DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 4, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 57--------------------------------------------------
Re: #3: Cronon and Merchant, continued...
By: Kasey Date: January 9, 2019, 4:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
My idea of what environmental history is: I believe that it is
the study of past events of human life affecting nature and
nature affecting human. As that is very broad and general. I
think that environmental history is very complex when it comes
to classifying what is and is not considered, so I think a more
general definition would simplify the understanding of what
would be environmental history. I mostly agree with Worster’s
definition and how environmental history is a revisionist study.
Donald Worster states that “environmental history was . . . born
out of a moral purpose, with strong political commitments behind
it, but also became, as it matured, a scholarly enterprise that
had neither any simple, nor any single, moral or political
agenda to promote. Its principal goal became one of deepening
our understanding of how humans have been affected by their
natural environment through time and, conversely how they
affected that environment and with what results” (Donald
Worster, The Ends of the Earth, p. 290). Environmental history
has a purpose to give instruction to people and share a moral
ground with a way to continue in the future. It is to use what
has happened in the past to understand what the future will
become and what humans should do as time goes on. There isn’t
one way or necessarily a simple way for what one should do after
analyzing this studying, but with the knowledge that is given,
one can find their own moral purpose.
#Post#: 58--------------------------------------------------
Re: #3: Cronon and Merchant, continued...
By: Kasey Date: January 9, 2019, 4:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=renee link=topic=4.msg48#msg48 date=1547063353]
For me, environmental history is the constant interaction
between humans and nature and how they have affected each other
throughout history with the caution that humans must be aware of
their actions on the environment. My definition is mostly based
on Worster’s idea that environmental history is a revisionist
history. Humans cannot blindly interact with nature anymore;
they must realize the impact they have on the environment and
how it will change their future home. I also think this is
similar to Cronon’s beliefs that both “nature and culture change
all the time” (9) and that there is no way to know the
consequences of actions on the environment until it is too late.
However, this is all about the present and future; right now we
can look back on our previous actions to learn from any mistakes
and mirror any progress. To truly understand environmental
history, we must “ramble into fields, woods, and the open air.
It is time we bought a good set of walking shoes, and we cannot
avoid getting some mud on them” (1). We cannot simply be book
smart about this topic as we live in and experience the
environment every day. Humans have been interacting with the
land and vice-versa forever and this is not the time to stop as
we can see that the environment is quickly declining.
[/quote]
I agree with Renee's idea of what environmental history is and
how it relates to Worster's idea as well. I didn't recognize
Cronon's beliefs which I think do somewhat relate to Worster's
beliefs of environmental history. The idea of "nature and
culture change all the time" (9) is a belief that I would agree
with too. Whatever decision that has been made can never be
turned back and each individual decision creates change and an
affect on another. By noticing the interactions of human life
that are impacting nature, we must recognize how to go forward
and bring a problem-solving view to protect the land that has
been created.
#Post#: 59--------------------------------------------------
Re: #3: Cronon and Merchant, continued...
By: Tommy Is The Person Who I Am Date: January 9, 2019, 6:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I believe that environmental history, at its core, is the study
of how humans have interacted with or been shaped by the natural
world. The field is complicated by environmental historians’
recognition of the need to properly contextualize humans’
interaction with their environment by looking at identities such
as race, class, and gender, as well as beliefs that connect to a
people’s manner of treating the environment. (This consideration
is emphasized the most in Merchant’s essay.) As Worster
explains, environmental history differs from ecology due to its
focus on humans within environments (rather than excluding
humans), but at the same time the two fields are linked, as
environmental historians rely on knowledge gathered by
ecologists. Environmental history is linked to the political
movement of environmentalism, but Cronon points out the tension
between the two, partially due to environmentalists’ tendency to
have “a fundamentally dualistic vision” of humankind and nature
being in opposition. These contrasts serve to emphasize one of
the most distinctive components of environmental history — its
subscription to the belief that humans and nature are
necessarily intertwined, that humans are not somehow above or
completely opposite to their environment.
Like other social sciences, environmental history often
contributes to contemporary efforts to improve human interaction
with nature (partially due to its link to environmentalism).
Environmental history also takes a revisionist perspective on
history, acknowledging that information must be gathered from a
variety of sources, and that almost all information has some
level of bias attached. To return to my shorter definition, I
would say that environmental history is the study of how humans
have interacted with or been shaped by the natural world,
specifically from the perspective that humans and nature are
inseparable, as well as the examination of how human identities
and beliefs have molded that relationship (and the examination
of how humans have previously studied that relationship).
