American Environments to 1893 – Page 5

March 30, 2014

Cronon’s Look at Meat

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

In chapter five of Nature’s Metropolis, Cronon discusses the importance and growth of Chicago’s meatpacking industry in the 19^th century. He discusses how, helped by the surrounding railroads, the Chicago stockyards grew over time into a large, vital part of the nation’s meat industry. The meat packing industry is one that has gotten a lot of attention historically. Cronon makes note of Upton Sinclair’s 1906 book The Jungle, which famously prompted reform of the meatpacking industry by outlining the factories’ horrible, unsanitary conditions. (208) Of course, problems still persist today. A simple Google search would reveal countless videos of the inhumane and unclean conditions in many factory farms today—things like hundreds of pigs crammed into tiny, filthy enclosures. While these accounts are quite disturbing, they also point to something Ian discussed in his post—namely, the way commodification of natural things completely changes the way we look at and interact with those things. Ian refers to water as the thing commodified in his post, and I agree and actually believe that the commodification with animals hammers the point home in an even more dramatic way, as in this case the things being commodified are living animals, who are of course hurt in the process.

In class, we have often discussed how natural resources can be taken advantage of in a way that still seems “natural” to us. One big point of difference between natural and unnatural use of these resources has been the idea of whether the person using them is doing so on a small scale to support their self, rather than on a large scale to sell the end product to a mass market. So, in this case, consider the idea of a farmer who raises some cows and pigs to feed himself as opposed to something like a stockyard or a factory where a corporation is raising the animals to slaughter and sell. Most of us probably consider the activity of the lone farmer to be a more “natural” way of using the animals. Much as animals eat one another in nature, this man is simply using what animals he needs to feed himself in a way that somewhat mimics the natural food chain. I don’t have proof to back this up, but one would assume those animals are kept in better, less abusive conditions than animals being raised to sell to a large market. Again, as Ian discussed, when water was commodified, companies used it as a place to dump waste, which of course hurts the water’s quality. This is analogous to the case of the comparison between the small vs. large farm. In the big farm or stockyard, there is bound to be lower standards of quality and a more mistreatment of the animals. I found Cronon’s chapter on meat to be an interesting example of how, once something natural has been commodified and turned into a product, it is treated more carelessly and most likely suffers in quality (especially interesting because any company would claim to strive to get its customers the highest possible quality of product).

March 30, 2014

Cronon’s Complications with Second Nature

Unlike previous readings throughout this semester, this week’s portion of Cronon’s Nature’s Metropolis left me with two very different reactions. While Parts II and III of the book were both filled with information pertinent to the growth of Chicago in the nineteenth century, the end of the monograph left me puzzled with Cronon’s analysis.

I found Part II of Nature’s Metropolis very effective in emphasizing the importance of natural resources in the development of Chicago. Cronon’s thorough assessment of the emergence of incorporated grain, lumber, and meat into Chicago’s – and eventually the country’s – economy demonstrated how the power of “first nature” was inescapable. In the production of crops, Cronon explains that the glaciers that once existed in the Great Lakes region were responsible for the richness of the soil surrounding Chicago (98). Additionally, Chicago’s lumber trade declined after forests north of the city were exhausted of their trees. Only these forests, due to the network of waterways that ran through them, were able to supply the rather treeless Chicago with lumber (200). These examples served to show that Cronon’s concept of “first nature” was responsible both for the creation and the destruction of different pieces of Chicago as a metropolis.

