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 the second half of Nature’s Metropolis, William Cronon introduces the idea of ‘capital relationships.’ In our explorations of nature we have come across of a number of different types of relationships even though we not have seen them as so. Each of these relationships effects and changes the environment around it. As I was reading about Cronon’s examples of ‘capital relationships’ I found myself debating whether these relationships positively or negatively affected the environment. Every time a relationship seemed black and white, Cronon would provide evidence that would make it more ambiguous.
My initial thought was that commodification, the driving force behind these relationships, in general made things less natural and thus negatively affected the environment. The idea of ‘using’ nature instead of living off the land seemed destructive. The example of the white pine particularly stuck out to me as a relationship that was abused. The white pine seemed especially victimized in this so-called relationship. The white pine was very strong and easy to transport by water. That fact combined with the creation of new technologies such as the buzz saw made white pine a high-demand commodity. This type of exploitation negatively affected what Cronon calls the ‘moral economy’ of cities. The exploitation created this perception of cities as a corrupt and sinful place that should be avoided. Agrarian fears of the city were especially prevalent because of this exploitation. Farmer’s protested the idea of middleman economics. They saw themselves only as middlemen. Much like the white pine, they felt they were trapped in an abusive relationship with cities.
However, as Cronon continued to develop these relationships he showed how they could also have positive affects on cities as well. For instance, with cities developing new technologies for mass production and transportation, farmers were forced to create new innovative farming strategies and get a higher education. The expansion of railroads also helped farmers and agrarian communities by bringing them closer to the cities. Before railroads, there was poor communication and high storage requirements put on farmers which creates risk and efficiency. The lack of an effective transportation system also created a frontier economy based mostly on credit. The expansion of the railroad created a faster and more predictable economy that could be counted on year round. As Cronon states, “the geography of capital was about connecting people to new markets and remake old landscapes.”
Throughout this class we have encountered relationships with the environment that have seemed completely bad or completely good on the surface. However, as we learned more about them they became much more complicated. Is using the land for our own purposes inherently un-natural, or is the land their for that purpose? There has to be a line where we go from living off the land to abusing it. From all our readings however, this line seems incredibly ambiguous. These questions made me think about prwarren’s post on Cronnon’s use of binaries I think this type of writing actually hurts his arguments. I think his book is truly about complex capital relationships that are multilayered. The use of binaries just make things seem too black and white.