Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 11:58 pm Post subject: 1/4: Worster and Diamond
Please read (actively) Donald Worster's "Doing Environmental History" and Jared Diamond's, "Predicting Environmental History" (pp.1-7 in your packets). Post as required. Good luck.
I was fascinated by the extraordinarily scientific explanation for white European dominion over the Americas. I have always wondered why it is that history happened that way. Why not the other way around? I assumed it had something to do with greed; something about western culture that made it’s people so aggressive. I never thought the reason would involve domestic animal counts and latitude vs. longitude of the continents. Crazy. It got me thinking though.
At the start of the reading Worster describes the narrow-mindedness of the “old” history, a history that only recognizes the actions of the elite of the nations. I can easily see the danger in thinking about history in such a patriotic way. I wonder though, is there a danger in thinking about history in an overly scientific way? I don’t get the sense that environmental history is doing this, but down the road I wonder if historians will minimize the contributions of people and over-state the role of the natural environment. Is the way we think about history on a spectrum?
I’m very interested as to why it has taken so long for this way of viewing history to gain momentum. Why is environmental history such a new concept? Well I think it has to do in part with what Worster was saying about the recent popularity of the nation-state. We got so obsessed about borders and battles and patriotism that it dominated our understanding of our history. A larger reason though, has to with what Worster discusses on page 8. He says that “nature”, in a sense, is radically separate from humans. We did not create it and it will continue to exist without us. Perhaps the absence of nature in our history books is humanity subconsciously saying “fine nature, if you don’t need us, then we don’t need you.”
I agree with what you said, but i would like to add that i feel that humans have always been very wrapped up in their own individual lives to the point where they don't dig deeper into their surrondings. Humans think that they can make everything and do everything on their own when in reality they can't. If it wasn't for nature we wouldn't be surviving. Pointed out in the reading, we used and still use the environment for food and other natural resources. In general humans believe they are the reason why vegetables grow and so on because they water them and etc...
I also think a lot about why Europeans were the ones to dominate and so forth. That part of the reading interested me, but some parts were still a little bit confusing.
I never thought that so much discussion and questions could come from "environmental history." This reading made me question a lot about what is natural and what isn't. Also what is the definition of natural?
I didn't finish the reading, I read for an hour and a half straight and could only get halfway through. These were probably the most scientific history readings that I can remember ever reading. This made it very hard for me to follow. Anyways, I found it very interesting how Donald Worster keep pushing as if to remind the reader that humans are apart of nature. I also was very interested when Worster asked if the US would have made Kentucky apart of our country if it hadn't been covered in blue grass that all the farmers wanted. It's those type of questions that make me start thinking about fate and crazy stuff like that, that give me a headache.
The themes that were discussed in the reading seemed to build on our discussion in class today. We began discussing the definitions of "natural" and "history".
My working definition for "natural" is the environment surrounding human society but not directly shaped by humans.
Is this the definition other people have? What is a good definition for "natural" in regards to environmental history?
On another note, I feel that the comparison between the narrow focus centering on the political leaders of a country compared to the attempt by environmental historians to incorporate every possible variable is too black and white. Both types of historical research can be useful. History is not studied in an attempt to revel in the past, but with the desire to move forward. This is aided by a plethora of methods by which to analyze precedence.
Environmental history is more encompassing than other lenses, but that does not make it better. The best way to look at history is through as many different lenses as possible. This is the only way to get a sharp and detailed picture of what was happening, and how it applies to the present.
We briefed upon the notion in class that humans only work for themselves, or that humans are the “selfish” animals, only concerned about the well-being and the longevity of the species. But then we return to the idea of humans being the ones who define everything -- I think it was Peter’s big point of the day. Humans are the only animals with the power of description.
Emily mentioned the fact that Worster constantly reminds us that humans are a part of nature. Worster almost implies that suggesting humans aren’t a part of nature is a bad thing. Why? We are the only animals with this power of description and we can analyze our existence and our affects on the earth. In my book, that should separate us a little bit.
On the other hand, I can sort of agree that humans are a part of nature since no other animal is calling us selfish pigs. It isn’t like other animals are worried more about other species than we are. I guarantee that flamingos don’t give one rat’s ass about all the environmental harm they are causing by eating too many shrimp or whatever. They only care about themselves as we only care about ourselves; this expected “survival of the fittest” theme that I think will come up more than once in this course. I think humans should have every right to do whatever they can to thrive and survive. How large of an impact are we really making anyway? On page 2 Worster mentions “how far we are yet from controlling the environment to our complete satisfaction…” after pointing out the gargantuan affects of water levels, climate, and whatnot. I bet littering a few plastic bottles won’t change the temperature in the North Pole faster than natural causes will.