Cronon also linked his concepts of “first” and “second” nature in Part II. In his discussion of wheat as the definitive cash crop of Chicago, Cronon writes about the importance of the gridding of land and the grain elevator in commoditizing nature. As the railroad established its presence in the Midwest, the transport of grain increased dramatically in scale and necessitated the use of a grain elevator to make the process more efficient (126). The use of the grain elevator railroad also contributed to the creation of the Chicago Board of Trade in an effort to standardize grain qualities for consumers (119). Also bringing agriculture off the farm and into the city was meat production in plants on the South side of Chicago. The commoditizing of meat, Cronon argues served to convince Chicagoans that meat had become an “urban product” (256). While Cronon effectively reveals a relationship between first and second nature, he seems to fail to discuss the implications of this link. When a natural product like wheat became commoditized, did it too become second nature? Unfortunately, Cronon leaves us with inconclusive answers for inquiries like these.

While I found Part II holistically convincing, Part III of Nature’s Metropolis saw Cronon’s arguments beginning to unravel. I also think at this point Chelsea’s commentary on “humans allow(ing) capital to rule their lives” becomes clearly applicable. Even Cronon becomes obsessed with capital when he makes the claim in his chapter “Gateway City” that second nature is capital (269). Though I understand Cronon’s demonstration that second nature can be traced by the seemingly unceasing flow of capital as noted by Chelsea, I am left completely clueless as to why he didn’t make the distinction at the beginning of his book between “nature” and “capital” as opposed to his created concepts of “first” and “second” nature. Moreover, in our discussion several weeks ago on Part I of Cronon, we talked about how Cronon considered both the creation of railroads and cities a step in ecological evolution. However, in “Gateway City” Cronon asserts that there was nothing natural about the advantages Chicago had in becoming a metropolis (295). In Part III of this book, Cronon appears to become more concerned with the economic and cultural history of late nineteenth century Chicago than with the environmental approach taken in the first parts of his narrative. Sadly, with all these contradictions and conflicts in his arguments, I found Cronon’s conclusions, or lack thereof, disappointing.

March 30, 2014

Nature’s Place as a Product

William Cronon’s Parts II and III of Nature’s Metropolis analyze the commodification of various goods which became national commodities through Chicago as a major trading center. Through these two sections, Cronon describes the standardization of grain production, the significant rise in the trade of lumber, as well as the development of the intercontinental meat packing industry, all of which passed through Chicago as a bridge into the national market of the USA.

One of the most interesting chapters of Cronon’s Part II is his work on the growth of the lumber industry in Chicago, specifically in the way humans used natural forces to their advantage. In describing the seasonality of the lumber industry, Cronon indicated that loggers often flooded skidways with water, which then froze, allowing them to easily move the enormous loads of logs from point A to B (156). This tactic seemed incredibly innovative to me and represented both humans “using” their environment, as well as shaping it. In terms of using it, the loggers knew that water naturally froze when cold enough, which it often is during the winter months of Chicago, so they took advantage of this natural occurrence for their benefit. Meanwhile, they also altered their environment by flooding and freezing a region that would not have faced these conditions without human alteration. Though Cronon does not mention any negative effects of this change, it would be interesting to see how the transportation methods of the Chicago logging industry in the 1870s effected the environment and its natural inhabitants (outside of humans).

Again on the topic of water, Cronon makes similar claims compared to Theodore Steinberg regarding the pollution of water through its usage to dispose of waste. In his description of the waste from the Chicago pork packers, Cronon indicates that they used the water to dispose of these materials, taking on the perspective of “out of sight, out of smell, out of mind” (249). Steinberg, in his work of Nature Incorporated indicated that New Englanders also took on this ignorant perspective regarding their effects to the environment. The similarity between the ideologies of these two areas provided an answer for me regarding our question in class about country wide claims we could make about water politics. It seems that across the country, Americans in the 19^th century viewed water as their tool for whatever they deemed fit, instead of a natural resource that could be destroyed. Through their negligence, both the purity of the water in New England and Chicago was diminished through the dumping of waste.

