Uncategorized – Page 4 – American Environments to 1893

April 6, 2014

Natural Disasters and the Dominance of Capitalism

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

I had never previously thought of natural disasters as a way through which to analyze culture, politics, and economy. However, Biel’s introduction to American Disasters – especially his explanation of disasters being able to teach us about the “normal” workings of American society – convinced me of the utility of looking at disasters to interpret the arcs of American culture (5). I saw these “complex cultural resonances” clearly in Patricia Bixel’s “It Must Be Made Safe” (6).

Bixel’s “It Must Be Made Safe” tells the history of the aftermath of the devastating hurricane that struck Galveston, Texas in September 1900. Deaths were estimated between 6,000 and 8,000 people following the storm, and the damage inflicted upon the port city was assessed at $30 million (223). The determination of the residents of Galveston never to experience this again is where I first saw an example of the cultural resonances introduced by Biel. After the local government failed to secure the restoration of utilities to the city, many people saw the need to restructure the municipal government. This led to the passage of a new bill allowing two of the commissioners of Galveston to be elected by the populace, and three commissioners to be appointed by the governor (230). What I found interesting about this purge of the old government was that while Galvestonians had perceived their officials as corrupt for over a decade, it took a natural disaster to induce change (228). While the natural disaster destroyed much of the city, it also provided a pseudo-purification or purge of the iniquities of Galveston. In a way, the storm represented an opportunity for a new beginning. Most people thought the new government was more in tune to the interests of the people (230). However, I think those “people” who were able to capitalize on the revival provided by the flood were clearly those who held the most capital, and I think that is seen in the economic aftermath of the 1900 hurricane.

While the local government before the hurricane was criticized for its “self-interested” nature, the appointment of commissioners following the passage of the new city charter in Galveston demonstrated that not much had changed. These officials held substantial influence in politics and business, and were appointed on their ability to acquire money from potential lenders and expedite the construction of a sea wall in Galveston (235). Though the reformation of government and construction of the sea wall were said to promote the restoration of Galveston and improve the safety of its people, the reconstruction of the city was driven almost solely by a desire to remain the most important port city on the Gulf Coast (224). Many of the reconstruction efforts were aimed at restoring beaches for tourism (235). This reflects much of what we have been discussing in the past few weeks of class as the manipulation of nature can be traced by the flows of capital and interests of capitalists throughout Galveston.

Ironically, these efforts only led to the destruction of Galveston’s natural environment. Filling projects led to the destruction of many trees and plants because they were trapped under dredge material being used to raise the grade of the island (238). Construction of the sea wall led to the erosion of other Gulf Coast beaches (241). I think these examples lend themselves to supporting Manish’s point that many politicians and businessmen have been stubborn and reluctant to adapt to the threats of nature. To apply this theory to my example, moving the population and businesses of Galveston off the island and to a more suitable coast location were way too high for any businessmen or politicians to even seriously consider. This mindset, like Manish indicates, has “expanded beyond the check that nature institutes on society.” The profits promised by trying to manipulate nature were too desirable to leave. It is remarkable that even after being stricken and humbled by the power of natural disasters like the 1900 Galveston hurricane, mankind still assumes the conviction that nature is an entity to be conquered.

April 6, 2014

The Political Impact of Natural Disasters

Henry McKiven Jr. studies the political impact that natural disasters have had throughout history in his article “The Political Construction of a Natural Disaster: The Yellow Fever Epidemic of 1853.” McKiven begins by discussing one of the more recent examples of a natural disaster being used to push a political agenda, Hurricane Katrina, and how the left pushed the idea that the storm revealed entrenched institutional racism. While Katrina is a well-known example of a national disaster being used in greater politics, McKiven argues that disasters have had this role throughout history, and he presents the example of the Yellow Fever epidemic in nineteenth century New Orleans.

The epidemic occurred at a time of political upheaval in New Orleans local political. In the 1850s a reform movement was developing, but it was split among those who saw immigrants as the root of political corruption and those who thought the nativist leaders were at fault, while both took issue with the Democrats in power. The Yellow Fever epidemic broke out during this strife, and the nativist reformers blamed it on the poor hygiene of immigrants while the more open-minded reformers recognized the greater hygienic problem and proposed solutions. The Democrats in power contended that it was likely to be contained in poor neighborhoods, as the affluent were exempt, but eventually the disease started to spread to all classes. The government at that point had to act, but it was too late and it hurt their public standing, as McKiven writes “the press shifted its attention from the habits of newcomers and poor German and Irish immigrants to the failure of past governments” (740). While the split in the reformist movements between nativist and the less bigoted continued, the Young America faction was able to make a difference in the end, and political reform did take place as a result of the disaster.

