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
Cronon takes a very poetic spin to his analysis on Bonnifield and Worster. Cronon uses his ideal storytelling form of history to explain Bonnifield’s position on natural disaster in the dust bowl, and Worster’s position on man made disaster. It seems like cronon has a very different view of worster’s work than Koppes’ writings. Koppes seemed to think Worster was suggesting the people were to blame for the dust bowl. Cronon puts it as “The story of the Dust Bowl is less about the failures of nature than about the failures of human beings to accommodate themselves to nature. A long series of willful human misunderstandings and assaults led finally to a collapse whose origins were mainly cultural.” I hate to use such a long quote, but it just seems so contradictory between the two authors. I felt like Cronon had the far better interpretation of Worster, but his writing seemed to agree more with Bonnifield’s work. Koppes disagreed with Bonnifield, but seemed to have the lacking interpretation of Worster’s work. It was a strange to read. Cronon doesn’t stay on their work very long though, he moves on to the poetic descriptions. The poetic description shows what he meant earlier on about culture. He explains his historiography with symbolism excellently, and solidifies it with the description of Native distress and loss of nature. Jessica also has an interpretation using Cunfer’s writing “Cunfer argues that Worster’s research on the dust bowl was more focused on the two case studies on two small communities rather than the whole region. He discusses how the analysis of the whole region is more beneficial to understand the dust storms and the droughts.” http://courses.shroutdocs.org/hist300a-fall2016/archives/810 Cronon’s conclusion really impressed me though, because whether intentional or not he seems to belittle the non-fiction that isn’t historically reviewed and confirmed. At the library I’ll speak to people about being a history major in College and they’ll bring up 1421: The Year China Discovered America. I felt like this is the kind of work that Cronon hints at, although I know that his final intention is to critique potential Natural history.