2) Explain the relevance of the following themes for environmental
history:
Individual freedom vs collective purpose
Aesthetic vs utilitarian values
Value judgments of the historian
2) What aspects of Black Elk's piece seem puzzling to you?
2) What version of ecology does Cronon endorse? Why?
3) Cronon notes that "Environment may initially shape the range of choices available to a people at a givenmoment, but then culture reshapes environment in responding to those choices" (p. 23). This is a central insight of environmental history. Why do you think this insight has been weak or absent from the history we generally learn?
2) How might you explain Jacob's statement, " From the birth of the republic, then, there was an ambivalence about... the land."
1) Jacobs suggests that the study of environmental history might "improve our sense of identification with future gnerations" (p. 30). How might this be so?
2) What does Catlin mean in the first full paragraph of p. 34? Provide your interpretation.
3) Does it surprise you that Catlin "forced" himself into a reverie in 1832 and conceived of:
A magnificent park, where the world could see for ages to come, the native Indian in his classic attire, galloping his wild horse, with sinewy bow, and shield and lance, amid the fleeting herds of elks and buffaloes. What a beautiful and thrilling specimen for America to preserve and hold up to the view of her refined citizens and the world, in future ages! A nation's park, containing man and beast, in all the wild and freshness of their nature's beauty!
This is a truly original idea, and well before its time. What inspired this idea in Catlin?
2) When Thoreau writes
I believe that there is a subtle magnetism in Nature, which, if we unconsciously yield to it, will direct us aright. It is not indifferent to us which way we walk. There is a right way; but we are very liable from heedlessness and stupidity to take the wrong one.
Examine this passage as you did those above. He uses the term "right" in the moral senses. What is the right of which he speaks?
3) Thoreau has spoken clearly to environmentalists in the past 40 years. His voice has perhaps been louder during that period than in any of the 150 since he started publishing his thoughts. Why does he seem to speak to 20th Century environmentalists so clearly?
2) Give a careful description of Marsh's concept of human nature, including its variations, and its implications for the treatment of nature.
3) Marsh is extraordinarily foresightful in this brief passage. He foresees a future in which humans will have ever greater "power over inorganic nature," and that future has come to pass. He issues a warning and says man must exercise restraint. What reasons does he give for this restraint? What normative arguments does he use?
2) What is the core of Olmstead's argument for park preservation, and is it a familiar one today? If so, in what form is it familiar?
3) Do you agree with Olmstead's call for the "narrowest limits" possible on modification of the land? What are his reasons?
4) Olmsted advances a series of arguments for protection of scenic places that were well ahead of his time. We use this phrase "ahead of his time" because they were not readily embraced by others. Yet often "the time comes" for such powerful ideas. Discuss what factors must change for ideas like those of Olmsted to "have their time."
2) Reiger feels that historians have missed part of the story of the orgins of conservation. What we have in our reader are only excerpts from the early part of a book in which Reiger argues, some feel convincingly, that sportsmen played a major part in the orgin of conservation. How do you react to Reiger's view?
2) The selection from Carl Schurz is interesting because it is a statement in 1877 of remarkable insight into what needs to be done to control "wasteful destruction" of forests in the U. S. and why action needs to be taken. You can see the influence of Marsh on his thinking. Olmsted, then Schurz and Powell argue for government involvement in protection of resources. They think that individual conscience will not be enough to accomplish the goal. Thinking of the situation to which they were reacting, when do you think it is appropriate for government to step in and act on behalf of the public? Government "interference" with individual freedom was controversial then as now. What factors seem necessary for such government "interference" on behalf of the environment? What insights into this question can you derive from the history we are studying?
2) What dangers did Powell seem to perceive as threats to the Southwest? What does he seem to believe about development (human settlement) in this area. Do you think it's important to consider his audience in making such interpretations?
2) Pinchot and W. J. McGee put a name to the movement for management of natural resources. Why did Pinchot think it significant that they gave it a name? Why do you think it significant (or not) that the movement had a name? What's in a name, anyway?
2) Conservation, says McGee, involves rights. Whose rights? What are the rights?
2) The writings of Pinchot, Roosevelt and McGee which we have read have a strong moral overtone. What do they say ought to be done, and why ought it?
