This week for discussion, please post any questions and comments regarding the week's readings (free for all!)
Additionally, when you get a chance, take a look at "The Tree of Life" trailer--is the director a Transcendentalist or am I completely off? You decide. (click on the image for the link)
Out of the different readings this week, I found Baldwin’s essay on air to be the most interesting. I think the 1800’s showed a huge jump in the way people live and Baldwin’s essay on air is a good example. The change in the way people lived based on Baldwin’s essay I think stemmed from scientific advancement, and the need for clean air.
ReplyDeleteBaldwin’s shows the scientific advancement through the change in the view of what causes malaria. Baldwin mentions that “People in the nineteenth century thought of mosquitoes not as sources of disease but as nuisances” (8). However he also mentions that during the 1890’s scientist were finally able to realize that mosquitoes were directly linked to malaria as well as yellow fever.
Baldwin also goes into detail about how people in the 19th century particularly those who advocated for better ventilation, thought that night air from outside could be better than air from inside. The author mentions that Harriet Beecher Stowe and Catherine Beecher wrote: "There is a prevailing prejudice against night air as unhealthful to be admitted into sleeping-rooms, which is owing wholly to sheer ignorance. In the night every body necessarily breathes night air and no other... Thus the question is, Shall we shut up a chamber and breathe night air vitiated with carbonic acid, or night air that is pure?"(5). I thought this quote was powerful because it pointed out that no matter what one was going to have to breath air, and it came down to lesser of what some back then would have considered two evils. Was one going to risk breathing carbon dioxide infected air or would one risk breathing the ‘pure’ night air.
One question I had going over Baldwin’s essay is at what point did humans realize that carbon dioxide was harmful?
Thoughts on the trailer: I think it does come off as transcendentalist, in particular because it seems like the main character is trying to find his place in the universe, which is a key part to understanding what the movement was all about.
Baldwin:
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning Baldwin expresses Adam’s fear of the night air- People were afraid of fresh air! This is because of the common belief that windows should be closed every night- however years later, science showed that keeping windows shut at night was actually unhealthy. This practice reflects not only the fear of the unknown and the wilderness most settlers felt in the new world but also, the conflict of superstition versus science. I think the superstitious beliefs brought over from the old world influenced a lot of the fear of the wilderness that new settlers experienced. It is interesting to see how changing technology and scientific developments influenced change in the old world mentality. Technological improvements for heating homes were especially monumental in the change of ideas as well as the comfort of settlers in their new environment. However, overcoming winter in their unpredictable new environment was viewed as a victory. Baldwin says, “These practices persisted because many Americans relished their victory over winter.” – Alluding that winter was some kind of enemy-people versus nature.
However, with the influence of romantics, a lot of these old world ways diminished. While night was described in Western writing as the antithesis of civilized life, and feared, romantics reevaluated the benefits of civilized life and embraced/celebrated nature. They also emphasized how interaction with nature could create an ideal balance in life. It seems too that as science progressed, people because more aware of the cause behind the rapid spread of disease- being cooped up in close quarter- and fresh air was something to be appreciated and even healthy for the individual. This balance with nature was exhibited through innovations- for instance window screens were a way to take in fresh air but avoid insects- especially mosquitoes and malaria. ---Overall I thought this change in how night air was perceived over time was soooo incredibly interesting! A great read!
Some thoughts on one of Emerson’s poems…
Emerson was described in lecture last class as promoting a harmony between nature and people and further incorporating the economic gains of being harmonious. In his poem Over-Soul you see a lot of this idea in his metaphors and word choice- man is a spring- directly connecting man to the environment. And words like “calculator” and “calculable” made me think about money and business.
How did this writing influence the ideas that common people (non romantics)- were people fond of this writing/these ideas of living harmoniously with nature?
How did putting nature in this spiritual context challenge the strict religious beliefs of settlers?
