DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 4, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 67--------------------------------------------------
Re: #3: Cronon and Merchant, continued...
By: Reed Date: January 9, 2019, 8:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Kelly, your definition of environmental history helped
me figure out my own.
[quote author=kellyf link=topic=4.msg51#msg51 date=1547070184]
"Goal of Environmental History: "Deepening our understanding of
how humans have been affected by their natural environment
through time and, conversely how they have affected that
environment and with what results." - Worster (pg. 2)"
[/quote]
I would argue that this is not the goal of Environmental
History; rather, this is simply what is does. As a revisionist
history, it is a lens by which to view things and learn more
about them from the new perspective. The goal of environmental
history is to change people’s minds about the way they are
treating the natural world.
[quote author=kellyf link=topic=4.msg51#msg51 date=1547070184]
"Method of Environmental History: Cronon's morals (1. All human
history has a natural context 2.Neither nature nor culture is
static 3. All environmental knowledge is culturally constructed
and historically contingent - including our own 4.Historical
wisdoms usually comes in the form of parables, not policy
recommendations or certainties) which are used as a framework
for gathering knowledge."
[/quote]
I am confused about how Cronon’s morals make up the methods of
Environmental History. I associate “methods” with the practical
ways that somebody-- or something-- goes about trying to
accomplish something; not with its core tenants. I think that
the methods of environmental history are those of any other type
of history (interrogating sources, eyewitness accounts, the
analysis of cultural artifacts like art and oral tradition,
analogies, etc). What makes it environmental history isn’t the
methods, but two characteristics for the people doing the
methods: first, the historians themselves have to believe in the
value of the natural world, because that earthy-crunchy flavor
or perspective is what helps filter the history only to the
topics of people’s interactions with the environment. Second, at
least a rudimentary scientific understanding of the topic. You
cannot be a historian about the pollution in rivers and how it
changed people if you don’t know what pollution is. It's not
environmental history if the historian doesn't want to convince
you of the value of the earth in shaping human identities, or
doesn't understand how the earth works, essentially.
[quote author=kellyf link=topic=4.msg51#msg51 date=1547070184]
"Content of Environmental History: As evidence by Diamond and
Merchant's essays - diseases, domestication, climate, food,
disasters, etc. Or in a broader term, "the nonhuman world." (pg.
2)"
[/quote]
I am a little confused by this, as well. The nature of history
is a focus on people. So, how could environmental history focus
only on “the nonhuman world”? The content of Environmental
History is the dialogue between humans and nature-- how the
natural world shapes who each human is, and how each human
changes the natural world. Part of that is a history, so it has
to take place in the past, but it’s history with a mind to
change the values of people in the present.
#Post#: 68--------------------------------------------------
Re: #3: Cronon and Merchant, continued...
By: Reed Date: January 9, 2019, 8:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'll start with Diamond’s idea that history as we understand it
only exists because groups and individual people are different
from one another, but not just because of some innate human
diversity; people are different because they all became
different surviving on different types of land and in different
climates.
Environmental history was founded in the 1970s by a political
movement seeking ultimately to persuade people to take greater
care in how they treated the environment. It looks into the
human psyche and focuses on increasing or enhancing certain
values that people have; it's political. That’s why Cronon was
so into parables-- instructions-- as the purpose of
Environmental History.
So, I will put forward a definition that might be truly stupid:
Environmental history is the content for what is really a thesis
about the human psyche. The thesis is that human history exists
due to the cultural differences between people that are created
because people live in different places on earth-- that human
identity is created by the natural world in a big way. That’s
useful if you’re an environmentalist and you need to convince
people that they have an incredibly significant stake in the
future of the natural world. Environmental history is something
that came about after that thesis because some people who wanted
to advance the idea of people defined by the natural world
needed a way to prove that nature influences culture, so they
did a bunch of research and found that resources, influenza, and
climate-related events were actually pretty important when it
came to influencing people’s choices.
The more I think about it, the more convinced I am: as the
creation of a political movement, the goal is to get people to
value the natural world differently. The methods can be just the
same as any other type of history, with the consultation of
sources, archaeology, etc, so long as the historian believes in
some type of environmentalism, and understands the environment
somewhat scientifically.