Tying this natural disaster together with Katrina is easy because they both took place in New Orleans, and there were those who were accused of racist beliefs in both cases. While McKiven makes a greater argument about the political impact of natural disasters, I found his argument effective, as he traced the developing political opinions during the course of the disaster as new knowledge was learned, and showed how it made direct connections to the developing conflict between the reformers and the Democrats in power. However, since McKiven was writing in 2007, his argument does not apply a more recent natural disaster in Super Storm Sandy. I may have just been oblivious to any conflicts that took place, but I saw the disaster as more bringing people together politically than creating conflict, especially with members of opposing parties President Obama and Governor Christie (before more recent embarrassments) working harmoniously.

Like Brandon, I also found the note in Steven Biel’s introduction that there were no wars discussed in his book interesting, especially because I read it after McKiven’s article. While McKiven’s article was technically not about a war, it was about a conflict that could be described as a political war, and the main point of the piece was that natural disasters were used in these political wars. While McKiven’s work does not relate specifically to the statement because Biel is talking about literal wars, I still found it interesting as in my mind while reading about the conflict in New Orleans, I thought of it as a kind of war.

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.

April 6, 2014

New Jersey and the Disasters that Devastate the Land

James K. Mitchell’s essay “American Disasters during the Twentieth Century: The Case of New Jersey” is an intriguing piece which analyzes a number of different types of natural disasters within the state. Throughout the piece, Mitchell argues that “natural disasters” are a result of humans interacting with dangerous environments, leading to the destruction that ensues (327). At the start of the piece, I was a little skeptical about this idea, but by the end, Mitchell has swayed my opinion through his specific examples.

One example that Mitchell drew heavily on, which inevitably influenced my decision to conform to his school of thought, was his description of fires within New Jersey. Though New Jersey’s climate is not the most ideal for the spread of a wildfire, the dryness in the environment that occurs during the summer months does create favorable conditions for this type of disaster. Even so, it still takes a spark to create the fire in the first place, which Mitchell attributes specifically to human hand. Whether it was locomotives creating sparks with the tracks which sparked a flame or a person purposefully lighting something on fire, Mitchell attributes a majority of wildfires in New Jersey during the 20^th century to humans (340-341). Due to humans, for a lack of better term, “playing with fire” in a region that tends to get pretty dry; they sparked the flames which created the massive devastation that we attribute to natural disasters. In this manner, it was humanity’s choice of acting in a hostile environment which created these disasters, which supports Mitchell’s argument regarding natural disasters.

Along with his claims about wildfires, Mitchell also analyzes humanity’s hand within droughts as well. Being from upstate New York and formerly living close to the New Jersey border, it was a little shocking at first to read about New Jersey suffering from droughts. Yet, after some thought on the matter, I realized that I was conflating my definition of a drought to a much larger scale, like something one might face in Arizona. After reassessing this definition, I noted that New York went through similar dry spells during the summer months, often resulting in the grass withering and browning. With this similar type of region in New Jersey, Mitchell noted that most registered droughts were a result of human use of the water supply (347). Again, within a region that tends to get dry, by humans using the water supply for x amount of things, like swimming pools, watering their lawn, etc., they create their own disaster through their actions. In a region that has a more abundant water supply, this type of natural disaster would be less likely, but because humans chose to inhabit this environment they are left to deal with the repercussions.

Manish makes some incredibly interesting comments about the lack of respect for nature by the people of Southern of California. Initially I was shocked to read his post about these people turning a blind eye to nature’s supremacy, instead creating their infrastructure with little concern to environmental threats. However, this mindset is something we have witnessed throughout our course with numerous people believing they could overcome nature. For example, our discussion on the Union General trying to shape the Mississippi and failing is a perfect portrayal of humanity continually believing themselves above nature’s power. Yet, with the devastation caused by natural disasters all over the country, we are reminded that humanity is simply another part of the ecosystem, with nature’s power reigning above all. Recognizing our place under nature’s power is important though for humanity’s growth in technology. As Manish references in his post, other people respond to natural disasters by improving their society in terms of safety and various forms of technology. In a backwards manner, one can almost view natural disasters as a good thing for society, as it sparks ongoing innovation.

April 5, 2014

Ecology of Fear Chapter 1

What is a disaster and what makes a disaster a disaster? These are two of the most difficult questions to answer about nature. Disasters are very unpredictable occurrences and how they relate to humans are difficult to determine. As Steven Biel notes in his article many see disasters as the antithesis to everyday life (5). Others such as Jonathan Bergman believe that disasters have a profound influence on our everyday lives. For Mississippians disaster was what forced them to develop their coast into a major tourist attraction thus establishing a stable component of their economy.