Both Emerson and Thoreau preach a back-to-the-land mentality. I thought Emerson’s point about how we “see the world piece by piece,” and how we live out lives in different parts. He then goes on to write about how the soul is a complete whole, as he puts it, “the eternal One.” Just as there must be a balance between these “particles” and the whole, he also mentions how each person must have a balance between consuming and producing. Both he and Thoreau put a lot of emphasis on how they focus on production in order to consume. Thoreau removes himself to Walden, separating himself from society as best he can. He notes how the townspeople question his way of life. Both writers illustrate the benefits of living so close to nature, observing the world, and, as Emerson put it, coming closer to the “wise silence within” that each of us has.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast to their outlooks on life and nature, Baldwin’s and Brady’s articles expose the conceptions that others had regarding nature. For example, the very term “malaria” literally meant “bad air.” The debate between John Adams and Benjamin Franklin regarding the night air is both amusing and eye-opening. The concept of nature was, more often than not, a scary one. During the Civil War, fears of nature reemerged to some extent. The landscape was also sculpted for the purpose of battle. Brady writes about how what was once considered a wilderness was full of the scars of war. The concept of scarring the land lead to conservation efforts and changed the ways that land would be used in the future. Some people, like Thoreau, attempted to go back to nature, away from society, as best they could, but Thoreau realized that it was impossible to completely avoid the ways of civilization. Transcendentalist thought about unity and nature did, however, begin to change the way that many people viewed the world and themselves.
About the movie trailer, I definitely see Transcendentalist thought in there. The whole nature, unity thing seems central to the movie, with a bit of a modern influence. Finding yourself was a very important concept to both Emerson and Thoreau.
I enjoyed reading both Baldwin's and Brady's articles rather than Emerson and Thoreau's. The only important part that I got out of the Emerson and Thoreau readings was that the only way to be prosperous in society during that era was to consume and bring products. What did people think about his readings during that time? Did people listen to both of their works? The other two readings showed the importance of the environment during the 18th and 19th centuries. What I found interesting was that during the 1830's-1860's, malaria was defines as "bad air." It's ironic that people during that time were more concerned about opening their windows during the night, while most American civilians sleep with their windows open during the summer. Now I can sense how important the environment was during the 18th and 19th centuries. I think people today should pay close attention to Emerson's and Thoreau's works because I got a sense that they were predicting that the environment will suffer drastically when the years go by.
ReplyDeleteI thought that these were very interesting readings from individuals capable of incredible analytical thought as well as a good delivery and presentation of their perspectives. I found Emerson's comments on individuals needing a balance between consuming and producing thought provoking. He says, "He fails to make his place good in the world unless he not only pays his debt but also adds something to the
ReplyDeletecommon wealth." This reveals insight on his ideologies concerning human existence and the purpose of life.
In Thoreau's piece, Nature vs Civilization, he starts with a more than evident infatuation with nature. As he describes his home and the natural life around it, his attention to detail stands out as a clear sign that he is very found of the natural world and has a high opinion of it. The two pieces of literature really indicate the different type of mind state and outlook people had during the previous centuries. In addition, I thought the movie trailer was different. It has a few high caliber actors which plays in its favor, but I'll be interested to see how Sean Penn and Brad Pitt pull off their respective roles in the transcendentalist inspired film.
I really liked Emerson's writing on "Nature and Wealth."I found my self rereading every sentence because I felt like there was so much thought put into it and even though it was written over 150 years ago it still seems true today. Emerson explains that all individuals are inherently consumers and expensive so in turn we need to producers. The article "How Night Air became Good Air" was quite interesting. I thought the notions of the middle class as having their homes be their sanctuary from the world as well as the fear that their neighbors might be polluting the air with their uncleanliness was really interesting to think about. The article "Wilderness on War" brought up a lot of issues that are still prominent today. Sheridian's idea that he can dominate nature to win a war is seen over and over again in history. This tactic was not only successful for depleting the Confederates supplies but also by deteriorating their morale and terrorizing their landscape.
