This may be getting a little into semantics, but are the animals that humans domesticate under the Nature or Humans category? I am torn on this because while they are obviously not human, they were brought to their current state of being by humans so in a sense they were created by humans and are no longer nature according to some of the definitions we have.
i figured someone would say this, so i attempted to choose my words carefully but sorta didnt. by "their domestication of animals" i meant the act and effects of domestication, but not the animals themselves.
In Cronin’s piece, he talks about how environmental history is “a dialogue between humans and nature”, and how environmental history “(should) be useful not just helping us understand the past, but in helping us change the future”. Cronin seems to define environmental history as (sorry for the poor wording) history that examines humans and their interactions with nature, why they are important, and using that knowledge to create a better future.
Like others, I had a harder time finding Merchant’s definition, her piece seemed to be less about environmental history as a whole. Merchant seems to see environmental history as a broad field of study, that can include race, gender, and class, and that perception plays an important role in our study of it. Merchant’s piece was more about her argument then environmental history as a whole.
My working definition of environmental history is looking at history in an environmental context (lame, I know), and analyzing how environmental factors influence the course of history, as well as human interactions with nature. I’m sure that as we get farther into the course, my definition will change.
In response to whether the future should be included in definitions of environmental history, I think it’s totally okay for people to put it in. The past shapes the present, which shapes the future, so including the future in a definition of environmental history can work. Also, since it is a revisionist history, the present and the future play important roles in how it is told and analyzed.
To respond to what Dylan and Isaac have talked about concerning the definitions of nature and humans. I think you really cannot completely separate humans and nature and maybe should not even try to. I think a point of environmental history is showing just how intertwined and important nature and humans have been in the past and how they have effected each other. Animals have been domesticated for years by humans so I guess you could say they are products of nature and also humans so in my opinion I think it gets to complicated to say and find a clear definition of what is nature and what is human. Just to make it even more confusing humans are animals and therefore part of nature.
geez, you guys are doing a really great job. I have LOVED reading what you've written thus far. I'm so excited for tomorrow's conversation! Thank you for your hard work.
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
