broliver – American Environments to 1893

April 27, 2014

The Struggle for Control: Nature vs. Humanity

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

Ted Steinberg’s book Down To Earth: Nature’s Role In American History offers a broad discussion concerning the impact of nature and the environment on the development of America. The scope of the work allows for a surface level investigation of various aspects of American history. One event that Steinberg discusses, the Civil War, was the subject of an entire book written by Lisa Brady, which we read earlier in the semester. Steinberg’s analysis of nature’s role in the Civil War, though, adds substantively to Brady’s argument and does not simply rehash her claims. In his discussion of the Civil War, Steinberg argues that the Confederacy’s dependence on cotton contributed to its defeat. This perspective on cotton was new to me, and also quite convincing. Obviously cotton production, which required large amounts of slave labor, is often listed as one of the causes of the Civil War. Even so, never have I heard cotton listed as a factor in the Confederacy’s downfall. Steinberg defends this claim by arguing that the Confederacy’s focus on cotton prevented the production of corn to feed its troops. In addition, Steinberg argues that economic greed was not the sole reason plantation owners were hesitant to replace cotton with corn. Instead, plantation owners feared the repercussions that would result from their slaves having more downtime since corn was a far less labor-intensive crop than cotton. Slavery, which was at the forefront of the struggle between the Union and the Confederacy, essentially limited the Confederacy’s options in terms of food supply and contributed to its defeat. Steinberg’s presentation of the interdependent relationship between slave labor and cotton, which is generally depicted as the major strength of the Southern economy, as a fatal flaw in the Confederate war strategy was both intriguing and persuasive.

Another aspect of Steinberg’s work that I appreciated was his effort to demonstrate the impact of seemingly irrelevant events on American history. For example, Steinberg details how a volcanic eruption in Indonesia in 1815 resulted in a severe cold spell across New England the following year, which wreaked havoc on the region’s agricultural production (p. 49). Examples such as this helped Steinberg articulate his overarching theme of an interrelated world. Although America is restricted to an outline on a map, it cannot be understood simply by examining occurrences within its boundaries. Whether it was the breakup of Pangaea, volcanic eruptions in distant countries, or diseases and invasive species transported via European ships, the history of America has been greatly influenced by factors outside the geographical United States. As Manish notes in his post, a portion of Steinberg’s work is devoted to examining and understanding various human attempts to shape space to benefit humans. In regards to this effort, I believe Steinberg’s goal is to demonstrate the impossibility of such a desire. For, as Steinberg shows, America’s history is subject to factors well outside of its geographical borders. Nature is too expansive and powerful to ever be completely controlled. Thus, American history has been, and will continue to be, a struggle between natural and human forces.

April 11, 2014

Wilderness as Artifact

Karl Jacoby’s Crimes Against Nature: Squatters, Poachers, Thieves, and the Hidden History of American Conservation presents a view of the early conservation movement from the generally untold view of economically middle and low-class individuals. As Jacoby writes in his conclusion, “the powerful can attempt to advance their own visions of the past, dismissing those whose recollections they find threatening or inconvenient” (p. 193). Jacoby seeks to counter such attempts by unveiling the little known stories of the individuals affected by the conservation of the Adirondacks, Yellowstone, and the Grand Canyon.

The issue of land ownership plays a prominent role throughout the book. In the past, I have often learned about Native Americans who lost their land to the US Government because of their unfamiliarity with white ideas of land ownership. What was interesting to me was the substantial discussion of similar experiences for white settlers in the Adirondacks. Even those families who had called the Adirondacks home for generations were declared squatters because they lacked the proper proof of land ownership. By depicting the shared experiences of whites and Native Americans, Jacoby’s work crossed ethnic and cultural boundaries and instead told a comprehensive story of the effects of the conservation movement on less privileged individuals.