ReplyDeleteLooking at Emerson's On Wealth and Nature, it is interesting to place his comments on the over-soul into the context of how humans treat the environment. Considering this concept that we are all overtaken by the same spirit, we are all part of the environment. We can choose to work with it, and gain our wealth from living to our potential. Emerson also makes a comment that "[Man] is by constitution expensive, and needs to be rich". This, along with his mention of debt, is an interesting ecological way to view man's impact on the earth. While living is expensive monetarily, it also requires a wealth of resources from the land. Emerson's view that we must give those resources back in the ways we are capable of displays a more harmonious relationship with the natural world.
ReplyDeleteI personally have an interesting view of Thoreau's Nature Versus Civilization. Growing up an hour south of Walden Pond in Concord, I have experienced much of the landscape which he describes. I find it interesting that he saw Walden as being on the border of wilderness and civilization (as indicated by the trains). Now, most likely due to its reputation and fame, it is much more wooded, and more 'wild' than in Thoreau's day. In fact, there have been several attempts to build up the area around Walden, which were met with a multitude of complaints, eventually resulting in a court decision that the land could not be further developed. Thoreau's view of the importance of having that balance may be exactly what has saved Walden.
My post for this week is a bit different. As I read the articles that were posted for this week, I was intrigued by some of the passages that were stated so I wrote down a few that I thought were strong points of views of time. I actually enjoyed reading the writings by Emerson, Thoreau, and Baldwin.
ReplyDeleteEmerson wrote, “We live in succession, in division, in parts, in particles. Meantime within man is the soul of the whole; the wise silence, the universal beauty, to which every part and particle is equally related; the eternal ONE. (179)”
Emerson also wrote, “Once can see the soul […] The Soul gives itself, alone, original and pure, to the Lonely, Original and Pure, who on that condition, gladly inhabits, leads and speaks through it. (179)”
Emerson: “The craft of a merchant is this bringing a thing from where it abounds to where it is costly. The world is his tool-chest, and he is successful, or his education is carried on just so far, as is the marriage of his faculties, with nature, or the degree in which he takes up things into herself. (180)”
Thoreau: “The pines still stand here older than I; or, if some have fallen, I have cooked my supper with their stumps, and a new growth is rising all around, preparing another aspect for new infant eyes. (183)”
Baldwin: “’ The earth, “ he adds elsewhere, “especially if fresh, has a certain magnetism in it, by which it attracts the salt, power, or virtue (call it either) which gives it life, and is the logic of all the labor and stir we keep about it, to sustain us; all dungings and other sordid tempering being but the vicars succedaneums to this improvement.”
I personally enjoyed the Baldwin article best out of these few readings. It was interesting to see how the fear of the unknown paired with the changing times to create various ideas of nature and the air around them. As technology evolved and a greater understanding of their environment was formed, settlers gradually grew to accept the air as a good thing. Seeing the application of ideas such that seem simple and common place in today's world, such as the screen, causing a shift from the evil to good nature of the outdoors is something that I never really thought about before.
ReplyDeleteA particular point I thought was kind of funny was the matter of the "exhalations of our bodies." Recognizing that humans can spread disease through their own form of air was an important realization. When reading the portion regarding the placement of homes, I couldn't help but almost laugh. "The filth also was said to breed drunkenness, immorality, crime, and rioting— further threats to affluent homes"--one of my favorite quotes. While correctly identifying that sanitation is crucial to good health and that crowded areas are less sanitary, the piece demonstrates the incorrect notions of the time as far as social stereotypes and prejudices are concerned.
Upon reading Emerson I couldn't help but notice how similar Romantic concepts of human existence are to those of the Taoist, Buddhist, Hindu, Celtic, Amerindian, etc. etc. What I mean by this is that they all view human existence as equal to the environment around them, not separate and above. It becomes evident that when humans interpret their place in the world independently from that of some centralized authoritarian figure/order, they more or less come to the same conclusions. Granted various practices on how to further explore this role will differ greatly amongst regions, the main concept of man and his unity with the environment remain the same.
