DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 5, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 258--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading #1: Worster and Diamond - Defining Environmental His
tory
By: afreitag Date: February 12, 2019, 8:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It was rather ironic that Donald Worster’s piece called out
historians’ scramble to organize events while leaving his essay
barely ordered enough to piece his ideas together. He calls it a
“threatening chaos”.
Some of his points were strange considering he addresses them as
though they’re common thoughts, like “how far we are yet from
controlling the environment to our complete satisfaction” and
“by common understanding we mean by ‘nature’ the nonhuman
world”. This evidence is baseless and weakened his argument. I
looked it up and this piece was written in 1988, but I doubt the
public perception of these things has so drastically changed.
Perhaps the most confusing detail of this essay was the
unacknowledged contradictions: “[nature] is a world we have not
in any primary sense created...we include both organic and
inorganic aspects of nature, and not least the human
organism…reconstructions of past environments must include the
human animal”. I understand that as a writer he wants to get us
thinking for ourselves but I would like to hear an argument with
a basis, as almost all of his definitions are built around that
of “nature”. It sounds like our little class discussion earlier
today.
The strongest point made, the one that resonated most with me,
was “perhaps we spend too much time talking about our ideas,
neglecting to examine our behavior”. This is an issue that very
much affects people and the environment right now. Personal
responsibility is brushed off and largely viewed acceptable as
long as it comes with “spreading awareness”. If everyone self
reflected on their choices and behavior and how they affected
the world around them, I bet we wouldn’t be in so deep of an
environmental mess.
I do have some questions. Can environmental history be boiled
down to a study of humans? Where does “ecological history” end
and “environmental history” begin? If humans are part of
ecosystems, should they be considered part of nature? Can
environmental history be defined as the study of the
relationship between natural and unnatural?
#Post#: 259--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading #1: Worster and Diamond - Defining Environmental His
tory
By: Danny Date: February 12, 2019, 8:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I was only able to read to the "Human modes of production". I
enjoyed learning more about what exactly environmental history
is and how it is drastically different from most typical view on
history (told by white men with high class and or power) and how
most history is focused around political things. I thought the
reading had an interesting point about the plants and human
dependence (and environmentalist dependence) on the vegetation.
I never thought about how many things throughout history and
even now depend on the plants around them. What they eat, what
their building materials are, what animals are around...I
thought it was funny when the reading started talking about
ecology because during the reading I was also thinking about
ecology (specifically the bio ecology class) where we studied
the plants around us and learned what different plant patterns
meant but I feel like environmental history takes it a step
further and examines what it means on a greater scale, instead
of just looking at what plants are growing around a certain
place, it looks at how those plants impacted life and people. It
also got me to start thinking about how plants are viewed, like
how the Native Americans viewed their land before Europeans came
verse how Europeans viewed the land and what changed because of
it.
#Post#: 260--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading #1: Worster and Diamond - Defining Environmental His
tory
By: nanaafiaba Date: February 12, 2019, 8:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Not sure how to reply to a reply but I am trying to reply to
Ahmed:
I agree that environmental history seems to connect the study of
the natural sciences to other fields of study. This, as a
result, proposes the question "Does environmental history
contain the real truth of the world?", as brought up in class. I
wonder if we as a global society should place more significance
to environmental studies.
#Post#: 261--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading #1: Worster and Diamond - Defining Environmental His
tory
By: Annaliese Date: February 12, 2019, 8:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I found it particularly fascinating when Worster talked about
the connection between environmental history and other
disciplines on page 4, because I never thought about the
connection between the natural sciences and theology and that is
something I would like to learn more about. I agree with
Worster when he states that "environmental history is part of a
revisionist effort to make the discipline far more inclusive in
its narrative than it has traditionally been," and I am somewhat
surprised that the concept of environmental history is such a
new discipline given the fact that nature and the environment
has always had an impact on history, even before humans evolved.
However, it makes sense that this discipline would develop in a
time where the political climate is focused on environmental
issues. I agree that it is important not to separate humans from
the natural world when thinking about history, especially
environmental history because we always have depended upon the
natural world for resources to survive as well as being directly
part of it.
#Post#: 262--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading #1: Worster and Diamond - Defining Environmental His
tory
By: yzhu2020 Date: February 12, 2019, 8:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I really liked this reading because it is a perspective that I
agree with and offers an in depth description of what
environment truly is. I liked the idea that past history may not
be the "true" (at least that is what I have perceived it as). I
think history is written by the influencers or the winners as I
would say. History is "controlled by a few great men acting in
positions of national power".
The essay also gave a very good description of what
environmental history is. At least I thought it was just
analysis of how the world became how it is today geographically
or something similar. It never occurred to me that it could also
be about socioeconomics, functioning of society, human customs
and perspectives. Another point that increased my interest in
environmental history is that it is "a scholarly enterprise that
had neither simple, or any single, moral and political agenda to
promote." Since I believe history is written by influencers, it
is almost impossible for there to be no some sort of politics in
there.
#Post#: 263--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading #1: Worster and Diamond - Defining Environmental His
tory
By: yzhu2020 Date: February 12, 2019, 9:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Reply to Alice's post:
I also really connected with the quote: "perhaps we spend too
much time talking about our ideas, neglecting to examine our
behavior". I think nowadays we are looking at history through
more of an "ideology" lens or cultural lens than actually
examining what people DID in the past. For example, the main
(accepted) cause of the Civil War was the differences in
ideology of having free/slave states. We study the ideologies of
the North and the South but we don't necessarily study the
behaviour of people that caused the War, and the behavior of the
people during/after the war (feel free to disagree because this
my perspective on historical discussions).
#Post#: 264--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading #1: Worster and Diamond - Defining Environmental His
tory
By: TeacherRachel Date: February 12, 2019, 9:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What a great first forum! SO sad I don't get to talk with you
about all of this tomorrow, but I 'm eager to hear your thoughts
in person on Thursday. Bravo!!
#Post#: 265--------------------------------------------------
Re: Reading #1: Worster and Diamond - Defining Environmental His
tory
By: asantello Date: February 13, 2019, 11:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A large aspect of studying environmental history is trying to
think about the environment pre-humans and how humans affected
it and what would have happened if they weren’t there. Another
prominent point for me was in predicting environmental history
was how places and people evolved because of who was able to win
wars. The points of being more technologically advanced made
sense, but I hadn’t thought about the angles based on
domesticated animals and written language.
Overall all the point that has stayed with me the most was in
Doing Environmental History. Worcester brings forward the
thought that some people or countries will do insanely large
amounts of damage through things like development and then make
themselves feel good by trying to preserve one little thing.
This reminds me of the movement to stop using plastic straws.
While I agree with it, it seems funny when people feel better
about themselves for using reusable straws, but don’t try to do
any more for the environment.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page