Andrew Isenberg\u2019s The Destruction of the Bison is an interesting in many respects, but I found the most intriguing element to be how Isenberg defined nature. Isenberg discusses defining nature with respect to environmental history in his introduction, in which he acknowledges, \u201cMost environmental historians imagine nonhuman nature as a dynamic agent in human history, inherently prone to unpredictable changes in climate, vegetation, and animal populations\u201d (11). Isenberg believes this is a flawed definition, and with respect to his work, it would mean that humans solely caused the extinction of the bison. He contends in his work that it was much more than humans that led to the extinction of the bison, and in doing so is contradicting the approach of many environmental historians.<\/p>\n
In our class, we have discussed at length the definition of nature, whether humans are included in nature, whether cities are another form of nature, and whether natural environments can be defined by a human culture (European settling versus Native American roaming). Isenberg brings in a new wrinkle, and has once again influenced how I would personally define nature. I came into the class believing that Davidson\u2019s campus, full of trees and open spaces, was not natural because humans artificially constructed it. As we have progressed through the class, I have begun to believe that humans themselves are a part of nature and that modern cities are just the advancement of a new type of nature. Isenberg has reinforced this belief in me with his contention that bison became extinct because of environment they lived in as well, the economy, and also the role both Europeans and Native Americans played. By including the environment\u2019s role in the bison\u2019s destruction, it strengthens the notion (at least in my mind) that human\u2019s influence on the harming of natural environments is in itself natural, and a consequence of the advancement of human societies. Also, while some may argue that the colonization and destruction of Native American culture was destroying an environment, by taking into account both the roles of Euroamericans and Native Americans in their destruction, Isenberg displays how by both being involved in the bison\u2019s destruction that the idea that Native American\u2019s lived of the environment more than colonists is overplayed (but still true I would contend). While Isenberg\u2019s main theory is to show that nature is a changing landscape that can be altered without human intervention, he strengthens my belief that humans themselves are equally a part of the environment.<\/p>\n
I found Manish\u2019s take on the work rather interesting. The idea that Native Americans were similar in their desire for status debunks many of the points made by Bushman in The Refinement of America, as it shows that the idea of status and refinement may have had European elements for early Americans, but that it is more so human nature than any direct influence that caused the refinement of America. I thought Manish\u2019s description of how the desire for status led to the fall of Native Americans as it led to increased contact with Americans was well done, and makes me think about how greed can both cause cultures to succeed and in the Native Americans\u2019 case, potentially cause them to fall.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Andrew Isenberg\u2019s The Destruction of the Bison is an interesting in many respects, but I found the most intriguing element to be how Isenberg defined nature. Isenberg discusses defining nature with respect to environmental history in his introduction, in which he acknowledges, \u201cMost environmental historians imagine nonhuman nature as a dynamic agent in human history, … <\/p>\n