Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2011 4:00 pm Post subject: Doing Environmental history+predicting environmental history
It looks like I am the first to post, so I hope I am doing this right
Please note- I just read the first essay-through page 4-and I will post again after I read the others.
I feel "doing Environmental History" gave me a better defintion of what environmental history encompasses. I had to re-read some paragraphs, but the connections the author made about historians, ecologists and anthropologist were really cool. Now the way I see environmental history is how the land or ecosystem affected human culture and why people lived where they did.
Also, I can relate to how the auther describes 'nature' as a world seperate from people, as if it wasn't a part of our every day lives-referring to nature as the 'non-human' world.
On another note, the idea of 'the meaning of nature' brings me back to Myths and Patterns class. There are myths of why the seasons change, the sun and moon exist, rainbows, ect. I believe it is because before people had the scientific knowledge to define any of these things, they still wanted there to be a reason why they were there. And personally, the thought of moon and sun gods appeals to me much more than the earth just spins around.
And lastly, I find the idea of different views on nature and environment to be interesting as well. I never thought that my race or gender coul affect how I look at the environment. so I ask this- Do you think your role in (i don't want to say 'society' ) life affects your views on the environment? I would love to hear what others think about this.
Finished the other essay! by Jared Diamond
I definately understood the language of this essay better-I did bot have to re-read paragraphs as often as the first one. The intro got me all excited to read something amazing that i never knew, but once I read the body I felt dissapointed.
I think the points the author makes are full of contradictions, for example, "Eurasia...offered the most wild species to begin with. That pre-existing difference was magnified 13,000 years ago at the end of the last Ice Age, when more than 80% of the large mammal species of North and South America became extinct, probably exterminated by the first arriving Indians"
What I get from this quote is that the native americans wiped out most of the mammals they could have domesticated, and that feels like human action rather than an affect of the environment.
Also, Diamond mentions that Europeons had guns and steel weapons, ect. Isn't that just proving they advanced earlier than other civilizations? They Created the gun before native americans or other less advanced groups, which was because of the people, not their environment.
Last edited by Knaideface on Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
I found that Worster definitely addressed the subject of environmental history—why it is studied, how it is studied, how natural science and history are linked and gave some interesting examples. I thought Diamond did a better job of actually leading me through the specifics of what this all meant.
Like, Kinead (sp?) my favorite part of the Worster essay was when he started of with, “put in the vernacular then, environmental history is about the role and place of nature in human life…we mean by “nature” the nonhuman world, the world we have not in any primary sense created.” This brought up a lot of interesting points, first being that the study of environmental history is the study of our world in an objective manner (i.e. without us in it) yet this is very uncommon for historians to do; “When we step beyond the self-reflecting world of humankind to encounter the non-human sphere, environmental history finds its main theme of study.”
The Jared Diamond reading was more familiar and “history-like” to me. He posed the Big question that Rachel (Levinson) also brought up in class—why is some part of the world (White, Eurasian) so much more successful, dominant and faster to industrialize than the Americas, Africa and Australia? He gives a ton of really great reasons, starting with the basics of weapons (guns/steel), diseases (germs) and others such as a sophisticated government, ships, domestic animals etc. he continues to peel back layers and layers until it eventually gets to the base of it which turns out is the environment. I thought what was most interesting was when he discussed the ability to domesticate animals so much easier in Eurasia due to the longitude/latitude. It was something that had never crossed my mind before but of course makes perfect sense. This is to me, the perfect illustration of the somewhat “butterfly effect” the environment has on our history/civilization.
From what we know so far do you guys agree or disagree with Diamond's take on the Big Question? Is it really all due to the environment and everything else came from there or is it something else?
I was initially cagey about calling the effect of nature on humans “History”, because I felt like the mainstream History I’m used to only involves human-generated change. But Worster pointed out that nature and people mutually affect each other, so we can’t separate anthropogenic effects from nonanthropogenic effects (even if we wanted to, which the authors seem to think we don’t…) And Diamond provided one big case study of just how much bearing environmental factors have on the course of human events. If the Central American land bridge had never formed, could Indigenous Americans have invaded Europe on the backs of sloth-bears and giant armadillos?
Though part of me knows it isn’t the case, I still wonder if an Environmental Historian isn’t just a scientist who extends science to its implications for societies. I was especially bewildered by the questions scattered around the bottom paragraph of page 3. How do we make sense of this? Where should we draw the boundaries between Environmental History and Anthropology, or Science, or other fields? Do the boundaries need to be drawn?
Also, I’m psyched that we have a reasonable way of examining the success of West European invaders on other continents. We can now say it wasn’t random, and certainly refute the idea that it was a matter of superiority or God or the like.
Knaide—yes. I don’t know if gender or race has anything to do with it for me, but I wouldn’t be an outdoorsman if I wasn’t from the middle-class-and-up bracket. I also wouldn’t be a conservationist… try telling a starving dude not to eat an endangered bird.