I believe Chelsea’s comment about capital dominating human life defines my comments about the way both Cronon and Steinberg indicated American perceptions of water. Rather than water as a natural commodity, something for everyone to enjoy, it seems that people only saw it for the benefits it could provide them in terms of financial gain. With the Chicago Meat Packers, water for them was an easy and free way to dispose of waste, saving them money but costing the environment. Similarly in New England, the industrialists also took on this ideology, while also viewing the water as a controllable energy source to provide them power for their factories. Though I agree with Chelsea’s description, I believe her statement about humanity’s priority of financial gain only sometimes effecting nature needs to be expanded in order to truly incorporate all the effects that human monetary decisions have had on the environment, specifically in the 19^th century. The killing off the buffalo for robes and leather, the laying of the railroad throughout the land, and the establishment of cities into the west all were based off economic growth, each effecting the environment in a number of ways. I would love to be wrong about this, as it would reflect a better humanity, but our past large scale economic decisions seemed to have affected the environment in a number of lasting ways.

March 30, 2014

The Domination and Geography of Capital in the Industrialization of Chicago

William Cronon, in Parts II and III of Nature’s Metropolis, discusses the movement of natural materials to market and the movement of capital, products, and people within the context of industrializing Chicago. Grain, lumber, and meat become major natural materials to pass through Chicago. Cronon writes about the importance of farmers to Chicago and that without the farmers, there would be no city. With the help of the railroads, farmers transported and provided efficient access to new areas. The creation of the elevator caused technology to replace individual workers. With these railroads and new technology, access to wood became easier and more expansive. People began to look towards Chicago for lumber. Essentially, nature was transferred to capital. And, more importantly, not “wasting” land, meat, or capital was priority. This idea of the movement of natural materials emphasizes one of Cronon’s main theses in his work on the rise of Chicago: The geography of capital was as important as the geography of nature.

Cronon also discusses the importance of Chicago as a “Gateway City.” Not only was it a gateway city for the West, but also for the eastern cities attempting to benefit from the commodities and flow of exchange from the West. Because of Chicago’s exchange between what Cronon refers to as “first” and “second” nature, “the commodities that flowed across the grasslands and forests of the Great West to reach Chicago did so within an elaborate human network that was at least as important as nature in shaping the region.” (264) Cronon also argues that Chicago as a new metropolis revealed the importance of railroads, elevators, and refrigerator cars to the West (265). Although competing with surrounding cities like St. Louis, Chicago flourished as the gateway between the Northern/European capitalist economy and the colonizing West. (295) Mail-order catalogs in 1872 allowed for the technological combinations of “railroads, urban manufacturing, wholesaling, improved postal service, and advertising” to be delivered anywhere. (333) With Chicago’s rise as a metropolis, Cronon argues, the geography of capital was about connecting people to make new markets and remake old landscapes and therefore “capital produced a landscape of obscured connections.” (340)

In the Epilogue, Cronon argues that Chicago caused its own demise as a metropolis in some ways. For example, opening a market in the region encouraged human migration, environmental changes, and economic developments that gave rise to other great cities, diminishing its competitiveness. Reading about Chicago and its rise as a great city dependent on the exchange between nature and capital made me think about our discussions of nature and changing landscapes. I am solidified even more in my opinion that humans allow capital to rule their lives and that sometimes the environment is affected by such decisions completely dependent on attempting to gain as much capital as possible from the endeavor. This reminds me of a comment Justin made last week about how “industrialization consumes American lives.” “Wasting” capital appeared to be more important than “wasting” nature, such as the white pine, though they were so intertwined in the development of the industrializing city. Eventually, however, the pursuit of capital experienced its limits and Chicago, as a gateway city, no longer fulfilled that status. I agree with Cronon’s view that we fool ourselves when we think of choosing between the city and the country and that we often forget how they fully shape each other. We must understand both the city and the country to realize they are one and we as humans are a part of one entity.

