In the second half of Nature\u2019s Metropolis, William Cronon introduces the idea of \u2018capital relationships.\u2019\u00a0 In our explorations of nature we have come across of a number of different types of relationships even though we not have seen them as so.\u00a0 Each of these relationships effects and changes the environment around it.\u00a0 As I was reading about Cronon\u2019s examples of \u2018capital relationships\u2019 I found myself debating whether these relationships positively or negatively affected the environment.\u00a0 Every time a relationship seemed black and white, Cronon would provide evidence that would make it more ambiguous.<\/p>\n
My initial thought was that commodification, the driving force behind these relationships, in general made things less natural and thus negatively affected the environment.\u00a0 The idea of \u2018using\u2019 nature instead of living off the land seemed destructive.\u00a0 The example of the white pine particularly stuck out to me as a relationship that was abused.\u00a0 The white pine seemed especially victimized in this so-called relationship.\u00a0 The white pine was very strong and easy to transport by water.\u00a0 That fact combined with the creation of new technologies such as the buzz saw made white pine a high-demand commodity.\u00a0 This type of exploitation negatively affected what Cronon calls the \u2018moral economy\u2019 of cities.\u00a0 The exploitation created this perception of cities as a corrupt and sinful place that should be avoided. Agrarian fears of the city were especially prevalent because of this exploitation. Farmer\u2019s protested the idea of middleman economics.\u00a0 They saw themselves only as middlemen. Much like the white pine, they felt they were trapped in an abusive relationship with cities.<\/p>\n
However, as Cronon continued to develop these relationships he showed how they could also have positive affects on cities as well.\u00a0 For instance, with cities developing new technologies for mass production and transportation, farmers were forced to create new innovative farming strategies and get a higher education.\u00a0 The expansion of railroads also helped farmers and agrarian communities by bringing them closer to the cities.\u00a0 Before railroads, there was poor communication and high storage requirements put on farmers which creates risk and efficiency.\u00a0 The lack of an effective transportation system also created a frontier economy based mostly on credit.\u00a0 The expansion of the railroad created a faster and more predictable economy that could be counted on year round.\u00a0 As Cronon states, \u201cthe geography of capital was about connecting people to new markets and remake old landscapes.\u201d<\/p>\n
Throughout this class we have encountered relationships with the environment that have seemed completely bad or completely good on the surface.\u00a0 However, as we learned more about them they became much more complicated. \u00a0Is using the land for our own purposes inherently un-natural, or is the land their for that purpose?\u00a0 There has to be a line where we go from living off the land to abusing it.\u00a0 From all our readings however, this line seems incredibly ambiguous. \u00a0These questions made me think about prwarren’s<\/a> post on Cronnon’s use of binaries \u00a0 \u00a0I think this type of writing actually hurts his arguments. \u00a0I think his book is truly about complex capital relationships that are multilayered. \u00a0The use of binaries just make things seem too black and white.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In the second half of Nature\u2019s Metropolis, William Cronon introduces the idea of \u2018capital relationships.\u2019\u00a0 In our explorations of nature we have come across of a number of different types of relationships even though we not have seen them as so.\u00a0 Each of these relationships effects and changes the environment around it.\u00a0 As I was … <\/p>\n