Like will, I too am used to a study of history revolving around human-generated change. Yet I think Worster also pointed our inclination to claim humans AS the only source of real change, indicated by the question "How stable are those natural systems and how susceptible to upset? Is it accurate to describe them as balanced and stable until humans arrive?" (3)
I dislike the idea that there was and is a natural order devoid of humans. Obviously I am aware (as is Worster, evidently) that their are aspects of nature (water cycles and the like) that act autonomously of humans. Yet this black and white idea of dependency or autonomy doesn't make sense to me, as humans are (to me) WITHIN this realm of all that is natural. The concept of a natural homeostasis that humans may only interrupt seems unlikely, especially as nature will change and evolve on its own as evident by our very existence (from apes.)
To be as concise as possible, I think Worster explains the revisionist move towards Environmental history as a shift in perception from humans ON earth to humans IN earth.
As for Diamond's reading---absolutely fascinating. I think what surprised me most was that other continents around the world were not, as I imagined, a few centuries behind in development but instead, thousands of years. I had no idea the discrepancy was so incredibly large. Like Olivia, I also found the concept of longitude and latitude (an idea thats always been weirdly abstract for me) effecting animal movement so much fascinating.
Yet something I was sensing throughout reading that Worster eventually articulated explicitly was that perhaps environmental history was/is too...big. He states, "....Environmental history must include in its program the study of...ethics, myth and folklore, literature and landscape gardening, science and religion--must go wherever the human mind has grappled with the meaning of nature," (4) Essentially will's point, disciplinary lines have been blurred if not eradicated and both authors thus far seem at a loss for whether or not this is beneficial to our study.
So how are we (not neccesarily as students but as scientists or historians or what have you) supposed to prioritize? Is there a more linear path in environemntal history or is the overall study just on too macro a scale?
Sorry for the length but my interest has been piqued and I am generally confused.
Hello, friendos.
So, environmental history is lovely. "an effort to make the discipline far more inclusive in its narratives than it has traditionally been"… lovely! The whole concept is very progressive… understanding the whole in terms of its parts and vice versa.
This was probably a useless train of thought, but something about "Doing Environmental History" made me keep trying to decide which held more power/value in the realm of environmental history: humans or environment. Obviously it takes both, but trying to isolate these two entities is actually quite difficult. And when you do isolate one, you necessarily emphasize the other by its own absence. Does that make sense?
That then leads to the "nature" discussion and where you draw the line between environmental creation and human creation.
"Is technology to be viewed as an integral part of the natural world, akin to the fur coat of the polar bear…?"
freaky, right?
And in response to Will...
Quote:
I was initially cagey about calling the effect of nature on humans “History”, because I felt like the mainstream History I’m used to only involves human-generated change.
I know you changed your opinion after saying that, but I wanted to add on a question. Human-generated change from what?
Human-generated change from what was naturally there? So isn't that arguably an effect of nature on humans? or is it really the other way around?
Worster gave a good overview on the concept of environmental history. For me, history and science have always been separate disciplines, but it interesting to see where/how they overlap.
I really liked the quote "Those forces impinge on human life, stimulating some reaction, some defense, some ambition. Thus, when we step beyond the self-reflecting world of humankind to encounter the nonhuman sphere, environmental history finds its main theme of study" (4). I'd love to hear other people's thoughts/reactions to that quote, or other quotes that interested people.
In the Worster essay, one of the things that interested me was how environmental historians use scientific data to draw conclusions about history. For example, a major earthquake has an obvious effect on history. If it destroyed a city or displaced people, that would influence history. In the Diamond essay, Diamond's argument about how Eurasian technology and conquering of other people, draws an interesting, less obvious idea.
In response to Knaide & Olivia- from what I know so far, I do agree with Diamond's take on the big question (for the most part). Diamond’s argument is based on fact and is more reasonable (to me) than the argument of inherent superiority or having a God given right. I looked up some reviews on Guns, Germs, and Steel (Diamond’s book, which “Predicting Environmental History” is from), and some critics accuse him of being Eurocentric, while others state that he ignored many other important factors such as political fragmentation in Africa and different ideologies (There is a section on the Wikipedia article about this if anyone is interested). Does anyone agree with the critics? But to give him credit, Diamond did mention political organization on page 14.
I agree with Will and Knaide about how race/gender/socioeconomic class influences a person’s outlook on the environment. I’d also like to add religion and spiritual beliefs to that list. Some religions have set views on how to treat nature and the environment, others leave things a little more open ended.
So, I guess I'm going to try and connect what everyone was saying and hopefully not restate it. I felt like the first article by Worster kept hammering in that environmental history is a cause and effect between humans and nature. I found the goal of environmental history was, "deepening our understanding of how humans have been affected by their natural environment through time..." (page 2) and i think that's what the rest of the article really examined. I liked Olivia Becker's quote about the definition of environmental history, but the word nature bugged me. Abstract definitions are kind of annoying, so to not know what nature is made it hard to know what environmental history is. Later, Worster went on to say nature is everything nonhuman. I'm not sure if i wholeheartedly agree; why can't humans be part of nature? Where's the line? All of these ideas seemed very anthropological, and I was happy to see that word come up later in Worster's article. A key question I thought Worster addressed was, "What is the best way to understand the relation of human material cultures to nature?" If we can answer this, it would help me a lot to understand my other question of 'where's the line?' The whole perception argument of nature being subjective was also annoying to me, mostly because I like concrete ideas.
