Uncategorized – Page 6 – American Environments to 1893

March 23, 2014

The Bond between Nature and Industry

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

Steinberg’s Nature Incorporated provided an interesting and convincing argument about the significance of water in the development of nineteenth century New England. One way in which I think Steinberg was so effective in presenting his claims was through his linking the growth of industry with transforming views about nature. In his first chapter, Steinberg outlines the ways water was used for commerce and for navigation throughout the eighteenth century. He then contrasts this utilization of water with that of the burgeoning textile industry that emerged in New England and created a demand for waterpower (59). As more textile companies flocked to the Charles and Merrimack Rivers, this demand for waterpower – and thus for control of the water – spiked. As Steinberg clearly indicates, the competition fostered by industrial capitalism soon “necessitated” the privatization of water (46). The agreements over who was entitled to water quickly fostered the idea that water was no longer a force of nature, but rather it “turned water into an instrument” (49). In this way Steinberg asserts that without the forces of industrial capitalism in New England, it is unlikely that water would have become viewed as merely a means to earn profits. Competition throughout industry accelerated ideas about controlling natural resources – in this case water – and consequently distorted nineteenth century views of nature.

In response to Manish’s post, I largely agree with his commentary that man can never divorce himself from nature. However, I would argue that industrialization – at least in the eyes of Steinberg – did “conquer” nature. While humans remain reliant upon nature and can fall victim to its elements, I think that the force of industrialization in New England “conquered” water in such a way that the resource could not return to its original state. An example of this occurs when Steinberg discusses attempts to restock fish populations in the Merrimack. Although efforts to privatize fish and restock waters in New England were largely failures, the attempts demonstrated how nature was so tightly woven into “human agendas” and how people strove to “redesign nature” to fit their economic needs (203-204). These endeavors, compounded with the pollution of rivers discussed by Ian, illustrated how humans had, in effect, conquered nature.

Lastly, I thought that it worked in Steinberg’s favor to narrow the focus of his narrative to New England. While we have largely criticized this approach in class, especially for the last two books we have read, Steinberg does well to articulate the importance of selecting New England. He asserts that the Merrimack Valley held systems for controlling water that were unprecedented in the nineteenth century, and he states that the valley was at the “heartland of waterpowered industry” (95, 243). Unlike previous authors, Steinberg was also able to reiterate that his study centered only on the industry of New England. With that being said, the case of industrial and urban development in nineteenth century New England was so dynamic that we could likely find elements of this type of water and environmental politics throughout the United States. An example that came to my mind was the Chicago described by Cronon in Nature’s Metropolis. Much like Chicago forged the frontier and created a new kind of ecological development in the Midwest, Steinberg argues that the industrial capitalism of New England established a new “ecological relations” with water (11). I found that Steinberg, akin to Cronon, effectively demonstrated how industry transformed not only the environment, but also human perceptions of nature in nineteenth century America.

March 23, 2014

Water: The Source Behind New England’s Industrialization

Theodore Steinberg’s Nature Incorporated is a compelling piece that offers a detailed analysis of the development of water as a source of power within 19^th century New England. From the outset of the piece, Steinberg frames 19^th century New England’s Industrial sector’s view on nature as “new sources of energy and raw materials” (11). Through this ideology, companies within New England, like the Merrimack Company and Hamilton Company, persisted to exhibit their control upon the nature of the region, most notably the extensive rivers and streams. In this manner, rivers like the Merrimack River were economically transformed into that of a commodity rather than a piece of nature (16).

One of the most compelling arguments from Steinberg’s book is the chapter titled “Fouled Water,” which details the effects of the growth of industry on the rivers within New England. Steinberg describes the effects of industrialization on New England’s water systems as creating “a new ecology of its own with far reaching effects on the water quality of the region’s rivers, and ultimately human existence itself” (206). The rivers in New England became a quick and easy way to dispose of the pollution from various industrial plants, such as paper mills, as well as the overall waste products of the growing population (209, 211). Though some amount of pollution is inevitable, it eventually reached the point in 1870s where the Merrimack River was so polluted from factories along it that it was unfit for domestic purposes, thereby human consumption (224). In fact, due to the enormous amount of waste this river was carrying within its waters, by the 1880s it also became the source of an outbreak of Typhoid Fever within the cities of Lowell and Lawrence (233). These examples, along with many others are the backbone of Steinberg’s argument regarding the negative effects of industrialization on the New England Rivers. Through them, it is easy to see how drastic of an effect industrialization brought upon these waters, as they were transformed into sources of disease and contamination.

