anwarfield – American Environments to 1893

May 5, 2014

The Rhetoric of the Environment Debates

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

Of all the things that this class has made me question, the rhetoric we use today to discuss the environment is one of the areas that troubles me the most. Our relationship with the environment is one of the most debated and volatile topics in our world today. It seems with our modern perception of the environment and of the term ‘natural,’ that it is hard to speak positively about the way we use our environment. The rhetoric is filled with words such as abuse, greed and destruction. Most people associate natural with untouched or preserved. Our readings have shown us the corruption and danger behind a word like “preservation.” Our rigid definitions of these words contribute to our heated debates about these topics. They create a rhetoric around a binary concept of Us vs. Nature. This suggests that any human interaction with nature is inherently bad for the environment because we are altering its natural state.

This class has made question this rhetoric and question if we can truly have a positive interaction with the environment. From all our readings, it seems to me that something that’s in its natural state is fulfilling it purpose on the earth. This does not mean it is untouched. To use the example of the commodification of timber in William Cronnon’s Natures Metropolis, yes the trees are being taken from the original environment, but they are being used to serve a purpose. They are helping to build infrastructure and helping to stimulate an economy, which helps a people survive. Is this tree not fulfilling a purpose and thus, is it not natural? Its obviously difficult to think of something that has been commoditized as natural, however, I believe that commodification is just as natural a process as the growth of a forest.

The difficulty in trying to look positively at environmental interaction is where to draw the line. Where is the line between an action on the environment being natural and an action being abusive or greedy. The critic to my approach might agree that the commodification of lumber is a positive good, but when does it become deforestation? How much timber can we extract before it becomes greedy? Chelsea asks a great question in her blog post, “Will there ever be a point where we as humans will tip the scale too far in our direction and forever upset the world as we know it.? Obviously human motivations play a big part in answering these questions. However, even with all the reading we have done, I can still confidently say that I do not have an answer everyone. We have run into a number of qualifications in this class. They seem to be popular in environmental history. So I believe that the answers to these questions have to qualified and have to be studied on a case-by-case basis. The definitions of environment and nature are so ambiguous that the answers to these questions must be as well.

April 27, 2014

The Process of the Environment

One of the popular themes we have looked at in this class is the growth of the modern city. From Chicago to New England, we have discussed how the elimination of space, the development of new technologies and the process of commodification all helped to develop a space that can no longer be considered natural. Steinberg adds another complication to our understanding of cities by introducing what he calls “organic cities.”

This is not the first time we have encountered a qualification of nature. William Cronon based much of his argument in Nature Metropolis on the qualification of ‘first’ and ‘second’ nature. In particular, Cronon looks at the process of how first nature is turned into a commodity through the process of commodification. This process reminds me in many ways of Steinberg’s argument. The example of cows is particularly relevant to Cronon. Steinberg describes how cows once roamed the streets of Atlanta. However, in 1881 the city passed a law that made it illegal for cows to roam around the streets. Cow no longer became an inherent part of the city, rather they were tuned into a commodity that was used to support the city. Steinberg also looks at how horses were crucial to the development of the in-organic city. He looks at how horses were paired with more efficient ‘horse cars.’ In this example the commodity actually contributed to the annihilation of space. The parallels between these stories and the examples in Cronon show how commodification plays a part in the development of all cities and in the annihilation of space.

I believe this qualification is useful for Steinberg’s argument because it forces us to think of cities as a process rather than just an entity. By thinking of the modern environment in this way I believe we can help answer the question that Sean and Manish raise in their blog posts; does the modern environment contain an aspect of human interaction or are these two things separate? I believe when you look at the process of human development you see that nature and human development are inevitably linked. They both effect each other and thus can not be viewed as separate.

Steinberg also debunks a prevalent myth about the so-called ‘death’ of the organic city. He shows that not all these development were negative because they were inherently un-natural. He points out that the deconstruction of the organic brought about the construction of health clinics, better schools and more sanitary public spaces. I think Steinberg raises an important issue to consider when looking at commodification and the development of cities as a whole. People tend to view commodities as inherently worse than their natural states. I think it is important to see both sides of the process. Yes, the thing is being taken from its natural environment but it is also being used to improve and support life in another environment; a city. In every example we have looked at this semester, commodification has been a necessary part of human development. It should be treated as such and never pinned as something inherently evil.