March 30, 2014

Supplementary Reading: The Response to Industrialism 1885-1914 by Samuel P. Hays

Samuel P. Hays’ book Response to Industrialism 1885- 1914 offers a comprehensive look at the history of American industrialism starting in the post Civil War era through the beginnings of the first world war. It is the third book in a series of four that relates the history of this country from its founding through the beginning of the Cold War.[1] The main goal of Hays book is to examine how industrialization affected all aspects of American society as well as the nation as a whole. He does not just focus on the positive effects of industrialization but also the negative consequences that were just as present. These negative consequences inspired societal responses to industrialism known as the Progressive and Populist Movements. While many saw industrialism as being crucial to American success on the world stage, Hays attempts to help the reader understand the downsides to industrialism and the resulting counter movement that helped reorganize American politics, society and economy.

While the book is divided into nine chapters there seem to be three distinct sections that outline different influences of industrialization. The first section is directed at the structural changes that industrialism brought to the American landscape and society. He focuses on changes such as transportation and communication. He argues that the improvement of technology in these fields was a major catalyst for the growth economically of America. The building of railroads created a mass market and allowed for mass production. The invention of the telephone created knowledgeable consumers and allowed for quicker business decisions.[2]

As a result of these improvements there were several resulting consequences. The agricultural sphere became commercialized as railroads allowed for foodstuffs to be transported greater distances, granting consumers access to greater choice. Industrialization also increased the importance of cities. As factories came to dominate the urban landscape, cities became the nerve centers of the country. Industrialization also transformed American government. Hays believed that government reflected the attitude of the people. People initially valued the promise of wealth that industrialization created, which led government to become a pro business advocate.

Despite these changes, of which many people saw as positive, the second section of the book deals with the negative influences that industrialization had on different spheres of American society. This section is by far the longest and reflects Hays belief that industrialization had significantly negative impacts on average Americans of all regions. He begins with a general analysis of the perception of wealth. Originally, the economic growth of the country created a hope in all Americans that they could overcome their economic restrictions. Industrialization was the vehicle that would allow them to rise above their social class and experience what the wealthy already knew.

However, the pursuit of wealth along with the growing income disparity led many to finally realize the harsh reality. The pursuit of wealth was leading to a deterioration of societal norms such as good morals. Material success reduced the role of religion in society. No longer were people concerned with pursuing a righteous path. While the morality of American society was jeopardized, it also economically destabilized the lives of many citizens throughout the nation. Farmers in the South and the West were now forced to compete with commercial farms. They became concerned about their well being when they realized that their cost of production was higher than the prices that their products could be sold due to competition from the industrial farms.

In the urban sphere similar concerns were forming. The urban sphere was the area of the country most boosted by industrialism. The number of factories made cities an attractive region for both Americans and immigrants looking for work. Factories offered them a source of consistent labor and a more secure source of income. Unfortunately, factory work provided almost no possibility of upward mobility. The increase in immigration also increased competition thus providing business owner’s power over their employees. The ability for employers to limit wages created dire situations in cities for the vast majority of the growing population in cities. The increase in poverty was a major factor in the moral degradation of the urban environment.[3]

As a result of these conditions that were the result of industrialization, it forced American society into action. In the agricultural realm local farmers banded together to pressure the political parties into action. They formed labor forces whose presence was a threat to the business agriculture of the region. The farmer collective was the start of the greater conflict that took place between big business and labor that would be contested throughout the nation.[4] Just as the farmers unionized, a similar phenomenon was taking place within the cities. For too long big business dominated its employees. By the late 1800’s those in the cities began collectively organizing in order to increase their rights, for the situation had gotten to the point that urban life for the lower classes was no longer tolerable.[5] The income disparity was obvious and the wealthy made no attempts to hide it.

The second section ends with an analysis of the rural and urban spheres fight back against those who most benefitted from industrialism by attempting to reform the political sphere. This came to be known as the Progressive Movement. With the rise of industrialism, political machines had arisen in order to protect the interests of business. However, by the end of the 19^th century reformers decided that enough was enough and directed their attentions at modifying the political sphere to look out more for the interests of laborers.[6] The conflict within the political sphere grew so heated that the debate reached the Supreme Court, which was required to make some monumental rulings on the relationship between business and the American public.[7] Samuel P. Hays is very critical of industrialism. It unleashed many negative effects on the American society and inspired a countermovement that unleashed a battle between ordinary labor and big business that would come to define the period.

