URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       US Environmental History Class at CSW
  HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Mod 4, 2019
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 34--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Reading #2: Cronon and Merchant
   DIR By: ccogswell
       Date: January 8, 2019, 7:48 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       “Environmental historians… insist that we have got to go… down
       to the earth itself as an agent and presence in history.” -
       Worster
       I intended to compare this with the idea that all human history
       has a natural context in my first post, but forgot to add it!
       Anyway, these ideas go hand in hand. We need to "get mud on our
       walking shoes", and immerse ourselves within the past/present
       environment to genuinely understand history. The study of the
       environment is not something we can do from the indoors. Without
       natural context, history is incomplete, and missing information
       about our world is detrimental to our development, if not
       dangerous. We must fully know nature to fully know ourselves.
       #Post#: 35--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Reading #2: Cronon and Merchant
   DIR By: Shi Shi
       Date: January 8, 2019, 7:51 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Kind of going off of Kelly's post, I found it really interesting
       to see how often both Cronon and Merchant stressed the idea of
       interdependence between varying factors while trying to "define"
       environmental history. Cronon wrote that "most environmental
       historians would add that human beings are not the only actors
       who make history. Other creatures do too, as do large natural
       processes, and any history that ignores their effects is likely
       to be woefully incomplete" (18). Here, I think Cronon is simply
       trying to show the many influencing factors present both in the
       natural environment as well as in society. Everything is
       dependent on everything, so it would be unfair to claim that
       history originates from one single thing.
       Merchant chose to examine environmental history from a more
       specific angle/lens, but still had a similar theme of
       interdependence. She addressed issues of race, socioeconomic
       class, gender, etc., providing an analysis of a sort which
       demonstrated how the environment affected them, and how they
       affected the environment. In particular, I was really interested
       in the relationship she described between Native Americans and
       the environment. Merchant briefly mentioned their origin stories
       which included "tales of mother earth and father sky [...] Such
       deities mediated between nature and humans, inspiring rituals
       and behaviors that helped to regulate environmental use and
       exploitation" (24). In the past, I had connected origin stories
       with nature, but never before really have I interpreted these
       stories as environmental "regulations". I believe that Cronon
       also touched on this idea that environmental history was a way
       of reflecting on the past rather than a way of trying to predict
       the future.
       I think that Roderick Nash's quote connects with the overall
       theme of interdependence I'm seeing in these two essays:
       "Environmental history...refers to the past contact of man with
       his total habitat....The environmental historian like the
       ecologists should think in terms of wholes, of communities, or
       interrelationships, and of balances".
       #Post#: 36--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Reading #2: Cronon and Merchant
   DIR By: Reed
       Date: January 8, 2019, 8:07 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I will write about a connection I noticed between a quote by
       Worster and a quote by merchant, and about nature’s aesthetic
       relationship with class.
       Worster: “Down, down we must go, they maintained, down to the
       hidden layers of class, gender, race, and caste… deeper yet,
       down to the earth itself as an agent and presence in history.”
       (1)
       Merchant: “Working class people often interact most directly
       with the land in extracting resources for the market...while
       many middle and upper-class individuals become environmental
       leaders and activists who help to spear conservation movements
       and to develop environmentally friendly technologies…. Lower
       class workers are usually too busy making a living to write
       their stories or leave literary legacies.” (11)
       This Worster quote might supposed to be a reference to earth
       being something you stand on (‘we cannot avoid getting some mud
       on them’) but it can also be interpreted as earth being under
       complete control of everyone, a slave of slaves. It reminds me
       of an article I read a long time ago about bees and why their
       recent trend towards disappearance is worrisome for the economy.
       The journalist had calculated that if each bee were paid a
       minimum wage for its labor, an ounce of honey would cost over a
       thousand dollars. Which is where it connects to Merchant’s
       observation that rich people don’t tend to be the ones working
       with land. To me, this reflects an inverse relationship in
       society between socioeconomic status and production of actual
       resources, with land as a kind of ultimate underclass, because
       nature produces all of our necessary raw materials without any
       explicit compensation. Nature doesn’t have labor rights, it just
       produces stuff, by function and chance, and the work of people
       is to harness that production.