Another aspect of Jacoby’s work that I found very thought provoking was his statement, “wilderness reveals itself to be not some primeval character of nature but rather an artifact of modernity, a concept employed by conservationists to naturalize the transformations taking place in rural America during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries” (p. 198). In my opinion, wilderness is both a primeval character of nature and an artifact of modernity. Wilderness, as I see it, is nature without human intervention. Throughout the semester we have had many discussions about what level of human involvement in the environment can be considered natural. As Ian noted in an earlier post, even something as technologically advanced as a city can be described as the next phase of ecological evolution. There is no such ambiguity when describing the wilderness, as it is nature in its virgin state. Thus, it seems to me, the wilderness has always existed. While wilderness has always been a primeval character of nature, it is also now an artifact of modernity because of the conservation movement. The conservation movement, at its core, is an attempt to preserve wilderness. In order to justify the need for preservation, areas such as the Adirondacks, Yellowstone, and the Grand Canyon have been portrayed as the last of their kind. In an effort to preserve such places for posterity, the conservation movement has essentially cast wilderness as an artifact that needs to be passed down to later generations. Areas such as Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon are now very similar to museums. They attract tourists because they hearken back to a lost age, when the landscape was not dominated by human creations. In this sense, wilderness has most certainly become an artifact of modernity. This does not mean, however, that it is no longer a primeval character of nature.

April 6, 2014

The Pros of Natural Disasters

Steven Biel asserts in his introduction, “the essays in this book recognize that disasters generate meaning” (4). The article by Kevin Rozario, titled “What Comes Down Must Go Up,” proposes that disasters portend a boon for American capitalism. Rozario focuses his article on the San Francisco fire and earthquake of 1906, but he also includes many other examples to support his claim. Rozario explains that disasters spark capitalism through a concept termed “creative destruction.” The term creative destruction insinuates, “that modern capitalist systems require the continual obliteration of outmoded goods and structures to clear space and make way for new production and development” (73). Essentially, as Rozario demonstrates using the example of San Francisco in 1906, the destruction of a city offers a clean slate for business. San Francisco had to be rebuilt, and cutting edge technology could be used to make the city better than it had been before. Beneficial financial opportunities abounded for bankers, investors, construction companies, and realtors. The rebuilding of San Francisco, as Rozario describes it, was a boon for capitalism.

Throughout the article, Rozario presents the idea of creative destruction in a positive light. Rozario focuses on the benefits and positive impacts that natural disasters have on capitalism. Then, in a sudden turn of events, Rozario concludes “the benefits, however, have not been spread equally, and we all have to find a way to live with and under a capitalist system that must constantly destroy to create, and at times seems to create solely in order to destroy” (96). I think this is a very valid point, but it is extremely underdeveloped in Rozario’s article. The conclusion leaves the reader wondering whether or not Rozario believes natural disasters have an overall positive effect on capitalism. As Manish notes in his post, humans have the opportunity to adapt to natural disasters. For much of the article, it seems as though Rozario is arguing that American capitalism has adapted and improved because of natural disasters. The closing paragraph, however, seems to question the entirety of his article. As previously mentioned, I think Rozario’s conclusion makes for an interesting discussion. The problem is that Rozario does not begin the discussion about the negative aspects caused by natural disasters in capitalist America, and instead leaves it entirely to the reader. The closing paragraph appears in complete opposition to the rest of the article, and Rozario offers no evidence to support his concluding claim.

Although it was not discussed in my particular chapter, I was intrigued by the statement in the introduction that “there are no chapters here about wars, which are the most devastating of all disasters, because somehow wars are perceived as a separate category of experience and a separate subject for study” (4). While I would agree that wars are not a natural disaster, I think that wars should still be considered at least a subcategory of disaster. Wars devastate the human population, infrastructure, marketplaces, and the order of everyday life just like natural disasters. Obviously wars are the result of human decisions, and not a natural occurrence outside of human control, but nevertheless they certainly constitute some type of disaster.

March 30, 2014

Cronon and “Natural” Chicago

Parts II and III of Cronon’s Nature’s Metropolis offer a further explanation of the concepts of first and second nature, which were introduced in Part I. During Part II, Cronon details how the wheat, lumber, and meat industries developed during Chicago’s rise as a gateway city. In Part III, the focus shifts from nature to the city and specifically to the distribution of capital. Cronon, in the midst of his discussion on capital, goes so far as to use it interchangeably with his term “second nature” (269). This was extremely surprising to me. After the lengths Cronon went to in Part I to clearly define first and second nature, I did not expect another interpretation of either term later in the book. Nevertheless, I do think that capital and Cronon’s definition for second nature are very similar and can be used interchangeably. Early on, Cronon defines second nature as “the artificial nature that people erect atop first nature” (xix). This broad definition would include the wheat, lumber, and meat industries, as well as houses and trains, grain elevators and steamboats. All of these, in one way or another, are capital.