Despite these criticisms Hays concludes his book with a final section devoted to the greater success that industrialism made possible for each region as well as the nation as a whole. While he acknowledges that the East was by far the greatest beneficiary of industrialism, Hays believed that as a region both the South and West received positive benefits as well. The West was greatly improved thanks to the construction of railroads, dams and aqueducts. The South was revamped and as a result became described as the “New South” that still had agricultural roots but now possessed increased mechanization to allow improved efficiency.[8] An interesting argument that Hay puts forward at this point was the idea that though industrialism had benefitted the South and West, the greatest benefit was still felt in the East for the South and West were in part Eastern colonies.[9] Regardless of if one does or does not agree with this statement the result of these improvements in all regions of the nation, was the emergence of the United States as a world power. With these substantial resources the US was primed to become competitive in the world. Thus the next step was to expand outwards and compete imperially with Europeans nations. The end of the 19^th century saw a significant rise in the external conflicts that the US became involved in leading into the First World War.

Samuel P. Hays’ book is a great source for understanding the impact of industrialism on American society during the second half of the 19^th century. He does a particularly good job of complicating the typical narrative of industrialism. That narrative was one that only focused upon the overall success of industrialism. It ignored the consequences for society. Hays’ narrative focuses on those consequences and helps the reader understand the sacrifice that Americans had to make in order to progress. While industrialism brought many benefits to Americans it threatened their way of life and so they needed to respond. This is what prompted the Progressive countermovement that would come to dramatically change many aspects of American society.

The overall purpose of the book is commendable but there are a couple of shortcomings. First, Hays makes very little reference to any other historical work. The editor praises Hay in his use of the “rich storehouse of recent scholarship”[10] yet this scholarship is presented in a very limited manner throughout the text. A second criticism has to do with the book’s relationship to the environment. Hay states “industrialism was less important in changing the motives of Americans than in profoundly altering the environment…”[11] Despite this claim Hay spends very little time exploring the alteration of the American landscape. Instead he narrows his focus to the people who worked the environment and their perceptions of the changes that took place due to industrialism. The only point in his book where Hay explicitly references the land was during his analysis of the change in the political sphere. With the election of Theodore Roosevelt there was the rise of the conservation movement but Hay spends only a few moments on the topic proclaiming it a generally unsuccessful movement.[12]

William Cronon’s book Nature’s Metropolis is a book very similar to Samuel P. Hays. Both books analyze the affects of industrialism on the development of American society. Cronon’s book is a little more specific in its focus by looking only at Chicago. Still they approach industrialism in a similar manner to try and reveal how industrial improvements affected different spheres of society. Unlike Hays however, Cronon takes a greater interest in analyzing industrialism’s affect on the environment. He traces how human perceptions of land have changed. They moved away from seeing the land as simply a natural setting and instead began to commoditize all aspects of the land such as prairies, forests, animals and water. This type of analysis is missing from Hays book and if present could have added an interesting dimension to his argument.

My final criticism of Hays’ book is that he attempts to analyze too many different aspects of a changing American society. Whether it is economically, socially, religiously or some other aspect, Hays attempts to provide some sort of commentary. This is very useful if a reader is using the book to gain some general knowledge on a subject but unfortunately the breadth of the project meant that many of his commentaries are shallow in their analysis. An example of this can be seen with his description of the decrease in religiosity. He spends only a moment describing the regression of religion from society but does not fully explain what religion’s role had originally been in society or why this was changing. Hays general neglect of topics such as this does not hamper his overall narrative but it does leave the reader with further questions. As a work in general Samuel P. Hays efforts should be applauded for he does a good job of highlighting the different influences that industrialism had on different spheres of American society and though he devotes little attention to its influence on the environment, his narrative is useful in our understanding of catalysts of change during this period.