Similar to the rivers and streams of New England, I have seen the effects of human pollutants on a water system with the Erie Canal. Though a man-made water system, the Erie Canal has been devastated by human hands through the dumping of waste into its water. I cannot speak for how it was at its start, but after years of trash being thrown into the water, it has a persistent murky brown if not greenish look, a red-flag regarding its level of cleanliness. As I often run along the canal when at home, I view the water as symbol of 19^th century perceptions on nature and its resources. They were not something to be preserved for their purity, but rather exploited as a commodity for industrial growth. Some might argue that the Erie Canal being man-made removes it from nature, but the water that fills it and the fish that inhabit it are both indicate of this waterways place within the environment.

After reading Emily’s post and comments on Steinberg’s neglect to differentiate “using” and “controlling” water, I would have to say I completely agree with her concerns. Though I did not initially realize his neglect until reading Emily’s post, looking back at the book, this appears as a significant shortcoming in the otherwise diligently constructed book. I see a major difference in the two verbs, as we today all use water for various purposes, such as drinking, cleaning, etc., but I doubt any of us claim to control the water in which we use like Steinberg argues 19^th century New England Industrialists did. If he had differentiated this within his work, I believe his argument would have come off as stronger, for he would indicate a clear cut difference in the way Industrialists controlled the flow and power of water vs. your average Lowell citizen using the Merrimack River to wash their clothes. Without a differentiation and clear definition in terms, he almost groups these people together in the way they “used” water, but it is clear from his argument that he perceives their usage as drastically different.

March 23, 2014

The “air thick with progress” and “water…at the heart of it all”

In Nature Incorporated: Industrialization and the Waters of New England , Theodore Steinberg uses a variety of strong verbs to describe how humans intervened in New England’s waterways. “Compelled by these plans to control the natural world, they developed the water, improved it for sale, and managed it with an eye toward its economic potential” (95). This sentence exhibits many of Steinberg’s verbs: controlled, developed, improved, and managed; others he employed throughout the book include dominated, manipulated, and tapped.

Besides displaying Steinberg’s varied diction, I bring up this issue of verbs because it troubled me. Throughout the book, I kept wondering why Steinberg did not ever write the word ‘used’ to refer to how New Englanders dealt with water. The closest any characters in this history come to just plain old using water are Native Americans, early white settlers who “used rivers at first to mark the periphery and limits of their land” (24), and settlers who established agricultural systems in the region. The compulsion to control marks the rest of the history of New England’s water in Steinberg’s view. I agree with his argument to an extent and see the validity of how industrialization shaped the rivers and streams (and how people thought about water as a resource), but I do wish he would have explicitly stated the difference between ‘using’ and ‘controlling’ water and showed ways in which that was possible.

Steinberg bookends his argument with the case of Henry David Thoreau who acts as a foil to industrializing New Englanders: both interact very differently with the same waterways. Thoreau’s account offers an enlightening cultural/artistic perspective, but does it help Steinberg’s argument? I think it mainly serves to create a dualism between ‘proper’ and ‘improper’ uses of nature: one is appreciative and the other is exploitative. Neither provide an opportunity for a third way in which humans can use and not abuse the resource of water.

In Manish’s post, I find a similar concern to my own. He writes, “the relationship between man and nature is best when man demonstrates a balance. He can utilize nature as a resource for his own benefit but he must take caution for abuse of the land can lead nature to grave repercussions such as illness.” There probably are examples of ways in which this balance occurred in nineteenth-century New England, but Steinberg chooses to focus on the transformative effects of industrialization. That is a legitimate focus because change is exciting and maybe history would be terribly boring without it.

March 22, 2014

Nature Incorporated: Has Industry Allowed Man to Control Nature?

Theodore Steinberg’s Nature Incorporated is a fitting book to read after Lisa Brady’s War Upon the Land for both texts discuss how Americans attempted to control nature in order to achieve some greater goal. This idea of attempted control over nature was something that Chelsea noted in her post from last week. While these two texts share the assumption that Americans believed they could control nature they differ on other ideas such as nature as an actor. Unlike Brady, Steinberg portrays nature much more as a setting rather than a character. It is not something with a consciousness but rather a resource or platform upon which man acts.

For the most part in the early stages of the book Steinberg seems to believe that humans could exert control over the land. He believed that human history “is defined by the transformation and control of nature.” (12) The larger question that he wants to address is how industrial transformation affected human society as well as alter human’s relationship with the natural world. He attempts to answer this question by pursuing three goals. First, examine industrial capitalism through an environmental perspective. Second, examine the competition over nature. Finally, explore the legal history of water in New England.

In my opinion Steinberg has done a good job overall in trying to properly understand the ideas that he poses. The layout of the book sets up an interesting narrative that makes clear the development of industry in New England, the transformation of a natural feature into a resource to be privatized, the resulting competition and the legal precedence that allowed for water to become a foundation upon which industry would rise and dominate the surrounding region and eventually the nation.

