free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

eeschneider · Joined: 16 Oct 2009 Posts: 30

I have to say, not my favorite reading. It took me a long time to realize what it had to do with environmental history. I'm so use to reading these readings about nature and water and forests that all the politics going on this reading blinded me from seeing the actual point of this reading until I started thinking about it. It all has to do with the circle of life kinda. Well actually I pictured it like Noah's Ark, but that's just me. What puzzled me was the sight of poverty is what shocked the nation, do you think if new orleans was a completely wealthy area or no one saw images of the lower nineth ward that america would have responded they same way that it did?

ellawm · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 12

In response to emilys question i dont know if images had much to do with it, but if the lower ninth was wealthy most definitely things would have been handled differently. I assume that more money would have gone into fixing things, and more people would have been saved. I also feel like if the lower ninth was wealthy and made up of more whites, that not as much damaged would have occured. The government would have made sure people were safe before anything even could happen. That connects with Haiti now...they were never off on a good and wealthy foot. Now they are definitely in a deeper hole, and people are "helping the best they can," but Haiti should have been helped way before these earthquakes.

I also agree with EMily that with all the politics its hard to see how it truly relates to environmental history...I am not done yet so i hope i can see by the end. I like the reading, but i cant make the big connection quite yet...

stefanks · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 15

I agree with Emily on this reading being kind of unclear. I actually couldn't find that strong of a connection to the environmental history aspect of th reading because, it just made connections to socioeconomic issues of Katrina starting with Katrina happening. It didn't look at the socioeconomic issues and try to trace it back to environmental causes like environmental history is supposed to. The reading left me having to make my own connections (which I guess is a good thing), but all of the connection I tried to make weren't very valid because I'm not an expert on the subject.

scormanpenzel · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 10

I didn't finish all the reading, but from what I read, I really couldn't draw many connections to environmental history. It wasn't until I read some of the other posts that I understood a bit better what people were getting at. I had trouble trying to draw conclusions between the environment and the amount of money one had. I also fell asleep half-way through. Oops, I'm sorry.

jdesai · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 14

Like the rest of you guys I'm having trouble finding the relation to environmental history. I know they briefly mention the marsh land and sea level but...its not a big thing in this reading. However I think Environmental History also incorporates how humans interact with one another. In this reading there's obviously some race and economic class issues. And I think that this is the environmental history is in this reading. Like ella mentioned, the land would be radically differently if their was another ruling class, or the majority of people were also the ones in power. Baum interviewed a white Navy veteran who said that he couldn't swim with the blacks until he was 30 because his mother followed what the city was doing, seperating the poor from the rich and the blacks/spanish from the whites. (pg.1) Which is why the marsh was divided the way it was and why many of the reconstruction plans are the way they are. People want to be seperate, and they're using the environment to do that.

Skarman · Joined: 05 Jan 2010 Posts: 27

I also couldn’t help but think about Haiti after this reading. I was reminded of the controversial Pat Robertson comment about Haiti wreaking this disaster upon themselves for having made a pact with the devil. Like Robertson, the insane justifications of disasters that people in the reading made seem like just a substitute for racism, or they are heavily implying racism but are disguising their beliefs through other ridiculous rationalizations. I also loosely connected this reading to parts of Cronon’s piece about religion and nature. People need explanations for everything. We cannot believe that disasters can just happen on their own. An outside force must be causing all of this (usually a god), and for a purpose, a greater good, even though we know hurricanes roll through the Gulf of Mexico almost every year between August and November anyway. But why do we need to rationalize everything that happens? Does it give us comfort? A sense of control? Does anyone understand what I’m saying?
Whether or not this reading relates to environmental history, (which it probably does, but I’m having trouble pinpointing), I found myself becoming sick to my stomach reading this appalling article.

Free Forum