       The other interesting part of Worster’s quote is, for me, that
       he describes leaving parliamentary chambers for a “ramble into
       fields, woods, and the open air” in order to closely examine and
       experience nature. Connecting this to Cronon’s point about
       Romanticism being a great ancestor of Environmental History, it
       seems like a lot of upper-class people fall in love with nature
       as a sensual and aesthetic experience and pursue careers in
       thinking about it and conserving it while primarily experiencing
       it on vacations from their stuffy offices and homes. I know that
       this is certainly true for me-- I do not ekk out a living from
       my own hard labor outdoors; I do not think about lumber when I
       see trees, I think about how pretty that branch is. And I’m
       supposed to. It was planted on the quad to look nice. There’s
       such an interesting dissonance between the different aesthetics
       of nature as an indicator of wealth.
       #Post#: 37--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Reading #2: Cronon and Merchant
   DIR By: juliab
       Date: January 8, 2019, 8:14 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The first part of Cronin’s list of “core lessons” really drew my
       attention. It’s so obvious that it makes complete sense that
       it’s the first thing on the list, but in historical documents,
       it’s rarely where the focus goes. I think that as humans we tend
       to forget about the ties that nature has to any historical
       event.
       The statement that “most environmental historians would add that
       human beings are not the only actors who make history” also
       caught my attention. An example that first comes to my mind is
       Pompeii. If you were to ask me about the city, all I would be
       able to talk about would be the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. This
       is an example where I think people clearly recall the ties that
       nature has to a historical event, but I couldn’t list many more.
       The devastation of a city left wrote just as much history as the
       people in it.
       Something that added to my defintion of environmental history
       was when Cronin said “the relationship between nature and
       culture should always be viewed as a problem in comparative
       dynamics, not statics.” (9) I’m not all too familiar with the
       analytical terms, but I take this to mean that rather than being
       static and staying relatively still, the relationship between
       the two works together and changes based off of each other. I
       think that people are quick to write our natural world as
       something that will always be there (static), and that changing
       certain processes in our culture won’t have a drastic effect on
       it. However as the technologies we have access to begin to
       develop faster, our planet begins to experience negative impacts
       faster. Soon, our culture will most likely have to change
       because resources will be depleted from this relationship, and I
       wonder what that will look like.
       #Post#: 38--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Reading #2: Cronon and Merchant
   DIR By: Tommy Is The Person Who I Am
       Date: January 8, 2019, 8:30 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Cronon’s essay went into greater detail regarding why
       environmental history has only taken shape in recent decades,
       which I found interesting. He explains that “environmental
       determinism” (does this relate in any capacity to eugenics?) was
       quite popular in fields of history prior to World War II, and in
       turn “cultural determinism” gained popularity, but eventually
       these “determinisms” were rejected partially because of their
       connection to Marxism. He explains that environmental history
       involves a combination of both cultural and environmental
       determinism. It is surprising to consider how quickly our
       perception of history and the influences acting on humankind can
       change, particularly the fact that these changes appear to be
       responses to earlier/conflicting systems of viewing the world.
       In Merchant’s essay, I found a related situation in her
       explanation of how peoples’ perception of nature was shifted by
       then-contemporary scientific beliefs (i.e. “the conception that
       nature was dead”). It is fascinating how our perception of
       nature can change both in direct response to other perceptions
       of nature as well as in response to scientific discoveries.
       The shifting perception of the environment can be related to
       John Richards’ quote, “The great task for environmental
       historians is to record and analyze the effects of man’s
       recently achieved control over the natural world. What is needed
       is a longer-term global, comparative, historical perspective
       that treats the environment as a meaningful variable.” The first
       piece of this quote feels a bit incomplete to me. The scientists
       who determined that “nature was dead” must have believed that
       they were correct, but today that is not our perception of the
       world around us. It then feels difficult to say with confidence
       that man has recently achieved control over the natural world —
       how can we truly control something that we might not fully
       understand? The second half of the quote does acknowledge this
       to an extent, as it presents that need to view the environment
       as something much more than a constant, which must be considered
       from a variety of perspectives.