While the overall work is one that should be commended, I did find some areas that confused me. On page 69 Steinberg describes how the Boston Associates succeeded in altering the perception of the relationship between man and nature. Originally, nature was something that restrained humanity and limited opportunities. However, with the rise of industry this relationship was reversed and humans were longer dependent on ecology. Humanity had become independent allowing for unlimited opportunity.

However, later in his book Steinberg speaks about how cities are not divorced from the natural world. Cities in my mind are the epitome of industrialism. The urban sprawl is the heartland of industry and innovation. Despite cities being “monuments to human ingenuity” (220) Steinberg believed that they remained as dependent on the natural world as any community in the wilderness.

The second to last section of the book entitled “Fouled Water” speaks about how the water turned against those who had “control” over it. In November 1905 typhoid fever killed more people in Lowell than in all of Boston due to the pathogens that were pumped into the town thanks to the river which had been the source of economic success for so long.

The differing presentations of nature (one which was subjugated to man vs. one that man was completely reliant upon) make it seem as if Steinberg himself is not quite convinced that industrialization had completely “conquered” nature. While man can exert some control over nature he cannot ever divorce himself away from it. The relationship between man and nature is best when man demonstrates a balance. He can utilize nature as a resource for his own benefit but he must take caution for abuse of the land can lead nature to grave repercussions such as illness. Man must also be aware of his over consumption for not only does it change the environment for the worse but over consumption will also threaten social stability as demonstrated in all of the legal cases discussed throughout the book.

March 22, 2014

The debate about “natural” extends to pets

An opinion piece in the NYTimes about whether letting cats outside is a disruption of natural habitats: The Evil of the Outdoor Cat

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 17, 2014

War Upon the Man? – Nature’s Stance in the Civil War

I found that Brady’s War Upon the Land brought up some interesting concepts for us to consider both with respect to works we have read in weeks passed as well as the history of war and the environment in the United States. One concept that I enjoyed and found particularly effective for Brady was her development of nature as an actor. I thought Brady depicted this especially clearly when she presented the quotes of Captain Thaddeus Minshall stating that “nature and man are at war” (2). While we have previously discussed nature’s potential role in determining the course of American culture and society, this quote from Minshall gives nature both agency an orientation, and one directly opposed to the conquest of humans. With this in mind, I think Brady’s focus on the Civil War becomes a great point at which to start the conversation about war emerging between man and the environment.

As Brady mentions, although the wars of colonial America and the American Revolution housed conflict within North America, the Civil War was the first prolonged and large-scale series of battles to occur on American soil. This compounded with the technology that made the Civil War the first “modern” war in American history places this monograph at the beginning of an age where we see a shift in the way Americans interact within the environment – particularly as industrialization spread rampantly across the United States (4). Additionally by discussing environmental history in conjunction with military history, Brady is able to write a narrative that emphasizes the idea of nature and man as independent, but inherently linked agents. I think this is brought up effectively in Emily’s post where she juxtaposes Brady’s discussion of nature’s “power to shape human decisions” and how Union generals used their own northern ideas about improving, civilizing, and conquering nature in establishing a battle strategy against the Confederacy (emkrall).

Another piece of War Upon the Land that I appreciated was Brady’s use of the concept of “agroecosystems” or “domesticated ecosystems” (9). I think the most effective deployment of these agroecosystems was the ability to use them to highlight the differences between northern and southern farmers leading up to the Civil War. While southern lifestyle was dominated by plantation farms, most northern yeoman looked at their much smaller farmland with industrialist perspectives because the environment did not direct the culture of the North (18). I also think you see the clash between these two divergent environmental cultures in examples like the Union’s efforts to redirect the Mississippi River in the early years of the Civil War. Before finally being able to “embrace the hybrid nature of the river’s landscape,” General Grant’s Union soldiers unsuccessfully tried to turn the river twice, and as a result they suffered at the hands of diseases that plagued the mosquito-ridden region (48). It was not until northerners sought to understand the southern agroecosystem and “ally” with “their erstwhile nemesis, water” that the Union was able to use the southern environment for their own directives (41). Through this work, I think Brady was successful at establishing a framework for future historians to assess the ongoing cause and effect relationship between war and the environment as well as developing an effective frame in which to view nature as an actor in American history.

March 16, 2014

War on the Mississippi

In War Upon the Land, Lisa Brady seeks to show us how much nature influenced Northern incursions on Southern soil during the Civil War. According to her, nature influenced Northern strategy in key regions a great deal. For this reason, she labels nature as an historical agent with the power to shape human decisions. She doesn’t go as far as Linda Nash in ascribing some sort of consciousness to nature, but she does manage to tie nature to both strategy and the war’s causes.