Cronon, William. Nature’s Metropolis: Chicago and the Great West (New York: WW Norton &

Company, 1991).

Hays, Samuel P. The Response to Industrialism 1885-1914 (Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1957).

[1] Each book in the series was written by a different author.

[2] Samuel P. Hays, The Response to Industrialism 1885-1914 (Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, 1957), 5-9.

[3] Hays, 20-24.

[4] Hays, 44.

[5] Hays, 32.

[6] Hay, 106.

[7] Hay, 158.

[8] Hay, 124.

[9] Hay, 126.

[10] Hay, viii.

[11] Hays, 190.

[12] Hays, 157.

March 24, 2014

Nature Incorporated vs. Rivers of Empire

Our readings this week focus on the role that water, particularly in the form of rivers, has played in the history of American attempts to exploit nature for economic benefit. The authors of both the main book and the supplementary reading look at the interplay between water, the historical process of mastering nature to the point of harnessing its resources, and the American capitalist system. Interestingly, both books choose to open their introductions by examining a different work by Henry David Thoreau (a famous lover of nature who campaigned emphatically against industrialization and the accompanying loss of natural spaces). However, both books ultimately differ on the ideas of how Americans have controlled nature.

In Nature Incorporated, Theodore Steinberg looks at how New England mill owners in the nineteenth century would vie for control of the area’s rivers, whose currents they used to power the ever-growing number of factories. He places those struggles in the context of a larger overall process of man slowly but surely gaining control of nature. In Rivers of Empire, Donald Worster makes a longer (and I would argue more complex) argument about the role of water in the settling of the arid western regions of the United States. He challenges the pattern in American historiography that claims the American west was a bastion of freedom and individuality highlighted by its people’s struggles to tame the wilderness. Instead, he uses the history of western irrigation projects to argue that the old west was more characterized by authoritative systems designed to keep power in the hands of a small elite. While the books make different arguments, they do not ultimately oppose one another because they are each case studies of radically different areas of the country. In fact, both works succeed in their arguments by making logical arguments based on strong analysis of credible primary sources.

In Nature Incorporated, Steinberg uses the power struggles between mill owners for dominance over New England’s rivers (and the energy they could generate) to reveal links between American economic history and the gradual process of gaining control over nature, the latter of which he sees as the driving force behind all of human history.[1] Thus, Steinberg’s argument centers on the process by which people were able to advance enough to obtain power from New England’s rivers, and the subsequent battles over which mill owners could exert the greatest amount of control over those rivers. The coverage of those battles represents a significant piece of Steinberg’s argument. For example, in one section early on, Steinberg discusses an instance in the 1820s in which the Merrimack Manufacturing Company had its power over a section of the Merrimack River challenged when a nearby landowner built a dam in opposition to the one already operated by the company. After some grappling, all of the property and rights to use of the river were transferred to a larger company by 1830.[2] In his telling of these events, in which he cites both business records and legal documents, Steinberg goes to lengths to emphasize the level of control man has managed to impose on the river, to the point that it is now just a commodity to be fought over by business owners rather than an entity with substantial agency or power.