Another claim that I had trouble accepting, and one that Wade struggled with as well, was Cronon’s statement that, “it would be a mistake to believe that Chicago had always offered these advantages, or that there was anything ‘natural’ about them” (295). It seems to me that the development of Chicago as a gateway city was at least partially the result of a couple natural advantages. One important element in Chicago’s rise–into what Cronon claims was the second most important American city behind New York–was its location along the Great Lakes. Chicago’s position along Lake Michigan offered an avenue for the faster transportation of goods to the eastern market. This was a completely natural advantage, and one that Chicago wisely exploited. Second, Chicago’s location in the middle of the continent naturally meant that it would serve as a gateway for westward expansion. So long as the spread of human civilization is considered natural, the location of Chicago should be characterized as a natural advantage. Its location on the western edge of civilization, at the time of its founding, meant that other cities were bound to develop further west of Chicago and in turn Chicago would serve as the passageway for goods moving from these western cities to the eastern markets.

An aspect of the book that I enjoyed, especially after reading Steinberg last week, was Cronon’s discussion of the pollution of Chicago’s waterways by the meatpacking industry. The similarities between 19^th century Chicago and 19^th century New England were striking. Clearly it was not just the textile industries of New England that viewed water as an asset. For industry, the waterways were something to be used and exploited, not maintained. Water was something comprehended in solely economic, not environmental, terms. As the role water plays in the distribution of disease had yet to be understood, there was not the slightest hesitation to dump waste into rivers. Rather, at the time it seemed like an excellent managerial decision.

March 23, 2014

Further Complication of Human “Naturalness”

Theodore Steinberg’s Nature Incorporated offers a detailed analysis of the industrialization of New England’s waterways during the nineteenth century. It covers the rise of textile mills along rivers and the resulting shifts in both human society and the natural ecology of rivers. One prominent shift that Steinberg covered throughout the book was the human view of water ownership. The human conception of water use was constantly evolving during the nineteenth century. At the start of the book, water was viewed as a public resource. Many individuals fished in the rivers during the spring months. By the end of the nineteenth century, however, water could be owned and controlled by an individual mill-owner or a large industrial company as long as it was used for the common good. This allowed industry to gain a controlling interest over many of New England’s rivers.

I do think that Manish makes a nice observation about the differing roles of nature in the book by Steinberg as compared to Lisa M. Brady’s War Upon the Land. Much of our last class focused on the discussion of nature as a prominent third actor in the Civil War. In her book, Brady clearly argued that nature was at times as much an enemy of the Union as was the Confederate Army. The nature presented in Steinberg’s work, however, is comparatively much more passive. Throughout the work nature, and water in particular, is a resource fought over by humans. Water does not act on humans, but is instead controlled according to human interests. The actors in Steinberg’s book are humans—the courts, textile industries, and local New England citizens—not nature.

One comment by Steinberg that caught my attention and reminded me of past in-class conversations about the “naturalness” of human civilizations was the claim that “none of nature’s predators has the sharp capacity for reasoned thought that make human beings so potentially harmful to other species” (167-68). Steinberg offered this argument in his chapter titled “Depleted Waters,” which discussed the diminishing number of fish in the New England waterways as a result of nineteenth-century industrialization and overfishing. The first thing I thought of when I read this statement was Ian’s claim that “since birds build nests, it is natural for humans to construct buildings.” I think that Ian makes a strong argument, but the importance of reasoned thought must be considered. A bird building a nest seems like the most basic form of housing. In my opinion, the human equivalent of a bird’s nest is the teepee or log cabin. Both of those structures are very basic and really only provide minimal protection from the elements. More modern structures such as skyscrapers and apartment complexes, however, require much more “reasoned thought” on the part of humans. There are no natural equivalents in the animal world of the skyscraper or apartment complex. While this does not necessarily mean that human constructions are unnatural, I do think that the human ability for “reasoned thought” does further complicate the discussion about the naturalness of human constructions.

March 16, 2014

Nature: Whose Side Are You On?