I agree what Emily said up there ^ about the Kentucky not being made part of our country when it had and how that may have affected the outcome of the US. I had never thought of that concept- that if simply the desirable grazing grass there had been an unwanted shrub instead, there probably wouldn't have been so much integration into Kentucky. Huge, even monumental differences in the way our civilization evolved could have come from that.
I thought the bit about the domesticated plants and animals with the main axis east/west thing was a little confusing. I don't quite understand why it's different from America to Eurasia. Is it just because Eurasia is wider than America? But then why can't the animals and plants still migrate east to west, but just in a smaller area? I didn't really understand that.
Also, I was surprised that it is estimated that more than 80% of mammal species in North and South America became extinct from the first Native Americans. I knew that they drove a lot of animals to extinction, but I hadn't realized it was such a large percentage. After this reading, I feel like the Native Americans were much more destructive than I thought. This, also coming from the fact that they killed off almost all of the animals they could have domesticated.
so these are just my thoughts on parts of the reading that stood out to me:
In the past, history was simply about humans, politics, and power. Then, historians made it about the relationships between humans and nature; this is where we are now. Humans are definitely affected by nature and vice-versa. But to truly understand the relationship between human’s and “nature” I think we need to look at nature more closely. Like, the different species of plants and animals and how they have affected each other. It is important to recognize that animals and plants change the earth, and therefore change human society and culture. We can’t just ignore the parts of nature that don’t directly have to do with humans.
Cultures, I think, are very much influenced by nature. Nature allows for various occupations, which affects the economy, which might in turn affect a cultures appreciation for things that cost money. And natural disasters also affect culture. For example, Hurricane Katrina has already and will continue to change the people and the culture of New Orleans.
“Is it accurate to describe them (natural systems) as balanced and stable until humans arrive? And if so, then at what point does a change in their equilibrium become excessive, damaging or destroying them?”
I don’t think natural systems are ever balanced and stable because natural systems are constantly checking themselves and morphing as animals and plants come and go and ultimately change each other. I don’t think humans are any different from any other animal in this way. We come in and we change things. We tend to look at the way we change nature in a negative way. We tear down rainforests, supposedly cause ice caps to melt, and many other seemingly horrible things. But maybe we need to stop viewing change as such a bad thing, maybe our planet just changes with whatever happens to be living on it. By living on earth, we affect it. Why can’t what we choose to do simply be the natural flow of things?
Here's Naomi's post (she's having some internet troubles):
Having just talked about the question of why the Europeans pulled
ahead of the American Indians in the course of history last semester,
I didn’t find it too eye-opening or exciting. What I did find
intriguing, though, was at the end of Worster’s piece, when he was
questioning first the definition of nature, and then human perception
of nature. He says that humans in some ways completely remove
themselves from any association with effects on nature. Nature is
seen as a separate cycle, running alongside the human’s time of
existence on Earth. While I agree with him that nature has run and
will run regardless of human existence, the well-being of nature has
proven to be directly damaged by humans. In removing ourselves from
any direct connections to the word “nature,” we relieve ourselves from
the burden of taking responsibility in caring for nature. This
brushes away any blame, if we throw up our hands and say “hey, its a
natural cycle that will always turn and mature and have ups and downs
no matter what we do.” It allows us to lose sight of the truth, that
we do have an effect on and possibly a disruption of the natural
condition of the world, and that we must keep take it upon ourselves
to keep it in tact. This makes me worry that this idea of
disconnection has developed into a belief, which could bring us
blindly to some sort of self-destruction. Classic human nature seems
to be avoiding responsibility of a negative situation of any kind, but
I hope this can change so we can see what repair work needs to be
done, and how much of it can actually be done by us.
What great posts so far! I've really enjoyed reading them. You all are really cutting to the heart of the matter quite beautifully. Has the reading had any effect on your initial definition of Evironmental History? If so, how/why?
Also, anyone want to try to tackle Morgan's questions?