In Rivers of Empire, Donald Worster takes a firmly Marxist view of history in examining the process of irrigating the arid, desert-like regions of the American west in the 19^th and 20^th centuries. From the beginning of the book, he lets you know that he is arguing against a common thread of thought in American academics and culture that paints the American west as a uniquely individualistic place where a farmer could move to and succeed in if they worked hard and were willing to tame the wilderness of the area without any help. Instead, Worster argues that the west was what he calls a hydraulic society, one with a rigid social order determined by “large-scale manipulation of water” in which a small power elite with “ownership of capital and expertise” were at the top.[3] Worster’s argument hinges on the idea that the task of irrigating the arid western region of the U.S. was such a hugely expensive, and technologically demanding undertaking that powerful Americans had to set up a system of social order (in which the poor were exploited) and “indigenous bureaucracy and corporatism” in order to complete the task.[4] Worster frequently notes in the introduction that his argument is in opposition to most prior scholastic work, which is best embodied by Frederick Jackson Turner’s famous frontier thesis. However, he cites later work in which Turner himself admits that the more desert-like, far flung western regions would not be conquered by “old individual pioneer methods” and would require high levels of “cooperative activity” to solve the water issue.[5] By citing work by an author who is a notable part of the scholarship he is writing against, Worster strengthens his argument greatly.

Worster’s treatment of the passage of the 1902 National Reclamation Act is a great example of his overall argument. The act allowed the government to sell 160-acre parcels of arid land to individuals and use the proceeds to set up irrigation projects on the land, with annual payments for the land creating a refilling fund for more irrigation projects.[6] As Worster points out, scholarship has generally characterized the passage of this act as a progressive move, one in which the government was empowering its citizens to take on the individualistic endeavor of moving out west and setting up a farm.[7] However, Worster’s examination of the congressional debates leading to the passage of the bill reveal a different story. Congressmen voting against the bill tended to argue that by effectively subsidizing western agriculture in this way, the government would be hurting the already struggling eastern farmers. They believed that western expansion should occur at the pace it would naturally based on population growth. On the other side, the congressmen voting for the Reclamation Act focused on all the money that could be made by irrigating and populating the west as quickly as possible, what with the possibility of future railroad projects and new markets to be opened.[8] This line of argument leads Worster to conclude that the Reclamation Act was part of a large-scale implementation of an “established social order” that did not include poor eastern farmers.[9] The section on the National Reclamation Act is a useful microcosm for Worster’s overall argument.

Nature Incorporated and Rivers of Empire each provide excellent narratives of the history of water politics in New England and the American west respectively. Both use thorough analysis of relevant primary sources to successfully make their arguments, though they have somewhat different takes on the way humans controlled nature in the cases each looks at. Steinberg argues in Nature Incorporated that water politics history in New England was a story of the gradual development of mankind’s control over the region’s rivers. Worster, on the other hand, argues that the scarcity of water in the arid west led to irrigation projects that allowed America’s elites to develop the west in a way that economically benefitted them and exploited the poor. In that way, water as a natural element actually exerts control over those many exploited people. However, one can accept both authors’ arguments because each is quite specific to their particular geographic region.

Bibliography

Steinberg, Theodore. Nature Incorporated. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. 1991.

Worster, Donald. Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity, and the Growth of the American West. New York: Oxford University Press. 1985.

[1] Theodore Steinberg, Nature Incorporated (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1991), 12

[2] Ibid, 64-65

[3] Donald Worster, Rivers of Empire: Water, Aridity, and the Growth of the American West (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 7

[4] Ibid, 10

[5] Ibid, 12

[6] Ibid, 160-161

[7] Ibid, 162

[8] Ibid, 164-165

[9] Ibid, 166

March 23, 2014

Winners and Losers in Nature’s Cycle

“Transformation,” “Control,” “Struggle,” “Law,” “Depleted” and “Fouled.” For this week’s reading Ted Steinberg uses these words in his chapter titles which he splits into three parts with headings such as “Origins,” “Maturation,” and “Decline,” no doubt a cyclical connotation behind the use of those words. Steinberg argues that nature has been disregarded in historical discussions about industrial transformation. In many recent class discussions it has been suggested that until recently nature held the backseat to analyses of several major historical events. Even though nature proved more and more essential to the economy, historians and have tended to think of them as being less related than they actually were (and are).