#Post#: 60--------------------------------------------------
Re: #3: Cronon and Merchant, continued...
By: renee Date: January 9, 2019, 7:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=ccogswell link=topic=4.msg52#msg52
date=1547071616]
I find myself most often defining things using their purpose -
things are what they do. However, I don’t think this applies to
environmental history, so I’m going to challenge myself and try
to define it apart from the purpose it serves. My personal
definition of environmental history is most similar to Cronon’s.
I believe nature and history are not just inseparable from one
another, but complete each other. They do not exist in full on
their own, and must be combined, compared, and contrasted in
order to achieve an accurate and whole understanding of the
environment and the humans within it. This, as Diamond also
reasons, is a way to answer the “why”s. Additionally, examining
relationships between people and their environments can be used
to reveal information about those people, and their
relationships with other people, granting us an understanding
that may not have been provided by historical accounts passed
down by those in positions of privilege.
[/quote]
I think that saying nature and history complete each other makes
total sense, after all, much of history has dealt with taming or
understanding the environment. Humans need the land to survive,
and without humans the environment would be completely wild and
disorderly. I like what you say about being able to learn more
about people from the environment as well; but not just the
environment alone, the interaction between humans and nature.
This again links back to how the two complete each other.
#Post#: 61--------------------------------------------------
Re: #3: Cronon and Merchant, continued...
By: Shi Shi Date: January 9, 2019, 7:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Kasey link=topic=4.msg57#msg57 date=1547073428]
My idea of what environmental history is: I believe that it is
the study of past events of human life affecting nature and
nature affecting human. As that is very broad and general. I
think that environmental history is very complex when it comes
to classifying what is and is not considered, so I think a more
general definition would simplify the understanding of what
would be environmental history.
[/quote]
I find it interesting how you choose to simplify your definition
to cover a much broader array of terms, conditions, issues, etc.
Because the study of environmental history is such a recent
development, I find it fair to have some amount of ambiguity in
a definition, for our own understanding of what it as a
collective whole has yet to evolve. From the readings, it seems
that even historians choose not to present an absolute concrete
definition of environmental history. What I'm about to say may
seem redundant, but I think that this is partially related to
their tendency to avoid making "binding" prediction, as well as
their own uncertainty with the new field of study.
#Post#: 62--------------------------------------------------
Re: #3: Cronon and Merchant, continued...
By: Cale is not me. Date: January 9, 2019, 7:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[move]Jeff Bezos :'( [/move]
Anyways here's my definition/
To me, environmental history in its purest form is the
relationship between the history of humans and the
environmentalism of nature. I say relationship because this is
not a one-way street. Rather the two bounce off each other and
studying the effects of that and why is environmental history.
The reason that Jared Diamond's interpretation of environmental
history is so thoroughly satisfying is that Diamond focuses only
on how humans were affected by nature and not the other way
around. I am sure there are those who do things the other way
too. At the core of environmental history is also the point of
revisionism (I’m still getting used to using that word in a
non-negative context). It is a way of looking at things from a
new perspective that looks at the world through the context of
people who are not on top. It also connects to how we see nature
through cultures and how that differentiates cultures. Cronon
and merchant’s versions of environmental history align
particularly well with this. In terms of sources/methods, I am
not 100% sure but I think that looking at old documents and
observations of nature and comparing it to others could be a
start but doesn’t answer the questions of why something happened
the way it did. I’ll think more about this as time goes on.
#Post#: 63--------------------------------------------------
Re: #3: Cronon and Merchant, continued...
By: alaina.h Date: January 9, 2019, 7:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As many others have said in some way or another, environmental
history is, at the basic level, the study of the interaction
between the human and the non-human worlds. Not just their
interaction, but how they affect each other and change each
other. It is about what humans do to change their ways of life
within their environments and what nature itself has the power
to do to humans. In environmental history, the two work together
and stay balanced rather than one being more influential than
another. As we’ve read about, E.H. involves the topics of
gender, race, and class and how those areas play into an
environment. The whole topic has been quite hard for me to grasp
because of the multiple different factors that are included
within it, and I’m still going to build up this idea as we go
along.
:P
#Post#: 64--------------------------------------------------
Re: #3: Cronon and Merchant, continued...