ReplyDeleteOn another note I'd like to focus on the aspect of people like Thoreau who, quite articulately, bring up a strong case for western civilization to, in lesser words, revert back to the primitive. Yet, as strong as some of his criticisms are, after a year or two he inevitably returns to the comforts of society. This is interesting because we see the same thing happen with the counter-culture of the 1960's. Again we have a movement to shed what we consider the burdens of civilization, yet after a while most of the hippies cut their hair and joined that for which they claimed to reject. Is this due to defeatism, or is man's quest to be as comfortable as possible the most overriding aspect of human nature? Or is there something else?
Of the readings for this week, I enjoyed Thoreau's article the most. What is most interesting to me about this article is how much his style of writing differs from all the other articles, mainly because of the vocabulary and the attitude that Thoreau puts across. His article is much more personal and poetic than the others, his words flow easier and reads like a diary more than a historical article. He thinks of himself as being one with the land and treasures the simplest forms of nature, asking once "what shall I learn of the beans or beans from me?". Thoreau puts in "Herculean labor" and expects to learn something from nature in the process. This article reads like a memory, much different than other articles that tell fact after fact.
ReplyDeleteA recurring theme I found throughout these excerpts is that of the romanticism movement, especially Thoreau's writing on his beanfield - redefining how an American can use nature and what nature has to offer Americans. Although romanticism changed ideas about nature into a spiritual and moral tool, it still functioned as a consumption of nature. The Beanfield piece is a great example of Thoreau consuming the "natural" world around him (I use quotations around natural because as Thoreau points out, the soil has already been disturbed and changed by previous agricultural ventures on the land. It no longer has the nutrients to support a large bean harvest). He ignores local knowledge, and plants when, what, and how he wants because its an individual experience and produces personal growth. He consumes nature out of self-interest. I think this idea of nature as an individual tool, providing and producing different personal uses, is an important idea that has influenced how environmental debates are structured and discussed throughout American history, even today. Since nature's function is individualized, environmental ethics are always debatable. Shifting back to the 19th century, I am wondering how the romanticism movement affected the American public. Did the perception and idea of the natural world change in the cities/civilization? What affects did these ideas and beliefs have on American lives, communities, and society as a whole?
ReplyDeleteThe Brady article is the one that i liked the most. I knew that the environment and nature played an important role in warfare, as usually the side with the advantage of terrain was the victor, but i never really thought about the devastation that war itself causes to the environment. Entire forests cut down by bullets and cannon fire, or cut down just to build the forts used by armies or to warm themselves during the winter must have drastically changed the landscape. Virginia must have definitely been a different place after the war than it was during the beginning. Something however i think Brady overlooks is that not everyone was scared of the notion of the "wilderness", especially those that lived upon the frontier. They had more of a respect for it than a fear, as it was a major part of their everyday lives. These frontier people made up parts of the Confederate and Union forces, so saying that the Union army used the fear of the wilderness to ravage Confederate troops i think would be incorrect, especially since most of the Confederate troops where farmers and such and knew the land better than the more urban Union forces
ReplyDeleteI thought the Baldwin piece was very interesting because it shows how the people’s unfounded fear of the wilderness made them try to shut it out, which ended up being much more detrimental to their health than the night air itself. It seems almost ironic (and very circuitous) that the elimination of night air from people’s lives ultimately led to the discovery that it was beneficial and the indoor air was most harmful. I also think it’s interesting to see how many false notions about the outdoors were created just simply because there was not sufficient knowledge and understanding of the natural world. As science and medicine advanced, people could better understand the natural world and the “threats” that it posed to society.
ReplyDelete“Middle class Americans in the mid-nineteenth century sought to protect themselves from moral and physical contamination by the poor.” Did this prejudice against the poor always exist in these earlier centuries?