This reading covered a lot of material. The first concept that Emily wrote about i think is very interesting. It is true no matter what we do we are always a part of nature. We effect our environment the most but there is no such thing as something being inherently bad for a planet. Life will continue even if we kill ourselves off just as life has continued throughout ice ages and global warmings before this. It is not good that we are using up the things we need to survive but other things will still flourish. Another concept that i found interesting and one that we talked a lot about in class was the difference between natural and unnatural things on our planet. I believe that this concept is difficult to get to the bottom of because we humans are the ones who have defined unnatural by the things that we create. These things that we produced all still come from nature they have just been manipulated and can eventually become part of a human-less nature again. The last concept that stood out to me was only brought up briefly and is not as directly connected to the subject however i found interesting. On page 4 under the header Perception, Ideology, and value. "All the same, nature is a creation of our minds too, and no matter how hard we try to see what it is objectively in and by and for itself, we are to a considerable extent trapped in a prison of our own consciousness ans web of meaning." This idea goes beyond the way we look at nature. It ties into the way we look at everything. We cannot look at anything objectively because we can only see things with the bias of being human. therefore damaging the environment for us is bad all around.
How limited do you believe humans are in looking at issues are there things that we can understand and truly know are right or wrong?
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 8:46 am Post subject: Worster and Diamond reading
"Doing Environmental History"
When I was reading the Worster essay, there was a point that he was making that impacted me the most. He explained the broadening and increasing objectivity of history from political, nationalistic, and very subjective human based accounts, into a more "global" and "democratic" way of analyzing the past. This reform of history shifting towards a more objective subject penetrated through "the layers of class, gender, race, and caste" into the more "fundamental forces at work." And thus, different factions of "bottom up" history, like environmental history, were born.
I believe that anyone who wants to analyze anything on this planet must first break it down to it's fundamental pieces first, and from what I got from this reading, that's what environmental history is all about.
"Environmental history is, in sum, part of a revisionist effort to make the discipline far more inclusive in its narratives than it has traditionally been."
Worster also went into the levels of environmental history, which I found pretty important. They are: 1) understanding nature itself, 2) socioeconomic realm as it interacts with the environment, and 3) the mental and intellectual meaning humans put behind it. I summed it up as: What was there and what was happening? How did it affect people? Why do they think it happened? (This demonstrates the scope from the broad "what" that doesn't necessarily have to do with human, to the narrow and subjective "why" that humans put behind nature.)
I'm ah post the response to the other reading in a little bit.
I want to answer Rachael's question about the definition of Environmental History based on the text....
Donald Worster mentioned quite a few things that stuck out to me. First Worster mentions on page 3? that enviromental history was born out of a "moral purpose, with political commitments behind it," as well as a scholarly enterprise. See that word "political" reminds me of how Rachael said that something like cutting off the water supply is much more dangerous than an all out attack. To me it feels like this is specifically why environmental history is gaining awareness. That may answer Paul's question to.
Worster quoted Aldo Leopold as saying that the combination of environmental science and history is really "an ecological interpretation of history." This definition so far seems the best out of all that we've heard.
Environmental history is history from the eyes of ecology. From the plants, chemistry of the soil, and etc.
Posted: Tue Jan 05, 2010 10:14 am Post subject: Enviro. History
I was only able to get through “Predicting Environmental History” after a great period of time. Regardless, I thought that Diamond did a great job breaking down, layer by layer, the progression of technologies in different groups of people relative to the different ages. This breaking down really helped me to understand just how vast of an advantage the Eurasians had over all other peoples (ex./ copper tools spreading in the South American Andes 5,000 years after the tools had started showing up in some parts of Eurasia).
Diamond bases some of his essay upon the advantages of having better weaponry and technology. I believe that he was definitely right in stating that this factor was the main reason for the success of the Spaniards over the Aztecs and Incas, and the Europeans over the Indians. Both the Aztecs and the Spaniards were both very powerful. Spaniard success was due solely to their arsenal, and their arsenal was dependant upon their economy and where the settled.
It makes a lot of sense to take an entire group of people into account for their successes, defeats, damage upon the environment, and economy, to name few. A great population does not always act and think the same, and so picking and choosing individuals out of it over-simplifies the population's actions. Diamond also states that there are a variety of views and vaues in many a culture, but also says that some of these cultures did not want to live in harmony with their surroundings. I was wondering though, what is the general spectrum of the surroundings he is talking about (various examples of surroundings linked to cultures that didn't want to live in harmony with them)?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
