A quote I really like that after thinking about it, helped me continue processing my thought in class is: “Environmental history…refer[s] to the past contact of man with his total habit…The environmental historian like the ecologist [s] hould think in terms of wholes, of communities, of interrelationships, and of balances.” (Stovall, I know I chose the same one.) It is very hard to have a set definition of History and history and how these play into environmental history. I view these definitions and terms as a big ball of clay that is moulded and shaped as time goes on and never has a final product. As we talked about in class this morning, race, gender, class, and many other factors are lenses by which we may look through to help understand history. These factors effect human actions and the choices that we make which whether we like it or not, affect the environment in some way and add to the shaping of this ball of clay. So, to only look at environment history at one angle, one doesn’t get a full view of it. As the quote says, we should think about the big picture and interrelationships. The environment is one large ecosystem made up of interrelationships between smaller ecosystems. Like Worster talking about, “outside disturbances may affect that equilibrium,” viewing environmental history as a balance and equilibrium that is delicate but affected by race, class, and gender, we as environmental historians begin to discover new definitions of history and new ways of approaching and interpreting how these communities, ecosystems, and intrinsic traits had an impact on the earth.
I think Cronon’s definition of Environmental History is a study of the environmental changes over time based on a lot of other subjects like politics, science, ecology, economics, etc. The purpose of the study is to help people understand environmental present so that we can get a sense of the future. My own definition of Environmental History is pretty similar to Cronon’s, it’s just that I think like many other subjects, Environmental History is not only about studying the facts, but also asking new questions and finding answers to these questions. Those questions shouldn’t only be focused on environment and its changes, but other factors as well. The questions then should be answered in an “environmentally way”, meaning how those factors relate to or affect environment’s past, present and how they may influence the future. But there is on point I don't agree with Cronon. He mentioned that environmentally historians don't make predictions but interpretations of what may happen. First of all I don't see that much difference between these two. Secondly since he mentioned that studying Environmental History helps people understand the past, present, and how to change the future. How could we and why should we change the future if we don’t know what future might be like? Also everyone makes predictions all the time, whether consciously or not. This is almost like trying not to think of something is thinking of something. So I think one of the purposes of studying Environmental History is making predictions and see what we could do to make the future better.
After today’s class I find Merchant’s essay much more intriguing (still don’t like Cronan’s). To me, her idea of Environmental History relating more to race and gender rather than trees and dirt is interesting, but it also makes environmental history a much larger topic than it previously was by the definition of “trees and dirt,” and by it’s new definition (and I think Rachel said this in class today), all history is in a way Environmental History. I’m not sure I like the idea of environmental history referring to humans, and I’d like to keep it more relating to the planet rather than those who inhabit it. To me, anything with a brain (animals, humans) can be separated from the “environment” (which to me means everything on the earth other than animals and humans). So I believe that environmental history should actually exclude humans from the mix. What I am saying is sort of similar to what Worster’s essay said. A quote from page 4 says, “We may suppose too that nature refers to something radically separate from ourselves, that it is “out there” someplace, sitting solidly, concretely, unambiguously. In a sense that is so.” I think that this definitely contrasts Merchants ideas about nature and environmental history.
So long story short, I think that counting things such as race, gender and class structure as environmental history is crossing lines of areas of study. I think that race, gender and class could become its own topic of study, maybe some subdivision of anthropology. I am sorry if this seems confusing and incomplete, but I’m having a super hard time getting my thoughts into words and sentences.... but hopefully I’ll be able to further explain in class.
Okay... so I've literally read through the text four times, went through my notes billions of times, read all of your responses multiple times, and even googled questions. I *cannot*, for the life of me, figure out their definitions of history and environmental history! I understand what we went over in class; how we could reference the social/cultural/economical hierarchies and compare it to environmental history, but the significance of ... ANYTHING ELSE that Merchant wrote is completely lost on me.
It even sounded slightly sexist and racist when talking about who is "closer to the environment." It made no sense at all.
Could anyone help me?
I agree with Mingwei’s idea on the purpose of studying environmental history. Although Cronon warned of human’s action upon environment saying “we can never know the consequence of our actions… (pg 10)” and Worster saying “…how far we are yet form controlling the environment…(pg2)” both environmental history and History lead people to the better future.
Like Merchant, Cronon also mentioned of different influences form different cultural backgrounds. Unlike Cronon, it feels like to me that Merchant overemphasized the role of those backgrounds (class, gender and race) on Environmental History. Emily, Merchant’s point is also very obscure to me. It is true that she attempted to create new paradigm (still it doesn't seems new to me even after Rachel's explanation. I mean, History contains author's interpretation, hence cannot avoid from being biased, isn't it?), but similar to what Ikrieger2012 mentioned, I think Environmental History (or is it ‘h’istory?) has to be independent from human History in some degree. The purpose of Environmental History, in my account, is to help us to understand past to change future. This inevitably restricts Environmental history to reflect human action, but the main topic has to rest on “the role and place of nature in human life (Worster)”
I think a great starter to this thread is addressing Emily's question. She wrote:
Quote:
I understand what we went over in class; how we could reference the social/cultural/economical hierarchies and compare it to environmental history, but the significance of ... ANYTHING ELSE that Merchant wrote is completely lost on me.
I'm not sure what exactly you are asking, but I from what I got, it seams that you are having trouble grasping the idea around how race/gender/class have impacted the environment, and how the oppression of those within those oppressed groups lead to greater "natural" environmental decay.
I found it interesting how Worster said "Environmental historians insist that we got to go...down to the earth itself as an agent and presence in history." He believes that one must return to one's more primitive self to be able to understand the works at play, to fully comprehend that history.Additionally, he believes that environmental history it was born out of a moral purpose, which is contrasts greatly to 'little h' history.
I thought it was interesting how I nearly quoted John Opie in today's exercise when defining environmental history on our own, when he said, "to analyze the effects of man's recently achieved control over the natural world." And through this, and I quote, "what is needed is a longer-term global, comparative, historical perspective that treats the environment as a meaningful variable." As a result of this analysis, we see how humans have an adverse effect on a cyclical nature, and vice versa.
The reading before gave me a lot of confusion, we talked a lot about it in the class, but I still didn’t quite understand what is Environmental History, I just struggled with the definitions. But after reading the quotations I start to understand more. “We may be entering a new phase of history, a time when we begin to rediscover…the traditional teaching that power must entail restraint and responsibility, the ancient awareness that we are interdependent with all of nature and that out sense of community must take in the whole of creation” Donald Worster, “The Vulnerable Earth,” in Worster, ed., The Ends of the Earth (NewYork: Cambridge University Press, 1989), p.20 I think I understand what Environmental History is now.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
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
