<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>In Nature\u2019s Metropolis, the thing that struck me most was how from extremely early on, people seemed absolutely certain that Chicago was destined to become the great metropolis of the American West. We know that for two reasons. The first is economic; Cronon says that the 1830s was a period of ultra-lucrative land speculation, with the area that would become Chicago at the center. He references lots in the area being bought for $29 in 1829 and selling for over $100,000 just four years later. (29) Such an enormous jump in value clearly indicates that people in real estate saw big things in that area\u2019s future. The other way we know Americans\u2019 high hopes for Chicago was simpler\u2014they said it. Cronon quotes 1830s real estate investor Charles Butler as saying the city was \u201cmarked for greatness\u201d because the natural features around it made it a great nexus of trade and shipping. (34) So, Chicago\u2019s natural features were the reason Americans saw such bright possibilities for its future. However, it would obviously take decidedly unnatural processes, namely the building of railroads and a canal, to realize Chicago\u2019s potential.<\/p>\n \n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span>At first, this point made me a bit doubtful in terms of how it supported Cronon\u2019s central argument as presented in the prologue. As I understand it thus far, Cronon\u2019s thesis is that Chicago is the perfect example of how the ideas of city and nature are not exclusive to one another. He seems to be arguing that the city is a part of nature. My initial reaction while reading about the speculation as to Chicago\u2019s bright future was to wonder how true Cronon\u2019s thesis could be given that, while natural features were important to Chiacgo\u2019s value, it would take a radical changing of nature through the building of manmade structures for the metropolis to take form. How natural could the city remain if its existence was predicated on imposing things like railroads on the natural landscape? After grappling with that question for a bit, I came to realize that an important feature of Cronon\u2019s argument was his redefinition of \u201cnature\u201d or \u201cnatural.\u201d People generally take nature to refer to features of the earth that are there independent of any manmade processes. However, to Cronon, saying that something is \u201cnatural\u201d means it is referring to something that seems to be in its normal place. When he refers to the city, the railroads, or the canal as natural, he means that the people of the time saw those things as proper\u2014they felt they should be there and the reasons for that were practically self-evident given the already existing natural (in the more general definition) features of the land. Understanding that redefinition of \u201cnature\u201d is vital to understanding Cronon\u2019s argument. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 In Nature\u2019s Metropolis, the thing that struck me most was how from extremely early on, people seemed absolutely certain that Chicago was destined to become the great metropolis of the American West. We know that for two reasons. The first is economic; Cronon says that the 1830s was a period of ultra-lucrative land speculation, … <\/p>\n