issue that any historian has when studying a cultural myth: how to prove that the myth had an impact over an entire culture rather than specific sections of society.

This is a problem I encountered while writing my thesis last semester. I attempted to argue that the collapse of the mythological aspect of baseball with the reveal that the Yankee hero Mickey Mantle was an alcoholic and a womanizer, that that helped propel the festering cynicism in the 1960s that began with the JFK, RFK, and MLK assassinations as well as the Vietnam War. As I began researching, I immediately regretted my undertaking, as proving the cultural impact that a myth has over society is not easy. Relative to my study, I tried to argue that because of baseball’s place in American culture, the collapse of the mythology affected the greater American public, yet clearly there were Americans who could care less about baseball, or who could care less about the mythological aspects of the game. For Slotkin, his argument is solid and easy to accept as fact, yet it is also easily contestable because of how he uses literature as representative of American culture. This undertaking is impossible to do completely, as there were sections of society who had no interest in what was happening in the west (and as Henry pointed out, who could not read), yet Slotkin claims that with the literature, the frontier mythology is encompassing of American culture.

This point is reaffirmed in Henry’s below post, as he concurs that just a snapshot of a culture cannot interpret the national consciousness of America. I also did not consider the era, as Henry smartly points out the illiteracy in America made the novels and stories of the time even less influential, further weakening Slotkin’s contention.

Unfortunately for Slotkin, if he lessened his claim and stated instead that the literature had some influence, his argument becomes weak, yet because his claim is encompassing, it is currently flawed. Slotkin does a good job of providing as much evidence as possible, but regardless of how many stories supported his argument, someone could still say that assuming that the frontier mythology represented the whole nation’s consciousness is an over-the-top claim.

While flawed in its methodology, looking past these concerns I found the work rather convincing, and its approach as an environmental history intriguing. Slotkin adds an interesting wrinkle to the definition of nature, as he creates a polarizing distinction between the wilderness full of savage Indians and the metropolis expanding into the wilderness. While creating the distinction, as Ian states below it allows for male heroics within nature, therefore allowing humans as actors within nature.

March 9, 2014

Issues with Slotkin’s Method

In The Fatal Environment, Richard Slotkin examines the way in which a national mythology, built up mostly through literature, contributed to Americans’ beliefs on what constitutes nature versus civilization. As Ian seemed to be driving at in the beginning of his post, Slotkin believes that lots of American literature glorifies as heroic the application of civilized values to the more dangerous, savage nature. For example, according to Slotkin, James Fenimore Cooper’s Leatherstocking Tales, and their main character of Natty Bumpo, represent this theme. Specifically, he believes the character’s dealings with nature and with Native Americans (generally seen as a part of nature rather than civilization) are meant to assert the belief that Americans are entitled to self-government. (89)

My high school offered a mandatory class that blended the study of American literature and history in much the same way as Slotkin does in his book. We studied many classic works of American literature, including the Leatherstocking Tales, to look for certain veins of thought in the American consciousness. It was one of my favorite classes in high school and provided me with great experience in analyzing literature within its historical context. Like Slotkin, I would definitely agree that a work’s literary themes can reveal a lot about people’s thinking in its time. However, I believe the problem is that it is difficult to say the ideas reflected in literature could truly speak for all Americans’ thinking at any given time, and perhaps not even a majority. For example, it is difficult for us to know how many Americans ever read the Leatherstocking Tales. At the time of those books’ release, a significant amount of the American population (mostly non-elite) was not literate. As for those who could read, we cannot really know what percentage of them actually read those books. And, for those who did read them, who is to say that they understood and/or agreed with the books’ themes? Furthermore, it is a bit difficult to say that a handful of authors and newspaper writers had their hands on the pulse of the entire country’s consciousness—in fact, I would argue no one is capable of that. Literature is a great way of understanding the thinking of certain segments of the population, but it is difficult to say just how many people that applies to. In that way, I believe Slotkin opens himself up to some justified criticism.

March 9, 2014

The Literature of the Environment

The Fatal Environment by Richard Slotkin takes an unconventional approach to analyzing environmental history, using the lens of 19^th century myths in literal works and newspapers to hone in on what the frontier truly was. Through his analysis, Slotkin references the debate that we are continually having in class, what is nature and the sub questions that have come with this ongoing debate? Using the Western Frontier as his study of nature, he says “it is divided between two realms: the “Metropolis,” the civilizational center; and the “Wilderness,” into which the heroic energies of the Metropolis are projected (41). In breaking down Slotkin’s definition, we can see his position in that humanity does in fact exist in nature, as human heroics are allowed to tread there. But, he also seems to clearly state that the more sophisticated and advanced members of society leaving the more “primitive” to extend their travels into the unknown and resource filled wilderness, which for him is somewhat synonymous with nature.

Slotkin’s ideas on the west, and thereby nature, being more primitive are further represented in his piece when referencing the classic captivity and hunter narrative that are so prevalent in many 19^th century literary works. In describing this narrative, Slotkin indicates that the frontier was one of “regression” civilized men and women leave contemporary society, and enter- willingly or as captive- a primitive, primal world (63). Though nature under Slotkin’s school of thought does contain a human hand, it also represents a digression from the promise of industrialization in the cities into the dangerous and often Native American inhabited frontier.

For some though, this journey into the frontier and away from the “civilized” society of the city was not a bad thing, but something of a rebirth. Slotkin indicates through the narrative of Sam Houston that the frontier often offered a renewal to men who had suffered “moral or material ruin” in the struggles of the metropolis (163). For Houston, this is exactly what happened, and after living with the Cherokee Indians and learned “Nature’s truths” he emerged from his journey to embark upon his most memorable feats in the war for Texas’s Independence from Mexico. Though he may have entered the “primitive land” to live with Native Americans, Houston never lost his more sophisticated teachings, continuing to read literary works, thereby displaying his status what Slotkin coins as a “natural aristocrat” (163).

As this is the first post for this week, I thought it would be a good idea to connect Slotkin’s work to one of the overarching questions of our class, that being about nature as an “actor.” Through Slotkin’s usage of literature as a lens to analyze environmental history, I believe he does a great job of framing nature as an actor in the cultural development of the United States, specifically as the antagonist of the story. Throughout the piece, Slotkin identifies the frontier, thereby the most “natural” part of the United States as an uncivilized and primitive environment. Under this understanding, the natural landscape of the United States becomes not only the antagonist of the story, but something that must be overcome and conquered in order for society to blossom. Through his descriptions of nature being an entity that must overcome and conquered, Slotkin casts the natural environment of the West (the frontier) as somewhat of an organic creature, one that actively fights against the progressions of American culture.

March 2, 2014

Making animals the center of the story

I came across this video via twitter the other day – it tells the story of how wolves have changed the geography of Yellowstone National Park. This is mostly a tale about how the “natural” actions of wolves – hunting deer – led to a cascade of changes that resulted in changes to rivers, and I suppose that one might say that the wolves weren’t so much actively changing as they were acting like wolves, with unintended consequences. But I do think that there are parallels between the wolfish behavior in this video and human interactions with the environment. So often, we read stories about the unintentional consequences of one act or another (for example, repopulating New England with beavers leading to the flooding of backyards).

Given our discussion of how we go about making animals the center of the story from last week, this video seems like a good example of how we can talk about animals as the main, and agentic, characters.