Steinberg states, “Human history is defined by the transformation and control of nature” (12). With increased obsessions about capitalism came an increase in human need to control the environment. Steinberg suggests that prior to the nineteenth century it was more difficult for humans to commodify and privatize water than land. It was not easily subjected to ownership. With time came progress and better methods and thus water came to be controlled in much the same way as land. According to Steinberg with the nineteenth century came this notion that, “Industrial capitalism is as much a battle over nature as it is over work, as likely to result in strife involving water or land as wages or hours” (16). Nature and human control over it was just as important as the common components of an industrial society embedded in a capitalist economy.

Steinberg sets up a framework of “winners” and “losers.” Prior to the nineteenth century water was not controlled. With the emergence of industry came the need to control water and use its power. As Chelsea said last week, “Nineteenth-century Americans assumed that they could take control of nature and succeed in achieving their goals.” By most standards nineteenth-century Americans did succeed, but with a closer examination a different argument could be made, one suggesting they did not succeed. Industrialization consumed Americans’ lives. Industrialists felt a need to control not only the business world but the natural world as well.

Humanity was not “winning” prior to the 1800s, it won during the 1800s/until the mid-1900s, but what about today, the twentieth century? I would argue that in this current cycle of human vs. nature, humanity is the loser and nature is the winner. Today’s society is bares the consequences of actions committed in the nineteenth century, actions that viewed water and land as necessary to success and malleable to meet any need. While nineteenth-century industrialists thought it crucial and keen to build factories and towns near water, is it possible that such actions hurt society more than it helped?

March 23, 2014

Humanity’s Domination of Nature in “Nature Incorporated”

Theodore Steinberg’s Nature Incorporated for me helped further enforce the idea that humanity and nature coexist in his discussion of the industrial growth in New England and its interactions with water. Steinberg discusses the relationship between nature and society, both economically and legally, and in doing so shows how humans coexisted with nature by controlling it, but despite this control, the nature could counteract it as humans became dependent on it (ie: water/typhoid fever).

Throughout this class we have looked at how nature and humanity have interacted and coexisted, and Steinberg brings in a new perspective. William Cronon discussed in Nature’s Metropolis the economic relationship between nature and human urbanization with the railroad system, seeing railroads as natural. Steinberg creates an economic relationship between nature and human urbanization as well, but with a more obvious component of nature (water). He effectively argues how water instigated economic competition and made water a privatized commodity controlled by man.

At first glance I thought Manish’s connection between War Upon the Land and Nature Incorporated was a stretch, as in the former there was a clear distinction between nature and humanity while in the latter I read the two as one and the same. However I bought the connection once Manish argued that nature was a setting in Steinberg’s work, not a character, a point I find intelligent that helps explain how humans could try and control nature yet be a part of it. The idea of nature as a setting rather than a separate actor allows humans to exist within it, even if the human element has negative effects on the prior existing environment.

A lot of this discussion has been centered on human’s “conquering” of nature in Nature Incorporated, and I believe that this “conquering” is just indicative of humanity’s greater role within the environment, not human’s overtaking the environment. As Emily noted in her post this idea of domination is reinforced with Steinberg’s word choice, yet I interpreted Steinberg’s points as industrialization being another stage of nature’s evolution. Throughout human history people have used elements of nature to survive, whether it be collecting lumber or hunting for sustenance. For me, Steinberg’s discussing of humanity and water convinces me further that urbanization and industrialization is nature and that human’s new usage, dependence, and privatization of water is just a new role water is playing relative to societal evolution, and that the domination is a sign of humanity’s greater role within the environment.

As Ian wrote in his discussion of the chapter “Fouled Water,” industrialization had a clear negative impact on the environment through pollution. The effect on water obviously was a negative one, and Steinberg is critical of this industrialization. I believe that despite the negative effects human had on the New England environment, that doesn’t mean that the humans moving in and industrializing the area means they are not a part of the environment, but instead a dominant part.

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 23, 2014

Nature Incorporated Discussant Questions

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

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

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