2) Underwood reflects a widely held belief that people don't value things of beauty highly until their basic needs are met. Do you think this is really the case? Why or why not?
2) Discuss the relative merits of the two approaches to conservation embodied in Pinchot and Muir, with reference to the passages we have read.
3) Analyze Muir's moral voice and allusions. Compare them with McGee's, Roosevelt's, or Pinchot's.
4) Consider the rhetoric of Pinchot and Muir. How does their rhetoric differ? In a recent paper Carl Herndl and Stewart Brown compare what they call an "ethnocentric" rhetoric for environmental discourse (Nature as resource: regulatory discource), with "anthropocentric" rhetoric (Nature as object: scientific discourse) and "ecocentric" rhetoric (Nature as spirit: poetic discourse). In these terms, Pinchot, McGee and Roosevelt were "anthropo-" and "ethno-" centric, while Muir was ecocentric. We're talking here about the language used to talk about nature. Compare and contrast how they says what they have to say about nature.
2) Lilienthal writes
There are those who believe that material progress does not and cannot produce good, and may instead stand as a barrier to it. To those... mechanical progress, technology, the machine, far from improving the lot of men are actually seen as a source of debasement and condemned as 'materialism.' The whole theme and thesis of this book challenges these ideas and the philosophy upon which it rests.Some of you have expressed thoughts like those Lilienthal seeks to refute. What do you think of his argument for the "progress" of development like that at TVA?
2) What themes of a Malthusian sort do you detect in Vogt's piece? Why do you think we have not encountered them earlier?
2) Is Marshall's cost-benefit analysis adequate to his task? Why or why not?
3) Marshall says that "esthetic enjoyment" "requires that beauty be observed as a unity and that for the brief duration of any pure esthetic experience the cognition of the observed object must completely fill the spectator's cosmos." Assess this description of esthetic experience. How adequate do you think it is for the aesthetic experience of wilderness? In other words, does wilderness fit well with this conception of aesthetics?
2) Stegner provides a defense of wilderness that is based on values other than the usual "use" values. Explore - and explain the relationship between the value of the "idea of wilderness" and intrinsic values of wilderness.
3) Compare the language Marshall, Muir, and Stegner use to describe wilderness values.
2) What moral, ethical or policy claims does Carson state? What impact do you think they might have had on the readership of the journal this was published in?
2) What fences does Brower appear to be mending in the second passage? Why do you think he tried? Was he successful? What rides on the issues he poses to the environmental community?
2) Another quality of the post-war world was that it was "teeming with people of different classes, genders, and races freed from historic limits by war" and thus the values of the traditional conservation movement ("separation of a pristine natural world from a somehow fouled and human-created world") were "increasingly irrelevant" (Rothman, 19). How did the conservation movement overcome this situation and become more relevant?
3) Rothman argues that one of the priniciple developments in conservation in the 1950's, symbolized by the defeat of the Echo Park Dam, was a change in the nature and role of government agencies, especially at the federal level. How did these institutions change, and why have those changes been important to the course of conservation / environmentalism?
2) Are Hardin's ideas "liberal" (as Rothman says), or "conservative" (as he says others feltthey were)? What is the role of traditional political liberalism and the social contract in environmental issues?
3) Was Carson going outside of her scientific expertise to write Silent Spring? What should be the role of the scientist in public policy? Does the situation make a difference - and if so, how is her case instructive?
2) In hindsight, were there any unintended consequences of the legislation passed in the 1970's? Do you think they could have been anticipated?
3) Does Watt's success indicate a blind spot on the part of environmentalists, or just party politics? Why?
4) Do you think the conservative revolution that began with Reagan represents a necessary correction in environmental policy, or a reactionary backslide? Support your position.
5) What is you position on the value of extremism in environmental politics? Use evidence of Earth First!'s results to support your view. Does it agree with your feelings about extremism in other social issues? If not, how do you square this inconsistency?
6) A clear value of the study of history may be reflected in Rothman's note that "Few remembered the reasons for environmental regulation." What are the dangers here? Does environmental progress necessarily rely on alarmism?
7) What is your response to Rothman's concluding statement on our progress in environmental attitudes and actions?