April 14, 2014

Capitalist Ideas of Land

Whether we realize it or not, we as a people have a specific way that we think about and view nature. This way is not the right or wrong way, but is different from the way other peoples might see it. We seem to have a fascination or an innate desire to separate and own land. The notion of ‘property’ is crucial to the foundations of democracy and thus the foundation of this country. John Locke, the founder of modern democracy, first established the right to life liberty and property. While we switched the words around to include “the pursuit of happiness,” the idea of property never left the minds of our founding fathers. As a people we have a desire to mark territory that we alone own. The idea of ‘fencing off’ what we posses is very prominent in our society.

This is never more transparent that in the Yellowstone Park Act of 1872. The wording for this act provided a legislative model for subsequent efforts for all types of conservation. The act stated that the land in the park was retained in “its natural conditions” and “set apart” for people to enjoy. Any person who operated against “the conditions of nature” was not allowed to touch the land. While this legislation was motivated by a positive good, its wording reflects our views about the environment. It reflects our obsession with fencing off and owning property and it reflects our abuse of the word ‘natural.’ This legislation suggests that our country knows what is truly natural. Yet how can we truly claim that anyone is acting against the conditions of nature? The way we define the conditions of nature may be different than the way a Native American would or anyone else would. Who are we to deem something against the laws of nature? Some people might even argue that fencing off any nature at all is inherently unnatural.

Karl Jacoby’s most captivating argument in the book for me was her argument that we often try to legitimize particular conceptions of nature and criminalize others. While I agree that this process goes on all the time, I don’t believe that it is just limited to the urban elite and kept separate from rural citizens. I believe that it stems from a fundamental capitalist and democratic understanding of land that was established by our forefathers. Jacoby talks about the elite because they are the easiest targets and they were the most successful at using our conceptions of nature for their benefit. I would love to see a study of this type of rhetoric among farmers and other rural Americans. I believe that it would be just as prominent. I think Justin makes an intelligent point in his post about the importance of binaries in this work. I think Jacoby seeks to set up this binary opposite between these two groups of people. While it effective for the argument I would love to see more.

April 7, 2014

Conquering Nature

This article provides a unique look at nature by taking us back in time to the first settlers of America. These settlers had great fear and respect for the environment and for the effect it could have on them. They had an almost morbid fascination with the sun and the power it had over the balance of the body. With disease more prominent and more deadly, one had to be wary of the dangers of nature. Many diseases were attributed to exposure to too much heat. While these people had a worse understanding of their environment that we do now, they had to live with its effects everyday. Whether this actually makes them closer to nature than we are today is an interesting question to ponder. With all the medicine and technology we have today, it’s easy to subscribe to the idea that nature’s effect can be conquered or beaten. Settlers back then however, had to deal with the daily physical effects that the environment could have on you.

One of the most provoking parts of the article was the idea that environment, the heat specifically, could actually shape a race of people. The English believe that hotter climates made people ‘wittier’ and smarter but less physically strong than people from colder climates. That’s why these people were often conquered by Northerners. We tend to ascribe stereotypes to different regions even today. The simplest example is the way Northerners view Southerners and vice versa. When we talk about these differences we rarely discuss environment. However, it was the environment that first created these differences. The warmer climates of the South and the flatter topography led to the agrarian focused, plantation style economy. It was the environment that paved the way for slavery and made the South so dependent on it.

Jumping into the minds of these settlers raises some interesting questions about nature. Does nature actually have less of an impact on us now or are we just better equipped to handle it? I would argue that nature doesn’t have less of an effect on us than it did on the colonists, we have just developed better ways to counter that effects and live with nature. However, I don’t subscribe to the idea that you can ever conquer nature. No matter how many diseases we cure or preventative measures we take, the environment will always have an effect on us. The countermeasures that the settlers took, although comedic to us now, expose an attitude we still have today. Rather than seeing nature as something we live off of, we see it as something dangerous that we have to fight against. It is something unknown that has to be explained. I have to wonder if this attitude has something to do with the American Exceptionalism that Henry discussed in his post. Perhaps we would feel vulnerable or defeated if we left ourselves at the mercy of an environment we could not control or understand.

March 31, 2014

Capital Relationships

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.