Bergman’s ideas seem to speak to a similar idea that Justin brought up in his post from last week. Justin talks about the interconnectedness of nature and humanity. One could not exist without the other. He also makes an interesting comment when he speaks about the constant reworking and repositioning of man’s relationship with nature.

When it comes to natural disasters humanity has two options. One, It can adapt like the Mississippians. For Bergman disasters operate as a check on human society. It provides them with opportunities to expand but also warns against overextension. It can act as a framework that allows us to build society on a strong and stable foundation. The second option is to try and build independently of nature. As Biel notes in his article “disasters evoke the defense of established ways…” (5) Despite what nature may deem necessary, man reverts back to the established ways.

This second option is what Mike Davis argues was the course for Southern California in the first chapter of his book Ecology of Fear. The goal of Davis in this chapter was to try and understand SoCal’s relationship to disaster and how this shaped the development of its cities and society. He begins the chapter by highlighting several of the natural disasters that hit the region. Despite these disasters Californians continued to present their state as the Mediterranean on the Pacific. It was supposed to be a perfect land that would see a disaster only once or twice a decade. According to Davis however, this belief in consistency was a flawed belief. The perfect nature of California landscape was a myth and that the perfectness of the landscape was overemphasized.

Due to this flawed understanding of the environment Californians constructed their societies without much thought to the tremendous power of natural disasters such as earthquakes. When they did devote some thought to safety they based their safety procedure on a limited and shortsighted disaster record. They assumed that the frequency and magnitude of these disasters would hold constant in the future. Recent science has indicated differently and has portrayed current patterns of disasters as an anomaly.

Most likely the future will bring about greater disasters and consequences. Regardless of these warnings politicians and businessmen have been unwilling to refit the structures of their buildings for they believed the cost to be too high. They have also failed to develop an effective enough emergency services program and so when disaster does strike the response will be relatively ineffective in comparison to what it should have been. Davis’ ultimate criticism of Southern California in this chapter was that politicians and industrialists have overlooked the power of disasters. They have expanded beyond the check that nature institutes on society. Even when science has indicated that a change is necessary, no change has occurred. Instead the established ways are reaffirmed which in time will reap a heavy price.

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 30, 2014

Cronon and Interconnectedness

Cronon speaks using binaries–country/city, commodity/not commodity, first nature/second nature. While individuals (a majority of the class) found Cronon’s use of a “first” nature and a “second” nature to be less than helpful, Parts II and III of his work make his distinction of the two natures all the more clear. In my opinion, Cronon loosely uses these terms for his reader to understand the connections and shifts that happened in the nineteenth century.

In the latter two thirds of his book, Cronon nuances his readers’ understanding(s) of the impacts of railroads and trains. He states, “The train did not create the city by itself. Stripped of the rhetoric that made it seem a mechanical deity, the railroad was simply a go-between whose chief task was to cross the boundary between city and country” (97). The train connected urban and rural areas. Is Cronon suggesting the rise of cities acted as a go-between for humanity and nature? Nineteenth-century cities were test-runs. Either way, cities and a “controlled” and “healthier” version of nature could not exist without the other.

How would humanity and nature with the rise of capitalism learn to coexist? Cronon argues that in order to understand this, all stories must be told. He insists, “But one can understand neither Chicago nor the Great West if one neglects to tell their stories altogether. What often seem separate narratives finally converge in a larger tale of people reshaping the land to match their collective vision of its destiny” (369). Thus, here exists another binary. I use the term “binary,” because that is how Cronon presents them, but in the end, he de-bunks his representation and suggests what most of our discussions end on each week–humanity and nature are more interconnected than most think. To further add to my point, think back to last week’s discussion about water politics. Ian stated, “Some might argue that the Erie Canal being man-made removes it from nature, but the water that fills it and the first that inhabit it are both indicative of this waterways places within the environment.” Cronon suggests that commodification and the rise of capitalism came about thanks to the agricultural system. Trains and railroads facilitated this change in a passenger’s seat position. Humanity and nature can no longer (and most likely never could) be mutually exclusive.

The relationship between humanity and nature is constantly being reworked and re-positioned. Cronon talks about Chicago’s temporary gateway status. He states, “Gateway status was temporary, bound to the forces of market expansion, environmental degradation, and self-induced competition that first created and then destroyed the gateway’s utility to the urban-rural system as a whole” (377). Thus, Cronon suggests there was (and is) a cyclical component. This interpretation is a great segue into future class discussions about humans and natural disasters.

We speak using generalizing terms, but when paired with nuanced examples and complex interpretations, deeper meanings arise to this too often glossed-over relationship. His book gets off to a slow start, but comes full-circle in the end.

