Natural – American Environments to 1893

May 4, 2014

Semester Summary

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

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.

April 14, 2014

Crimes Against Nature: Conceptions of Nature and Morality

Karl Jacoby, in his Crimes Against Nature, discusses the land set-aside during the conservation movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as well as the “the law and its antithesis-lawlessness” (2). I found it interesting that the conservation movement began when American lawmakers redefined what was considered legitimate uses of the environment. The philosophies that shaped these lawmakers and their decisions trickled down to the ordinary folk and their interactions with the environment therefore changed. Jacoby refers to the moral universe that shaped the local transgression of conservation laws that gives historians a look into the beliefs and traditions of the people as “moral ecology” (3). Poaching, arson, and squatting take center-stage in Jacoby’s work on conceptions of nature and environmental crimes.

Jacoby argues that there is more to the traditional story about the elite imposing their ideas about nature on rural places and rural folk. The country folk did not ignorantly break the laws, but actually resisted conservation programs that threatened livelihoods and “fashioned a variety of arrangements designed to safeguard the ecological basis of their way of life” (193). Studying the formation of the Adirondack Park by New York State, the federal government’s attempts to manage Yellowstone National Park, and the Grand Canyon conservation plans, Jacoby shows how these actions impacted the resident peoples. With the involvement of the military, conservation schemes affected those living in and using the parks, such as those who desired to use the public land for hunting. Conservationists even opposed the supposed American rights to take timber, water, and minerals from the preserved lands. He points out that sometimes, “Americans have often pursued environmental quality at the expense of social justice” (198). In this way, the conservation movement challenged American republicanism and democracy, interfering with traditional conceptions of American rights and living.

An interesting myth that Jacoby also challenges is the myth that conservationists protected unchanging wilderness, when, in fact, conservationism transformed the countryside itself. Fire, hunting laws, and restocking wildlife helped transform the country in this way. With the transformation of nature, the Yellowstone Act of 1872, and the American obsession with claiming property, I agree with Anthony’s statement that these actions “reflect our obsession with fencing off and owning property and reflects our abuse of the world ‘natural.” Yellowstone Park, protected by conservationists, ironically prevented people from performing previously conceived “natural” actions. This irony echoes the discussion we often have in class: whether or not the actions of mankind can be considered natural or not. How do lawmakers and conservationists decide what is natural on one side of the fence when that action can occur without consequence on the other side? I find this absurd. Jacoby’s work made me ponder what is considered a “crime” and how “crime” is truly a man-made concept, easily impacted by lawmakers and evolving ideas about morality and the environment.

February 14, 2014

Chigaco: Another Forest of the Wilderness

William Cronon’s Nature’s Metropolis Chicago and The Great West he introduces an interesting set of theories referred to as “booster theories.” These ideas comment on the fact that Chicago would become a great city because of its natural resources, thereby making it the center of trade for the region, its extensive natural routes of transportation, and finally, the global climatic forces that mysteriously made great cities (36). The existence of these theories and the way they are framed by Cronon illustrates an interesting argument for cities being a part of nature. Through these theories, it seems as though it was pre-destined for a city to inhabit these regions, alluding to an idea that God or some other force(s) crafted the region for this specific purpose. It all falls back to the question of if cities are a part of nature, just another “natural” development, or if they are something alien? Through Cronon’s descriptions of these theories, further elaborating on the perfect natural setting for a city, it seems as though he casts his hand with those who perceive cities as the next evolution of a natural ecosystem.

Cronon makes an interesting statement in his description of the rise of Chicago, one which frames the city as something almost organic. In relation to the countryside around the city, Cronon states that it would be “tributary” to give Chicago its new empire (43). I found it a little odd to describe the city in such a way, but when positioning this statement with Cronon’s previous ideas on the city as the next ecological evolution, it makes sense. If the city is part of nature, then it is in fact a “living” piece of the ecosystem, one which requires the resources to continue its existence. From this perspective, the vast country side that surrounds this great metropolis seems only logical as the “food” to help this city grow. Though many would disagree with this interpretation of a city, it is not too far off from our common conceptions of nature, where we often cast the neutral force as evil or against human existence.

I think by looking at Henry’s post on Cronon’s definition of nature, we gain a more concrete understanding of why he frames Chicago as something part of nature. After reading through Henry’s comments, I completely agree with his assessment of Cronon’s perception of natural as “something that seems to be in its normal place” (Henry). So many perceive nature to be something void of human contact and interference, yet there is probably no location on Earth that has not been inhabited by humans at some point in time. Though a city is a massive technological feat, with numerous components encompassing its complex, it can still just be viewed as the next step along ecological evolution, just like the human creation of the boat. If the land around Chicago made it a viable location for the construction of a city, who is to say that this is wrong or against nature? By using nature’s resources for various purposes, could it not be said that humans are simply doing as other animals doing in providing sustenance and shelter for their existence? Though I am sure these questions will lead to numerous amounts of critiques, it is something to think about when articulating a moral argument against human “alteration” of nature.