I thought one of the most intriguing aspects of Lisa M. Brady’s War Upon the Land was her depiction of General Sherman’s famed march through Georgia and the Carolinas. Growing up I heard a lot about Sherman’s destructive march from Atlanta to Savannah, including many comparisons ending with “like Sherman went through Georgia.” That said, none of my classes ever delved beneath the surface of Sherman’s Civil War-defining march. I really enjoyed the varying eyewitness perspectives that Brady provided on Sherman’s march, including Union, Confederate, and civilian accounts of the destruction. I was not surprised that the Union and Confederate soldiers disagreed over the morality of Sherman’s tactics, but I was fascinated by Brady’s assertion that the morality dispute could be traced back to the Roman military in Britain in 84 AD (p. 127). In a sense, this dispute hinges largely on whether people are considered to exist in nature or separate from it–a discussion we have had several times already. If humans exist in nature, then the argument can be made that the destruction of the land is acceptable since, by extension, the land is associated with the people. If humans exist outside of nature, however, then attacking the land would seem to be the equivalent of assailing an innocent bystander. During our in-class discussions we have failed to reach a consensus on the relationship between humans and nature, and this may indicate why from the time of the Romans through the Civil War and even into the present day people still cannot agree on the morality of land destruction during war.

Wherever one sides on this issue, the regenerative power of nature cannot be denied. Even though many soldiers documented the destruction of the land in Georgia and the Shenandoah Valley, immediately following the war many Southerners returned to their land and set to work restoring some resemblance of the agricultural order that existed before the war. Brady writes about Randolph Barton, who returned home to the Shenandoah Valley in 1865 and “his sword was turned into a pruning hook” (p. 133). The Confederates could not afford to dwell upon their defeat, as they relied upon the land for their livelihood. As a result, the land healed much quicker than most soldiers involved in the war ever imagined.

When reading Brady’s book, I agree with Manish that nature needs to be understood as its own person. Throughout her work, Brady details the importance of the landscape in terms of Confederate defenses at cities such as Vicksburg and Savannah. Likewise, Brady details the difficulties Sherman’s army faced traveling through South Carolina due to the many swamps and marshy areas. Furthermore, the diseases transmitted by mosquitoes during the hot summer months inflicted a great toll on the Union forces throughout the war. Because of the impact of nature on the Civil War, it is very helpful to think of nature as a third party in the war–one without a rooting interest. At different times during the war nature seemed to favor both the Union and the Confederacy, but it was really just an uninterested third party acting on whatever army it came into contact with.

February 23, 2014

How the Destruction of the Bison Effectively Destroyed Indian Societies As Well

The Destruction of the Bison by Andrew Isenberg offered an in depth explanation of the near extermination of the bison in America, and in turn depicted the decline of American Indian societies in the Midwest region of the United States. While Isenberg placed most of the impetus of change on the westward expansion of Euroamerican economy, he also analyzed many other factors such as environment, disease, and weather. The result, in my opinion, was a very convincing argument. One aspect of the book that I really enjoyed was Isenberg’s explanation of why the United States allowed the destruction of the bison even though they realized the bison population was not an “inexhaustible supply” (p. 162). According to Isenberg, Americans viewed the depletion of the bison as “a triumph of civilization over savagery,” (p. 162) which cleared the Midwest for Euroamerican societies. The federal government did not have to encourage bison hunting, but rather chose not to prevent its existence. Economic opportunities led many Americans to move west and try their luck in bison hunting and the robe trade. The U.S. Army and government knowingly allowed this to happen because it was an effective Indian eradication program. The government effectively used the destruction of the bison to help further its goal of segregating Indians. For most Americans, Indians were only approved of when they lived on reservations.

Isenberg also brought to light just how determined the United States was to expunge Indian rituals. On reservations in the late nineteenth century, the Indians were often provided with government beef. When the cattle were delivered, the Indians attempted to replicate the communal bison hunts that had until recently been a staple of Indian life during the summer months. At first the government allowed this practice to proceed, but early in the twentieth century the reservations received butchered meat in place of live cattle. I found it interesting that even though many Indians had been effectively contained on reservations, the government still felt there was work to be done. If the Indians were to eventually be assimilated into American culture, it was necessary to first eliminate the aspects that made their culture unique. The complete elimination of the festivities associated with the bison hunt was a step in the right direction, at least as the U.S. government viewed the situation.