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 30, 2014

Dislocation in Nature’s Metropolis

I enjoyed reading Parts II of William Cronon’s Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West. His exploration of the process of grain, lumber, and meat becoming commodities was fascinating, especially when he showed the distinct roles grain elevators, fences, and stockyards played in those processes. I had never considered that animals (along with alcohol) are easier to transport than plants: “pigs (along with whisky) were generally the most compact and valuable way of bringing [farmers’ corn crops] to market” (226). Not only is this an interesting idea, it is also an example of the geography/transportation of capital. Cronon quotes from one source, “‘Corn thus becomes incarnate; for what is a hog, but fifteen or twenty bushels of corn on four legs?'” (226).

One of Cronon’s conclusions in Part II is that “once within the corporate system, places lost their particularity and became functional abstractions on organizational charts” (259). Cronon carries the theme of dislocation into Part III. After carefully connecting Chicago to its hinterlands/rural areas to their Metropolis through the three commodities in Part II, “Nature to Market,” Cronon commences a different investigation in Part III, “The Geography of Capital.” Through a clever investigation of individuals’ estates at bankruptcy or death, Cronon composes a series of maps that illustrate Chicago’s position as the “gateway city” and why it beat St. Louis for the title. A gateway, though, is hardly a place in itself because it isn’t a destination. As goods are entering and exiting, the gateway is a place of dislocation. The examples of Montgomery Ward and Company’s mail-order catalogs and the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair further demonstrate the dislocation. The mail-order catalogs, Cronon writes, “offered its readers a map of capital, of second nature.” “The most remarkable thing about the catalog, like capital itself, is how thoroughly it obscures these relationships [between metropolis and hinterland]” (339). Similarly, Cronon refers to Henry Adams’s analysis of the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair. Adams called the fair a “Babel of loose … unrelated thoughts and half-thoughts” (344).

Initially, I thought the book was only about Chicago, so I didn’t expect to encounter so much dislocation. Since the story is about the rise of Chicago and the West, it makes more sense: the whole thing is about dislocation. It’s weird that moving goods around was/is essential to the process of creating capital.

I, like Wade, am interested in the relationship between second nature and capital. I don’t think second nature (refresher: “the artificial nature that people erect atop first nature” [xix]) is the exact same thing as capital, but I wish Cronon would have clarified their relationship. Maybe the difference between second nature and capital is that there is a way to have second nature without creating capital, such as the example of a self-sufficient pioneer.

March 30, 2014

Chicago’s Place on the Frontier, and Looking at First and Second Nature

Parts II and III of William Cronon’s Nature’s Metropolis expand upon Cronon’s telling of the story of Chicago from an environmental history perspective. In part II, Cronon tells the stories of the production, commodification, and transportation of grain, lumber, and meat and how they evolved along with the evolution of Chicago. In part III, Cronon looks at Chicago geographically, discussing the importance of the city’s location and how the expansion of industrialization westward affected the growing frontier. I found the organization of these two parts, and his book as a whole, effective. Cronon tries to tell the story of a city with his book, and the fact he was able to do so while not telling a chronological story is impressive, and in the end made the work more effective as a work of environmental history.

I found Cronon’s further discussion of the railroad impact in the west interesting and a valuable expansion of his discussion in part I. He discusses the railroad’s impact on Chicago and the surrounding areas in depth in part I, but in part II he writes that the railroads helped instigate the destruction of the bison, something we have already read about in this class. The railroads made going out and hunting the bison easier, and having a metropolis to bring the bison back and make money only motivated people further to hunt the bison and accelerate their destruction, and at the same time negatively impact Native American life. He also compares the pre and post railroad worlds in the west, showing how the railroad helped merchants in many ways and wasn’t overwhelming the frontier country but instead bringing them closer together.

Throughout his work, Cronon looks at nature as two types, first and second nature, with first nature being what would exist without any outside intrusion and second nature being the world build upon first nature. I didn’t love this definition after reading part I, and still don’t after reading parts II and III. In part II, Cronon does a good job of showing how nature and humans interacted through Chicago with the commodification of elements of nature, but in doing so he weakened the notions of first and second nature. For Cronon, first nature would be trees in a forest, and humans collecting the trees for lumber and using it commercially would be a result of second nature. While this is a clear example of humans “dominating” nature and theoretically fits into his classification of nature, as Ian mentioned below, humans worked in harmony with nature in the transportation of the lumber. By separating nature into two separate spheres, it ignores the concept of humans working in harmony with nature, even if in the example Ian presented humans shaped the environment. I also agree with Wade in my complaint about this definition, as using first and second nature works in some cases, but it leaves no room for something in between (or Cronon fails to do so) like when something natural becomes a commodity.