       #Post#: 39--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Reading #2: Cronon and Merchant
   DIR By: Casey A
       Date: January 8, 2019, 8:33 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I would like to start off by discussing a quote that I found to
       be interesting: “There is little history in the study of nature,
       and there is little nature in the study of history.  I want to
       show how we can remedy that cultural lag by developing a new
       perspective on the historian’s enterprise, one that will make us
       Darwinians at last.”  What stood out to me about this is the
       idea that it is common to assume statements as definitive such
       as the comparison between nature and history that Worster points
       out.  In my post for the previous reading, I discussed how I
       interpreted Worster’s writing to be saying that us humans like
       definitiveness and clearly being able to understand that, but
       with environmental history we must be willing to leave that
       desire of definitive organization behind us.  I also see a lot
       of this in tonight’s reading, when Cronon says that if our
       manner of thinking is static, then we will have trouble
       understanding Environmental History.  He then goes to describe
       that, Environmental Historians do not like to predict the
       future.  I connected this by thinking that Environmental
       Historians like to have aspects of uncertainty that we are all
       so unaccustomed to, and making a prediction (like we all
       commonly do) would create a feeling of certainty.
       #Post#: 40--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Reading #2: Cronon and Merchant
   DIR By: mayafb
       Date: January 8, 2019, 8:33 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       If you graph a circle and continuously zoom into one area, the
       once curved side will appear to be a line. As Cronon proclaims,
       “natural time is cyclical time, while the time of modern
       humanity is linear” (pg. 8). Although I understand that he
       perceives the natural time as the way in which the earth can
       sustainably regenerate itself, I cannot help but think of this
       mathematical graph. Natural cycles may be short like the life
       cycle of a common house fly, but others, such as the rock cycle,
       take place on the larger geologic time scale. However, human
       life is short, not like a fly, and the inhabitance of this earth
       as a species has been nothing longer than a blip in the geologic
       time scale. Currently, from my own understanding, the movement
       of renewable energy and sustainability is to tap into these
       natural cycles of time and use them for the linear needs of the
       human. For instance, the current and past usage and disposal of
       waste has been linear. Use something, throw it away, and then it
       disappears from your house forever. Now, with the large spread
       concerns about climate change, food waste, and the destruction
       of the planet, humans are trying to utilize the earth’s
       cyclical systems to prolong the own linear path we seem to have
       strolled down. Cronon claims that “humanities arrow is the
       fall, while nature’s cycle is salvation” (pg 8).
       This implies that there needs to be further zoomed out view of
       the world rather than the close view of the line. John Richards
       states that the job of an environmental historian “is to
       record and analyze the effects of man’s recently achieved
       control over the natural world. What is needed is a longer-term
       global, comparative, historical perspective that treats the
       environment as a meaningful variable.” In this argument,
       Richards is agreeing with Cronon’s perception of how the
       humans have had a short control over the natural earth and how
       there needs to be an understanding of the cyclical nature of the
       world to avoid a crisis. The environmental historian looks at
       the interaction of the linear human and the cyclical nature to
       understand the intersections of both to improve upon existence
       on human earth (?).
       the smiley faces are page 8 (pg 8)
       #Post#: 41--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Reading #2: Cronon and Merchant
   DIR By: mayafb
       Date: January 8, 2019, 8:36 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: ccogswell link ---
       >
       > I think many people are “depressed” by environmentalism in
       general not because it is “hopeless”, but because it suggests
       imminent and massive change. It’s not news that the threat of an
       enormous change to our lives as humans on this planet,
       regardless of who we are and where we are geographically, is
       frightening to most people. I think this idea is especially
       unsettling because environmental change topples all the little
       social structures we’ve created, all the laws and rules we’ve
       made… nature doesn’t care how much money you make, or what job
       you have, or what you believe you, as a hardworking American,
       are entitled to in life. Not to be a cynic, but I think when
       people learn just how much is at stake when it comes to things
       like climate change, their fear and sadness is not out of love
       for nature or care for the Earth, but out of fear of someday
       soon living in a world completely unlike what they (and all of
       humanity) have ever known or imagined, a world where they can’t,
       say, eat seafood or something because fish literally don’t exist
       anymore.