Manish’s point about the significance of perceptions of land usage and wilderness ties Lisa Brady’s argument to larger 19^th century ideas of progress and industry. These cultural ideas about nature informed the Generals Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan’s strategic planning. This includes the idea that control over nature is possible through the application of science and technology. In this context, agriculture presents a means for improving or civilizing nature. And most important of all, despite these perceived powers over nature, controlling nature is difficult and liable to be undermined in an inexhaustible variety of ways. For example, despite all of the North’s successes in canal building over the course of the 19^th century, Sherman wrote of the Siege of Vicksburg, “The Mississippi River was very high and rising, and we began that system of canals on which we expended so much hard work fruitlessly” (43).

March 16, 2014

War Upon the Land and The Assumption that Man Can Control Nature

Nineteenth century Americans assumed that they could take control of nature and succeed in achieving their goals. In War Upon the Land, Lisa Brady confronted this American assumption by studying the ways in which the Union military attempted to play around with natural forces in order to defeat the Confederates in the Civil War. What amounted in Union attempts, however, was often pure hubris and failure to control nature. Brady provides the reader with the example of Vicksburg, where Union soldiers intended to tunnel under it, control the Mississippi river, and cause its isolation for Confederate destruction. The Union soldiers did in fact take the stronghold, but by fighting a gruesome battle and not by controlling nature. Their attempt to, what Brady calls, “neutralize nature,” did not succeed in this example. (35)

This assumption that man could control nature is tied to another idea that Brady discusses in her work. In her introduction, Brady clarifies that to “improve” nature, meant essentially to “civilize.” (11) This idea echoes our past discussions in class about the relationship between Americans and the wilderness. It also reminds me of Richard Slotkin’s arguments about white supremacy, the belief that natives symbolized an embodiment of the malevolent force of nature, and that the white man could bring nature under his control. Like our conversations about Native Americans and the wilderness and white Americans’ perception of both, white Northern Americans in the Civil War attributed the institution of slavery to something uncivilized and wild. I found her argument about white Northerners looking down upon southerners as uncivilized folk and using that as justification for fighting such a bloody war to prove interesting. Just like Americans must conquer and civilize the wilderness, the North must conquer and civilize the South by demolishing its abhorrent institution of slavery.

Destroying the South’s backbone of life and commerce, essentially, led to the Confederate loss and, like Emily stated, ensured that the South could not return to its previous state before the war (135). Brady referred to it as destroying the “agroecological foundations” of the South. (23) When supplies had to be left behind, the military was forced to live off the land, further stripping the Confederates of their resources. Nature seemed to be working against the Union military in their attempts to starve and destroy the southern way of life. Mosquitoes carrying diseases wreaked havoc on Union soldiers and rivers flooded impeding Northern movement. It was as if nature was fighting back against an arrogant species that believed nature was easily and justifiably conquerable. I found Brady’s work to be an interesting and insightful take on the destruction of Sherman and the Shenandoah and Mississippi River campaigns. I thought her work was essentially an argument of how nature shaped human decisions and how those decisions greatly impacted the outcome of the war.

March 16, 2014

The Civil War and Three Armies

Lisa Brady’s work gives “life” to the most often thought of inanimate world of the physical environment. After reading her work, I think Brady suggests that a third army existed during the Civil War–the Confederate Army, the Union Army, and the Nature Army. In her post from last week, Chelsea Creta stated, “Myth and history are not mutually exclusive.” In reference to this weeks reading, humans and the physical environment are not mutually exclusive. The American Civil War was a turning point in which many Americans came to this conclusion.

Army officials and soldiers on both sides had to maneuver the land. They had to learn how to use it to their advantage, but they also had to combat it in order to carry out a plan of attack. Northern soldiers who fought in the South encountered terrain and soil unlike what they were accustomed to in the North. Southerns (soldiers and civilians) had to deal with the fact that both sides depleted their resources and that Southern lands experienced the brunt of attack during the war. All soldiers had to deal with disease and weather–both products of the physical environment. The environment had to deal with the soldiers and their destruction of the land.

In the end, while the North technically won the war, the Nature Army is the real winner. As a result of four years of battle, Americans broadened their ideas about nature and the manner in which the national government has the ability to protect the physical environment. Yes, Brady does not attempt to give nature a consciousness or intent, but it does have agency–human thought and action are determined by nature’s role. Nature has the ability to infiltrate individuals’ lives. Brady tells of those who used nature metaphors to explain their conditions and emotions. Others wrote detailed descriptions of their surrounding environment. Thus, humans experienced a closer connection to nature than ever before. Brady states, “That nature retained its beauty in the face of an ugly war seemed to bring solace to some” (135). Of course high-thinkers like poets and philosophers thought of these connections, but this was a defining moment for the everyday American and nature.

Class discussions continually lead back to an important question, “Who are the actors?” In the case of Lisa Brady’s work and the American Civil War, there are three actors, three armies, not two. Thus, nature is not some static force that works against us but rather us and nature work in tandem (or at least that is how it should be).