The content is the dialogue between humans and the natural
world-- specifically, how the natural world shapes who each
human is. This is the most effective topic to focus on if you're
an environmentalist who wants to convince people of the
importance of the natural world.
#Post#: 69--------------------------------------------------
Re: #3: Cronon and Merchant, continued...
By: jterry2020 Date: January 9, 2019, 8:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Definition: Environmental history is the study of how humans
affect nature and how nature affects humans.
I felt this definition was broad enough to include the
complexity of environmental history but specific enough to
differentiate it from other scientific and historical fields. I
felt some of the information in the readings was ways to
interpret (Worster’s three interpreting sources), examples of
environmental history (Diamond’s explanation of the advantages
gained from continental geography) , or examples of important
things to include environmental history (Merchant’s examples of
lenses history is interpreted through). I think in the end I
agreed with Worster the most in the creation of my definition.
#Post#: 70--------------------------------------------------
Re: #3: Cronon and Merchant, continued...
By: Tommy Is The Person Who I Am Date: January 9, 2019, 8:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=JTodd link=topic=4.msg66#msg66 date=1547086512]
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.
[/quote]
I do agree with the bulk of your definition. However, I feel
that your suggestion that environmental history involves "the
tracing of where [and] when [...] humans have been impacted by
the environment" is to a degree in conflict with my
understanding of the field. It is my understanding that the
implication of environmental history is that humankind is
constantly affected by the environment. Perhaps you agree with
that completely, but are you by any chance suggesting that the
environment only shapes human lives at certain times? Or maybe
you mean that environmental history is not always useful for
examining any given historical event, in which case I agree.
I am also interested by your preference for Diamond's use of
environmental history to specifically answer the "whys and hows
of human interactions." I suppose that the other authors spend
much more time discussing environmental history itself, leaving
less space for actually applying the viewpoint to explaining
human phenomena. This is probably influenced by having only read
four essays so far, Diamond's being labeled Predicting
Environmental History (I don't know why exactly, but I figure
it's worth considering). As we read more, it will be interesting
to see which "purposes" of environmental history are used the
most.
#Post#: 71--------------------------------------------------
Re: #3: Cronon and Merchant, continued...
By: Casey A Date: January 9, 2019, 8:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Okay, I am going to explain my process of thinking. Definition
1: Environmental History is the the study of our idea of history
adapted to and applied to our idea of the environment. Okay, I
feel that I am leaving out how we the environment also adapts
itself to history, so let me revise all of this. Def. 2:
Environmental History is the the study of our idea of history
adapted to and applied to our idea of the environment, which in
turn has been adapted and applied to our understanding of
history. Yes, but I still feel as if I am missing some sort of
purpose, so let’s try again: Def. 3: Environmental History
is the the study of our idea of history adapted to and applied
to our idea of the environment; which in turn has been adapted
and applied to our understanding of history, the totality of
which are examined in hope to find causation as well as to
assist our current and future selves. Now I am missing methods
to achieve these goals.
So finally here is my actual new definition: Environmental
History is the the study of our idea of history adapted to and
applied to our idea of the environment (and vice versa)
consisting of comparing and contrasting the environment and
history as well as categorizing ideas between them, of which the
totality of which are examined in hope to find causation as well
as to assist our current and future selves.
#Post#: 72--------------------------------------------------
Re: #3: Cronon and Merchant, continued...
By: Casey A Date: January 9, 2019, 9:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In response to Jesse, yes I agree, it is hard to specify this
definition without leaving out certain aspects and there for is
not too broad or too specific. What do you think the study of
what seem to be two very separate fields have to say about us
humans as a species?
#Post#: 73--------------------------------------------------
Re: #3: Cronon and Merchant, continued...
By: liamf Date: January 9, 2019, 9:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree with Jesse's rather broad definition, though I feel that
it might benefit from the addition of a time frame. Maybe
specify that it's the study of these interactions in the past?
If it doesn't specify that it's not present day/future than some
might think you're talking about a field of science rather than
history. Maybe I should revise mine to specify the same thing...
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page