       >
       > As far as all human history (so just history…) having a
       natural context, this more or less sums up what we’ve discussed
       and synthesized in class. The idea of comparative dynamics over
       statistics I think is a bit more new. It’s super interesting,
       though - I never before gave much thought to the idea that
       nature and culture, mostly when combined, are capable of
       “destructive” or “inappropriate” behaviour by, well, nature.
       >
       > A question: If nature was thought to be masculine as opposed
       to feminine (Father Earth?), would this change gender roles in
       relation to the environment? Why/why not?
       >
       > Another question: A specific group of people within a culture
       can alter an environment, but if they are doing so in accordance
       with what the culture demands they do, are they still
       responsible?
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       I always assumed the "mother earth" part because of the
       fertility of the female body (although like sperm....?) To me,
       and maybe just me, there seems to be a greater sense of
       fertility in shaping and creating and carrying life in the form
       of pregnancy.
       #Post#: 42--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Reading #2: Cronon and Merchant
   DIR By: Tommy Is The Person Who I Am
       Date: January 8, 2019, 8:47 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Shi Shi link ---
       >
       > Merchant briefly mentioned their origin stories which included
       "tales of mother earth and father sky [...] Such deities
       mediated between nature and humans, inspiring rituals and
       behaviors that helped to regulate environmental use and
       exploitation" (24). In the past, I had connected origin stories
       with nature, but never before really have I interpreted these
       stories as environmental "regulations".
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       It is interesting that these origin stories, which acted as
       "environmental 'regulations,'" convey quite a different message
       from that of the Western belief outlined in yesterday's reading
       that humans are meant to conquer nature. Perhaps this disparity
       in beliefs is closely linked to the reasons why Europeans were
       able to conquer Native Americans — one broad reason being that
       Europeans could more easily "dominate" their land through
       practices such as domestication. This once again demonstrates
       that human beliefs are molded by their environment, which in
       turn leads to humans molding their environment. Perhaps this
       also connects to our discussion in class today of "advanced"
       cultures, and whether "advanced" implies "better." The Western
       belief of humanity's power over nature may connect to its early
       complexity, but I would argue that that belief is not any better
       than the Native Americans' belief in respecting the environment.
       #Post#: 43--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Reading #2: Cronon and Merchant
   DIR By: alaina.h
       Date: January 8, 2019, 8:49 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The Cronon reading caught my attention, mainly the 3rd topic he
       brought up which was, “all environmental knowledge is culturally
       constructed and historically contingent —including our own.”
       This idea stood out because I think it is something that I never
       really thought about. As humans, we change many things to fit
       our needs and our environment is no exception. This particular
       quote from this section really summed it all up for me:
       “recognizing the historical contingency of all knowledge helps
       us guard against the dangers of absolute, decontextualized
       “laws” or “truths” which can all too easily obscure the
       diversity and subtlety of environments and cultures alike.” To
       me, this quote seems to say that humans can create false
       assumptions about certain environments or cultures, and this can
       strongly affect people in the future that are trying to learn
       from our past with this wrong information. Things are subject to
       change and I think that it is interesting how Cronon explains
       that the field of environmental history is changing to fit the
       notion that nothing is static.
       Adding on to Cale’s point about the separation of the science
       (environmentalism) and history is something important to think
       about. The fact that there is much dispute about the amount of
       science that is embedded within environmental history confuses
       me. To me, environmental history equally encompasses both and
       similarly from science to history. Both should reference the
       other in some way, though the two have separate focuses,
       environmentalism and enviro history are so obviously linked. As
       Cale said, our future is dependant on noticing the environment
       of the past to figure out what needs to be done or changed.
       *****************************************************
       Page 2 of 3
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page