Capital – 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.

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

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.