March 23, 2014

Nature Incorporated Discussant Questions

1) Steinberg argues that there is a problem in the historical research on industrialization. He argues that the struggle to control nature is as important to the industrialization process as the struggle over workplace conditions, hours and wages. Do you buy this critique and what evidence does he provide for it?

2) Similar to Cronon, do you think that Steinberg would claim that these industrial changes in New England were inevitable?

3) What kinds of conflicts and problems did the industrialists run into as they tried to gain control over the water? Who were the “winners and losers” as Steinberg calls them?

March 17, 2014

American Ruination Supplementary Reading

Ruin Nation: Destruction and the American Civil War by Megan Kate provides an innovative and, in the scope of our class readings, a useful look at the environmental and psychological impact of the Civil War. Nelson argues that the Civil War reshaped the physical landscape and in turn, the cultural landscape of a country that was not ready for such a great war. She examines the impact of both physical and abstract ‘ruination’ in the makeup of the Confederate and Union regional attitudes and psyches. Nelson strength and weakness is her vast and diverse analysis of the ruin of the war. She employs a wide variety of sources including accounts from Northerners, Southerners, slaves, soldiers and civilians. Not only are her sources vast, the themes she studies are as well. She looks at environmental, domestic, urban and bodily destruction. Ultimately Nelson argues that the concept of ruination is a concept that had lasting effects well beyond the Civil War.

Before diving into her arguments, one must understand Nelson’s definition of ‘ruination.’ She first describes ruin as a “material whole that has violently broken into parts; enough of these parts must remain in situ, however, that the observer can recognize what they used to be” (2). In other words the ruin must have some semblance of its former self, at least enough to be recognizable. ‘Ruination’ in short, is the process of something becoming a ruin. In the scope of the Civil War, it was the change from the antebellum whole past, to the fragmented present of the war. Nelson argues that ruins, unlike anything else, capture this “moment of transformation from one time to another, from one material from to another” (3).

Before examining the Civil War, Nelson provides a useful history about American’s fascination with physical remnants of the past. Specifically she looks at the curiosity surrounding the excavated earthworks of the “Mound Builders” who resided in the Mississippi Valley (6). Even American’s before the war understood or at least felt the power that ruins could have on people’s emotions. They used these excavated sites as a way to build and strengthen their national identity at a time when that identity was clearly struggling. Archeologists argued that the mounds were evidence that North American was the “cradle of the human race” (7). Nelson analogizes these mounds to the Pantheon in Greece. It was proof for many Americans that they had a long and glorious past. Not all of this fascination was positive, some ruins of villages, silver mines and missions were sobering reminders of a boom-bust economy, failure in the Southwest and an increasingly weak American character. These two examples are very effective because they setup on of her basic arguments that the war and ‘ruination’ have dualistic power. They can both create and destroy. She shows the war in the framework of a process of destruction and reconstruction.

Nelson’s first chapter may be the most useful one in comparing it to our other readings. She analyzes the effect of urban destruction on not just the South, but the North as well. She points out that the creation of more effective military technologies and changes in federal attitudes towards civilians led to massive destruction in cities (10). Nelson seems more interested in the effect this had on the psyche of the cities inhabitants. This is an innovative approach we may have touched briefly on in class but not to this extent. When we look ant Environmental impact we tend to look at it from how humans impact the environment. We often forget that the environment can affect us as well. Nelson shows how the destruction of cities created discussion on the nature of modern warfare. The ‘ruination’ of cities was an equalizing force in many ways, blurring lines between soldiers and civilians, and giving all types of people the cause to express their fears about the war. For example, the first ruins of Hampton, Virginia prompted a national dialogue on ‘civilized warfare’ and what that term meant (11). Even destruction in the north created rom for discussion. The burning of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania in 1864 created huge debates about the legitimacy of civilian retaliation and taking responsibility for the defense of your city (12).

Nelson then turns her focus from cities to the destruction of the home. She points out how women were inherently connected to the home in the South in the nineteenth century. This was the one place where women had tremendous influence as the moral guides for their children and the preserves of a sacred household. Therefore, the physical destruction of these homes represented a much greater ‘ruination’ of Southern culture that was deliberately done by Union soldiers (66). She shows how the war reconfigured women’s notion of the home through invasions into the sphere. The war redefined the Southern definitions of womanhood and domesticity (70). It destroyed the house physically but it also destroyed as a beacon of morality and escape.

