William Cronon states the thesis of his book in the prologue on pg.8. “This book, then is a series of historical \u00a0journeys between \u00a0city and country in an effort to understand the city’s place in nature.” \u00a0Sean<\/a>\u00a0asked the question in his post as well as in his discussion questions several weeks ago of whether the concrete jungle should be considered a part of nature.\u00a0The way that Cronon phrases his statement indicates that he believes that cities are in fact a part of nature and that conditions around Chicago led to its natural creation and growth. I am spectical of this idea. Henry<\/a>,\u00a0in his post characterizes my skeptism to a certain extent. He talks about how some of the features of the land such as Lake Michigan and the canals were natural features of Chicago but then the more industrialized aspects of the city such as railroads seemed to counteract the idea of the city as natural.<\/p>\n Railroads are perhaps one of the greatest developments for this country in terms of creating a unified nation along with radically altering the economy. However, I think it is a difficult argument to make that railroads can be defined as natural as Cronon tries to do. Cronon argues that railroads can be considered a second nature that is in sync with first nature to the point that they cease to be separate. I find this idea counterintuitive for railroads were not confined to the natural limits placed by nature that had previously restricted human movement. Cronon makes note of this idea on pg. 74 when he speaks about how railroads were able to go virtually anywhere for they became independent from the environment. In many ways railroads reshaped the environment through means such as tunnels through mountains and bridges across rivers. No longer were we limited by in transportation but we were free to traverse the world in an artificial manner.<\/p>\n The fact that Chicago became a desirable destination and a terminus in the center of the country was not because it was a natural location that possessed the perfect conditions. It was an artificial terminus created by those in the east because it afforded many advantages some of which were natural such as the canals and the lake yet others which were separate from nature. Chicago was not a city that had all roads naturally lead to it. If for example a river or natural boundaries such as mountains formed a path from the west through the east through Chicago then it would be a stronger argument that the city was \u00a0predestined. Instead Chicago was an area of Illinois that possessed some favorable conditions but its biggest draw was the general geographic location in regards to the east and the west coast. As a result those in the east manufactured the city of Chicago to serve their needs and facilitate a connection with the west but this connection was completely artificial. While Cronon would argue that many would come to see the railroads and city as essential parts of American nature it doesn’t seem to me possible to reconcile the first and second degree natures to work in harmony as Cronon believed they did. Both were artificial creations destined to exploit nature so as to mostly benefit a small portion of society.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" William Cronon states the thesis of his book in the prologue on pg.8. “This book, then is a series of historical \u00a0journeys between \u00a0city and country in an effort to understand the city’s place in nature.” \u00a0Sean\u00a0asked the question in his post as well as in his discussion questions several weeks ago of whether the … <\/p>\n