environmental history – American Environments to 1893

May 4, 2014

My Interpretation of Environmental History and Nature

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

Looking back on this past semester, I realize how little I knew about environmental history before I began this class. I have never been to a state park, and I only went on my first hike, to the top of “Arthur’s Seat,” when I was abroad. I had always thought of the definition of “natural” as something untouched by mankind, mysterious in its sheer expanse, and beautiful. I looked at nature the way Henry David Thoreau viewed nature, as something mystifying and necessary:

We need the tonic of wilderness… at the same time that we are earnest to explore and learn all things, we require that all things be mysterious and unexplorable, that land and sea be indefinitely wild, unsurveyed and unfathomable. We can never have enough of nature. (From Walden: Or, Life In the Woods)

This class and the works that we have read, however, have completely changed my perspective on how I view nature and the wilderness. Nature does not encompass solely the peaceful and tranquil sceneries I once associated with the term, but now I include devastating tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes, storms, and floods as natural. To me now, nature includes things not touched and touched by man, because we as humans are as much a part of this natural ecosystem as any other animal. We interact with our environment, affect it, change it, help it, and hurt it, just as other creatures of this world. The environment influences us in the same ways. Our interaction with nature often impacts our decisions, our lifestyles, and our future. Whether the environment dictates military strategy of the Civil War or makes scholars wonder why Los Angeles was placed in a danger zone, mankind’s balance with nature tips back and forth throughout time. This tipping of the scale is certainly natural.

But to what extent? Will there ever be a point where we as humans will tip the scale too far in our direction and forever upset the world as we know it? Will there be a point at which we cannot go back, when nature is forever affected without the capability to recover? These questions are a few that environmental historians study as well as wonder if, perhaps, we have already crossed over the point of no return. Mike Davis believes there is no helping Los Angeles from disaster. William Cronon studies the rise of Chicago as a metropolis and its positive contribution to our American way of life.

American capitalism and market economy contributes to our destruction of our wilderness, yet also contributes to our survival. The line remains blurry between protecting our environment and protecting our American values and way of life. Justin’s comment, that “the environment has the potential to destroy humans as well,” resonates with me because many of the conversations we hear are one sided, placing mankind as the “evil” destroying “good” nature. This course has taught me that there is no duality when it comes to environmental history. Historians analyze this gray area and determine at what points in history men or nature have tipped the scale. I will forever look at nature and study environmental history with a more encompassing and expansive definition while trying to answer who the actors at play are and who appears to be at “fault.” This course has taught me that the answer to that question might not ever be solved, but that environmental history can help us make better and more intelligent decisions about how we interact with the world around us.

May 4, 2014

Semester Summary

This semester has been one filled with thoughtful and intelligent discussions about a topic that in recent years has become more popular–environmental history. This class was no regular history class where one learns about a specific disaster or group of people who impacted the environment in a specific way. We learned about how and why the United States is in its current state and where the nation might be headed if a more symbiotic relationship fails to develop between humans and nature. Thus, we, with the help of interesting and theoretical texts, determined that nature was an actual actor and had agency, something that most of us had not thought of before this class.

US history and environmental history cannot be told without each other. Their histories are intertwined. This class has made this apparent. As Chelsea said last week, “Steinberg doesn’t simply blame human agency for the use and overuse of resources and the exploitation of land. Steinberg emphasizes that nature played a huge role in the development of American history.” While humans impact and continue to impact nature, nature also has the ability to effect humans and other parts of nature. One could argue that humans are the “bad” people 90% of the time, but nature has the potential to be the “bad” person the other 10% of the time.

This class has made me realize the separation that exists in environmental history. There is a history of natural disasters and a history of nature. Determining a natural disaster is not as difficult as determining something to be apart of nature. This semester has largely been about determining the extent to which something (or someone?) is “natural.” I think a good way to think about things being “natural” is to think about who and what exist in this world. If something exists, then it is “natural” and therefore apart of nature. So often people try to make a division between things that are natural and unnatural. Many time something thought to be natural is not actually “natural” at all. Why make such a distinction? Well, it is crucial when understanding that components of the environment have the potential to be destroyed by human interactions. But, the environment has the potential to destroy humans as well.

This course has taught us to think about the effects of building a house or town in an area that is not fit for living. It has taught us that environmental history dates back to a period well beyond the boundaries most people set. I challenge you to think about nature, its beginnings, if it has an actual beginning, and if humans are a natural component of nature.

February 9, 2014

The Environmental Story of European Expansion

A major theme of Alfred Crosby’s work Ecological Imperialism is the merging of human societies from the “Old World” and natives living in the neo-Europes. Crosby discusses the intersection of separate human cultures as well as the introduction of new animal and plant species into unsuspecting habitats. The role that disease played in the European conquest of the New World is well documented by Crosby, but he also provides an explanation for the proliferation of Old World animals in North America. Old World animals experienced more success and expansion in the neo-Europes than did the animals of the neo-Europes in the Old World. According to Crosby, this is because the Old World animals were able to fill a vacated niche in the New World ecosystems. Crosby argues the large animals, such as mammoths, that evolved in the absence of humans were not prepared to hide and defend themselves from hunters and thus were easily eliminated by the human civilizations that crossed the ice bridge and entered North America. This in turn created an opening that was filled by grazing animals of the Old World such as cows, horses, and sheep (278). The terrific success of Old World animals in North America had always baffled me and gone largely un-discussed in previous works I read on the expansion of Europeans into North America. Crosby’s argument, however, provides an explanation that I find quite compelling.

Another interesting aspect of Crosby’s book is the difference between the Europeans and the natives in their willingness to join together to fend off a foreign threat. In the lands that eventually became New Zealand and Australia, the natives were at first unwilling to unite their tribes to defend the land against the Europeans. Crosby mentions that some tribes even aided the Europeans in their efforts to exterminate other tribes on the islands. Eventually they joined together, but not until it was too late to defeat the Europeans. While disease and immunity obviously factors largely into the eventual success of European expansion, I believe Crosby underemphasizes the importance of having a common goal. The Europeans, in sailing to and establishing themselves in new lands, shared the common goal of spreading European society. Natives, on the other hand, often times did not realize the importance of their encounter with the Europeans or the Europeans’ intentions until it was too late. Had the natives understood that the Europeans endangered their society and their best chance of resistance was to unite with other tribes, perhaps European expansion would have played out differently.

As far as the field of environmental history, I completely agree with Sean’s assessment that Ecological Imperialism “took away any doubts I may have had about environmental history as a field of study.” Crosby wrote on a topic, European expansion, that I have heard about and studied many times. His approach, however, was completely unique from anything else I have read about colonization. Disease and environmental factors were always mentioned as aspects of European expansion, but never were they the main focus. Crosby’s work told a compelling story of European expansion sculpted and shaped by environmental and ecological factors.