By: Cale is not me. Date: January 9, 2019, 7:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Tommy Is The Person Who I Am
link=topic=4.msg59#msg59 date=1547080185]
I would like to work on this definition more, but I figured I
would post it now and if the meantime anyone has any initial
responses I would be interested.
I believe that environmental history, at its core, is the study
of how humans have interacted with or been shaped by the natural
world. The field is complicated by environmental historians’
recognition of the need to properly contextualize humans’
interaction with their environment. That is to say,
environmental history involves considering how identities such
as race, class, and gender can affect the way different groups
affect and are affected by nature. Based on the readings so far,
it also appears that environmental history requires a level of
questioning itself. That is to say, these historians recognize
the shortcomings of their field and the ambiguity of their
subject matter, much like other types of history that could be
considered revisionist (though perhaps environmental history is
especially ambiguous).
[/quote]
I agree overall and I like how you tied the definition with
issues of how groups are impacted by it. It is something that
you might not assume by just hearing the name or a brief rundown
of the study but is very important. The idea of the point about
self questioning is also good. I think that this is heavily
connected to how the study of history has changed over the
years.
#Post#: 65--------------------------------------------------
Re: #3: Cronon and Merchant, continued...
By: alaina.h Date: January 9, 2019, 7:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=mayafb link=topic=4.msg54#msg54 date=1547072646]
I think environmental history is another way to view the world.
For instance, there is the classic way of teaching WWII and then
one could also view it from just looking at trade during that
time and how the entire global economy got interrupted and
shifted. Therefore, environmental history studies how the
environment around humans has impacted the development of the
past and conversely (a little Worster jargon in here) how humans
have shaped the landscapes they live in. However, I struggle
with this definition because it seems that I, like other
versions of history, are truly separating humans from the
natural world. Understanding Worster’s argument on how
traditional disciplines of history assume “that [humans] have
not been and are not truly part of and are not truly part of the
planet (pg. 2), makes me wary of how the definition is phrased
because it inherently is hard to talk about two subjects without
disconnecting them. By viewing history through this lens, just
like viewing it through other lenses, it seeks to find the
greater truth in the past. However, as discussed in class, this
truth eludes the historian as they are constrained by their own
biases. Therefore the goal of environmental history is to open a
window that can incorporate the natural world into the viewing
of the human past. To research in the field of environmental
history, there is a constant comparison of hard climate data and
understanding of geography with accounts of the historical
events. When comparing these two, the historian looks for cause
and effect of the environment of the human and of the human on
the environment. Although these historians are not climate
scientists, I am wondering how closely they all must work
together to uncover some of the hidden secrets of the past and
to understand what drives people to do what they did.
8)
[/quote]
I thought that your definition included a lot of important
things to think about when defining environmental history. I
really like your questioning of the disconnect that humans have
to nature because humans, of course, haven’t always been here.
Though in environmental history, the two work hand in hand and
don’t seem to have much separation and the fact that they are
together is the exact definition that I’ve been thinking about.
It’s all about the back and forth of nature and humans and how
they change each other.
#Post#: 66--------------------------------------------------
Re: #3: Cronon and Merchant, continued...
By: JTodd Date: January 9, 2019, 8:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The definition I believe easiest to utilize and apply with
environmental history is a sort of an amalgam of definitions
from Diamond, Worster, and Cronon. I define environmental
history as the tracing of where, when, and how humans have been
impacted by the environment; and how humans have impacted the
environment in the return. Everyone has seemed to stress the
fact that environmental history is, [quote author=Cale is not
me. link=topic=4.msg62#msg62 date=1547083871]
...this is not a one-way street. Rather the two bounce off each
other and studying the effects of that and why is environmental
history.
[/quote]
The concept that the relationship between the environment and
humans is highly dynamic and reciprocally reactive is crucial,
to my eyes, in defining environmentalism. The ebb and flow, push
and pull, between the environment and the human race are what
environmental history should catalog.
As far as the use and applicability of environmental history,
scholars should be able to answer more of the whys and hows of
human interactions in a fashion close to Jared Diamond's. More
importantly, environmental history should serve the purpose of
gaining a much more holistic narrative of human history
alongside its other histories which emerged in the same period
of the 70s. I also agree with Cronon's view that environmental
history should serve as instructions for what and what not to do
in the present and future, as most history should.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page