"But most changes are less catastrophic, and the degree of damage has no easy method of measurement..." (page 3) This quote screamed global warming to me. It was during the discussion of how much do we affect the world around us. Just thought that was a good example of how we try to measure it and answer questions through science using environmental history.
So, Diamond's article. SO much more interesting. I kept asking myself questions (well mostly the same one: why?), and he kept answering them. It all made sense in the end that the final layer was because mother nature said so. You can't get much deeper than that, and it is pretty fitting for the class. I found it sort of weird though that it came down to minute details like climate and ice ages, but it did make sense. Not much to say on this article, mostly because all my questions were answered in a clear and logical way.
Like some people have said I also had some problems with humans being called natural history, but the bigger picture, for example Europe being horizontally long and America being vertically long, shows that nature also affects humans making humans part of natural history.
I found that I liked the second essay more because it was more story like, but it was not nearly as interesting as if I had not read the first essay first. Seeing how historians work in environmental history made the tracing back of the second essay more understanding.
As Kanaide said I believe that this made me understand what environmental history is about.
Something else I found interesting was that the first essay said “over the long stretch of time, no modes have ever been perfectly adapted to their environment, or there would be little history”. I am not sure why that pops out to me but I assume its because I found that it was saying that we are part of these modes and that we are always changing along with the world.
“Doing Environmental History” definitely helped to define environmental history for me. Like a few other people I could really relate to the quote “By common understanding we mean by “nature” the nonhuman world, the world we have not in any primary sense created
I think that one of the possible benefits to studying environment history is that is a more “objective” (hate to use that word) way to look at the world. Nature doesn’t have a reason behind what it does, and it doesn’t intentionally apply meanings or values to things the way humans do with cultures. Since there is no reasoning or motivation in what takes place it can’t really debated. It also prevents people’s personal values and morals from swaying history.
When Worster says “is technology to be viewed as an integral part of the natural world…all adaptive mechanisms functioning within ecosystems?” I don’t see why it wouldn’t be. The technology is a product of human’s intellect which is their adaptive/survival mechanism just like a tiger’s teeth or a bear’s fur.
I was a little bit irritated by the second essay. I understand that the Europeans were able to conquer everybody because they developed guns and advanced technology faster. That seems like a relatively straightforward answer to me. He didn’t really address why the Europeans were able to develop this technology faster. That could just be an unanswerable question though.
after reading both essays, i can definitely say i have a better definition of environmental history. We're trying to look at the history of the world's natural environment without taking humans into account. But as Olivia (becker) and several others have pointed out, "people are what the historian mainly studies; consequently, his or her job is to join together what scientists have put asunder" (page 3). it reinforced a point that's been driven home well before these readings. worster asked a few rhetorical questions about the balance of natural ecosystems, and how susceptible they are to being upset. i feel like humans have been more than enough to upset the balance of these ecosystems for thousands of years. worster gives a quote that explains this theory a little later, when he says "every culture, we should assume, has within it a range of perceptions and values, and no culture has ever really wanted to live in total harmony with its surroundings." (page 4).
the jared diamond reading was much more straightforward, as he specifically pointed out his reasons for why the old world europeans were able to conquer the indians of the new word so easily. its unbelievable to think that something like the main axis of eurasia being east/west vs. America's axis being north/south could have such a huge impact on the countries as a whole.
i have much more to say but its nearly 11, so i promise ill say more tomorrow night. sorry!
I thought that Worster's motivation for advocating an environmental perspective on history was kind of confusing. He wrote, "Above all [environmental history] rejects the conventional assumption...that the ecological. I think this indicates that he felt that there's some sort of self-evident value in the study of the environment and what happens to it, whereas Diamond only regarded a historical take on the environment as valuable in as much as it illuminates human or "non-natural" history. The study of the environment as valuable in itself appeals to me, but like Will and Olivia I had trouble with where you put that on the science vs. history line. But I think a lot of it has to do with the circularity of the natural world thing that Rachel was talking about. I think that a lot of people tend to think of changes or developments in the nature as circular/finding a state of homeostasis because the natural world is not so obviously a product of free will as are changes or developments in the "human realm". People assume that a human created object or thing or action has a reason behind it because otherwise it wouldnt have been made, so they wind up seeing the course of human events as moving in a particular direction because human events are driven by human intent. But, especially for non-religious folk like me, natural events just seem to sort of happen, so we (I) wind up seeing the progression of nature as directionless and sort of stagnant. Uh-oh. I think that was about something else entirely.
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
) life affects your views on the environment? I would love to hear what others think about this. 
by Jared Diamond