Nelson does not just look at the white planter perspective who saw the union as a villainous, immoral enemy that invaded their most private spheres and threatened their Southern way of life. She looks at accounts from slaves who saw the destruction of the home as a destruction of oppression and as liberation (75). Along with the destruction of the houses came the destruction of the land they were on. Nelson points out that trees were targeted as resources for fuel or shelters (80). While this led to the ruin of many forests, Nelson argues that the ‘ruination’ of these landscapes represented the technological advancement of man. Again, ‘ruination’ deconstructed and reconstructed at the same time.

The most innovative part of this book is when Nelson examines the ‘ruination’ of the body during the war. The dismembered bodies gave visual proof of a new type of warfare and new types of technologies. Photography became more prominent and brought these morbid images to the public (164). She also engages in a discussion of rape during the war. It is difficult to study this subject, as most women would not tell anyone if they were assaulted. Women were not the only ones to feel that their bodies were under attack. Men suffered a massive crisis of masculinity during and after the war. As they returned home they found that their wives were more independent and not confined to the traditional home (170). Many men were injured as well and could not take care of their families like they were used to. Nelson discusses the difference between the permanent physical and emotional scars that emasculated a man versus the governments attempt to anoint soldiers as brave.

Nelson’s conclusion is the most ambitious and as a result, the most troublesome part of her book. The vastness of her research is matched in her conclusion. She argues that a fascination about ruins and historical objects, combined with a failure to confront the ruins of the Civil War developed “a tendency in American culture to consume rather than directly confront the past” (229). She then attempts to link this problem with the consumption-oriented commemoration process today. She cites the designs of the Oklahoma City and September 11^th memorials. While this link is thought provoking, it is a big jump to take. I don’t think Nelson provides enough historical evidence to show a direct link between these ideas. The massive jump in time is also problematic. However, in the end this book adds further ways to define the term environment that we have discussed in class. Environment can be a way of life. Southerners had their physical environments destroyed by the war, but also their physiological environment. Women were especially susceptible to this type of ‘ruination’ as they watched their sphere of influence be invaded and destroyed. Environment can have as great an effect on us as we can have on it.

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.

February 15, 2014

Discussant Questions for 1st half of Nature’s Metropolis

1) In his analysis of Chicago, Cronon suggests that cities are the next step in the ecological evolution. Considering this idea, can cities truly be considered a from of nature or are they inherently different from the wild? Thinking about how we have defined the wild and nature in previous classes, can a city like Chicago truly be considered part of nature?

2) Cronon suggests that Chicago was destined to be the next great American city from its inception. What economic and natural elements made it such a successful city? Were certain features more important than others in the success of the city?

3) The term “environmental impact” is loaded with negative connotations today. Looking at the construction of Chicago and the success of the city, can there be such a thing as positive environmental impact? If we use nature to give opportunity to thousands of people, can we call that a positive impact?

4) Cronon has a broad conception and definition of nature. He even goes so far as to say that railroads are inherently natural. Drawing on our previous discussions of the definition of nature and the wild, do you buy this argument? Or are certain areas of Chicago more natural than others

5) Cronon claims that it is “deeply problematic” to assume that city and country are completely separate worlds. Why would he think that this would be such a problem? What are the problems in assuming this difference?

February 14, 2014

Proposed Paper Topic

For my paper I want too look at the relationship between the United States army and the expansion of the frontier. Much of the scholarship on this topic has focused on the Western Theatre during the Civil War. Few scholarship has focused the impact that the military made on the environment or on the indians living there. I will examine this relationship through the lens of when the army was conducting its massive drive to subdue and control the American Indians left in the West starting around 1866 and ending around 1890. By analyzing personal memoirs or letters from soldiers I hope to compare their perceptions of the frontier, the wild and nature in the frontier with perceptions of the Indians. I will also examine how the environment changed the strategy and makeup of the army. I will look at the concessions they were forced to make and the new technologies they were forced to use. The army was given special powers in an effort to help them keep peace and order. I will examine these laws and compare the military strategies on different frontiers such as the Texas frontier. Through comparisons I look to answer some larger questions about the military effect on the frontier environment.