As Manish noted, I too was interested in the effects of the bison trade on Indian societies. The opportunity for economic prosperity caused many nomadic societies to alter their traditional hunting patterns. While Isenberg recognized that most Indian tribes participated in communal hunts and large feasts during the summer months when the bison gathered in large herds, the Indians were not wasteful on a regular basis. The summer hunts served as community building. With the rise of the bison trade, however, some nomadic societies began killing more bison than necessary in the winter months since that was the time of year when their furs were the thickest and most desirable. Such changes only quickened the decline of the bison population. This shows that even Indians, usually renowned for their particularly economic and practical use of the entire bison, fell victim to desires for economic gain.

February 15, 2014

Supplementary Reading-The Nation’s Nature: How Continental Presumptions Gave Rise to the United States of America

James D. Drake’s work, The Nation’s Nature: How Continental Presumptions Gave Rise to the United States of America, offers a chronological perspective on the evolution of continental thought in the mainland British colonies. In his book, Drake proposes that early British colonists became inundated with continental presumptions that in turn influenced political views, infiltrated political rhetoric, and induced political action.[1] Drake’s essential argument is that the burgeoning idea of the British colonists as a continental people made the American Revolution possible and in the war’s aftermath led to the drafting of the Constitution. In order to make his claim, Drake begins with the mainland British colonies in the late seventeenth century.

The first reason that Drake offers for the development of continental thought in the mainland British colonies is the scientific attacks of Europeans, which were meant to demean the New World and its species, including humans. European intellectuals, among whom Comte de Buffon was one of the most notable, proposed and offered evidence in support of a demeaning attitude toward the North American continent. Buffon and others held that North America was either a new continent or a continent that had undergone a geologic disaster. In both cases, the European intellectuals claimed the result was a degenerating effect on species in the New World. The implications of such a claim were clear to all. If the New World had a degenerative environment, then its inhabitants would never be able to rival the nations of Europe. [2]

Drake compares this crisis to the launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union almost two centuries later. The attack of European intellectuals effectively intertwined science and national pride for the mainland British colonists. Such an attack served to bind disparate colonists together.[3] All those with a scientific inclination living in the mainland British colonies sought to find evidence to counter Buffon’s claims. This in turn provided inhabitants of different colonies with a common goal. Rather than viewing themselves as Pennsylvanians, Virginians, or New Yorkers, this inquiry united all colonists as North Americans. Essentially, this newfound scientific trend led colonists to see themselves in a continental light.[4]

Drake highlights the Seven Years’ War as another turning point in fostering continental presumptions among mainland British colonists. Drake claims the Seven Years’ War caused colonists to view themselves as members of a young but inevitably continental society, one fully capable of prospering on its own.[5] Prior to the conflict, colonies had irregular interactions with one another and it could be argued they shared stronger commercial ties to the West Indies, Britain, and Europe than to one another.[6] Each colony seemed more concerned with internal matters than with continental issues. The threat presented by the French and Native Americans served to alter this mindset. As the potential for war increased, so too did the calls for unified action among the colonies. The most prominent example was the Albany Plan of Union, proposed by Benjamin Franklin. If implemented, the Albany Plan would have given control of the colonies’ military defense to representatives elected by colonial assemblies, working with a president appointed by the Crown. Though the Albany Plan was rejected, it demonstrated the continuing shift from the traditional thought of the colonies as independent dominions.[7]

Following the victory in the Seven Years’ War, Britain chose as its spoils of war North American land claims previously belonging to France and Spain, even though the two European powers had more profitable colonies elsewhere. Drake proposes that this decision by Parliament illustrated an overlap of geographical and political thought. The notion that the entire North American continent was suited for rule by one power appeared on its way to becoming reality following the Treaty of Paris in 1763. Adding land in North America only contributed to the British colonists’ sense of importance and increased their desire for continental expansion.[8] Drake argues the colonists interpreted the treaty as a sign of how much Britain valued the North American colonies. In addition, these developments further ingrained a continental awareness among mainland British colonists. Not only did they consider the vast potential of North America, but also the possibility that its future may lay outside the empire of Great Britain.[9]

The emerging idea of North America as a continental society, which is fundamental to Drake’s work, raised questions about representation in Parliament. British North Americans questioned the validity of political representation at a distance, largely because of their unique geographical relationship to Britain. Furthermore, mainland British colonists altered the source of their most cherished rights from their status as Britons to the nature of the continent. This claim inherently challenged whether British North Americans were actually Britons at all.[10] Drake offers further evidence of depictions of colonists as a continental people in the form of British political cartoons at the time. Increasingly, North America was presented as a united continent rather than a motley collection of colonies with differing interests.[11] In addition, Drake claims that memories of sacrifice in the Seven Years’ War added to a feeling of community among the colonists. The war provided just the most recent example of mainland British colonists suffering collectively for a common cause.[12] All of these elements coalesced in Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense, which claimed the artificial establishments of the British Empire should be replaced by continental institutions.[13] It was these beliefs that led to the outbreak of the American Revolution in 1775.

Following the conclusion of the Revolutionary War, Americans were still faced with the challenge of establishing a nation capable of utilizing the vast potential of the North American continent. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention assembled in Philadelphia to remedy this situation. Drake notes that proponents of the Constitution constantly referred to the continent’s destiny of political unity, a driving factor in the outbreak of the American Revolution. If America failed to realize this destiny, it would betray the purpose of the Revolutionary War. Additionally, proponents of the Constitution argued that the new federal government would help the nation achieve its continental goals. Furthermore, to ease Anti-Federalist fears, the Federalists contended that the sheer size of North America would prevent the federal government from gaining too much power.[14] Clearly, Drake argues, continental assumptions were a major factor in the ratification of the Constitution. Also, when discussing westward expansion, it was common for American authors to downplay obstacles such as the Appalachian Mountains. At the same time, many authors emphasized the waterway system that connected America. Often times the British, Spanish, and Native Americans were depicted as merely temporary obstructions.[15] With these examples, Drake demonstrates the effort to portray North America as suitable to rule by one nation.

The importance of the land in the development of a civilization is a theme of Drake’s work that is similarly explained by William Cronon in Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. Just as British North Americans recognized the potential of the continent, Cronon claims that in the early 1830s prospectors saw Chicago for its prospective development into a metropolis in the center of the continent rather than for what it actually was.[16] This tendency to look toward the future and imagine the effects of development caused lots in Chicago to increase in value from $33 in 1829 to $100,000 in 1836.[17] This speculation occurred before a canal was constructed or the first railway ties had been laid. While such predictions did not always prove true, they certainly did for the city of Chicago. Thanks to its location between the established eastern cities, such as New York, and the expanding western frontier, Chicago became the gateway between East and West.[18]

Another element present in both books is the importance of waterways in the early Republic. The British North Americans viewed the expansive waterways as a means of connecting the continent. The waterways helped unite the continent and in turn supported the belief that North America was destined for rule by one nation. Without its extensive system of rivers and lakes, North America would have appeared to mainland British colonists as much too vast for the successful rule of one power. Likewise, in Nature’s Metropolis, Cronon references the importance of Chicago’s vicinity to Lake Michigan, the Chicago River, and the fertile Illinois prairie. These factors loomed large in the decision of settlers to establish a city at Chicago. Cronon goes on to argue that people play a significant role in the establishment and rise of a city. For example, humans add canals and railroads to improve transportation. Nevertheless, the natural qualities and resources of the land factor heavily into where people choose to settle and construct cities in the first place.[19] In this sense, both America and the city of Chicago have the land to thank for the developments that made them what they are today.

[1] James D. Drake, The Nation’s Nature: How Continental Presumptions Gave Rise to the United States of America (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2011), 3.

[2] Drake, The Nation’s Nature, 18.

[3] Drake, The Nation’s Nature, 22.

[4] Drake, The Nation’s Nature, 18.

[5] Drake, The Nation’s Nature, 70.

[6] Drake, The Nation’s Nature, 71.

[7] Drake, The Nation’s Nature, 81-83.

[8] Drake, The Nation’s Nature, 99-102.

[9] Drake, The Nation’s Nature, 107.

[10] Drake, The Nation’s Nature, 109.

[11] Drake, The Nation’s Nature, 125.

[12] Drake, The Nation’s Nature, 133.

[13] Drake, The Nation’s Nature, 144.

[14] Drake, The Nation’s Nature, 261.

[15] Drake, The Nation’s Nature, 269-270.

[16] William Cronon, Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1991), 34.

[17] Cronon, Nature’s Metropolis, 29.

[18] Cronon, Nature’s Metropolis, 91.

[19] Cronon, Nature’s Metropolis, 55.

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 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.