The Tree of Life does seem like a movie with transcendental ideas, especially when it said “Someday we’ll fall down and weep. Then we’ll understand it all. All things.” This seems particularly similar to Emerson’s ideas about the Unity, the Over-Soul.
I liked reading the Wilderness of War piece because it showed how much each army exploited nature and the idea of wilderness to their advantage. I did find one thing somewhat confusing though. At the end Lisa Brady says “Thus, the lasting changes wrought by the war were not the physical transformations of the natural environment, but rather the ways in which Americans thought about war and interacted with their landscapes.” It seemed to me that there were a fair amount of physical changes going on in nature as a result of the war, like burning the land, digging trenches, ruining forests, etc. Is she saying that there weren’t physical changes going on in nature, or just that these physical changes weren’t the most important aspect?
Baldwin's "How Night Became Good Air" was extremely interesting. I think it is fascinating to look at what he is saying and apply it to the present day. It is now often seen as fun to go sleep outside under the stars with friends, a thought people of the 18th century would not even venture. I think the biggest reason for this change is the decreased fear of the "wilderness." I have spent time in Honduras, a country that is known to have malaria spreading mosquitoes, and have stayed in homes exactly like those described by Baldwin: one bed to be shared by two in a cramped room. Except there was no option to close the window, there was simply just a piece of clothe over it. This country contains the same problems that people of the 18th and 19th centuries had with night air, yet they are willing to leave windows open because they are not afraid of what is outside. On another note, I liked the opening scene with Adams and Franklin.
ReplyDeleteBrady made some points I had never thought about. In particular, her comment that a catalyst to the Civil War was the belief that humans controlled nature and each side was using this assumption to benefit them. Also, the idea that ravaging the land was so successful because it returned the land to wilderness, and this was frightened the people. Lastly, I think this article really shows how dependent humans are on nature, despite their fears of it.
Thoreau's piece was by far my favorite, although I suppose I am biased. I live one on the border of Concord MA, five minutes away from Walden Pond and Thoreau's cottage. I will actually be working there this summer as well. I think what struck me most was when he described how Concord used to be an "out of the way place," but that had changed with development and increased population. Just in the time that I have lived there, development has sky rocketed. In Acton we used to have about five farms, and now we have one. The proximity to Boston and the school systems draw in a large population, and the towns do not turn away this opportunity for business and money. However, due to Thoreau's work, Walden has been conserved and maintained. I have met a few people who have felt the same way as Thoreau and specifically bought parcels of land for the sole purpose of leaving them "wild" and undeveloped. In other areas of New England, such as Maine and New Hampshire, they are increasing conservation standards in order to maintain the feel of nature and beauty, and stop development.
As far as the trailer, I definitely think the director is a Transcendentalist.
After reading Emerson and Thoreau, it seems that there is a shift back to nature. The middle landscape as they put it, is a new progressive idea. Meshing this with the Baldwin reading, people are over coming their fears of nature and are now wanting it in their every day life. I have studied Emerson and Thoreau before briefly, and I do truly believe with their concept of the soul of nature running through us and everything. I guess the question I have regarding these two readings, is why was there a fear of wilderness in the first place. If there was this flowing soul through everything, would generations before us not feel it also, or is it some non sense these two just made up?
ReplyDeleteOn the Brady reading, I found it very interesting. I have never stopped to think about the enviromental aspects of war before, and after reading this, blowing my mind thinking about every battle in history. i understand the strategy of the three Union generals. But this devistation of land seemed more or less bad for the North's economy also. With the burning of fields and farm equipment, would the North's industrial regions not suffer also? Even after the war, taking many years to yeild new crops in the South, leaving the factories of the North empty, why would they completely destroy the land. It seems very odd that they would do this. I understand raiding farms for food and aid, but complete devistation would win you the war. But your new found nation would suffer in the upcoming years because of it.
In the "Wilderness of War", Brady does a great job explaining the strategies the Union army took to disrupt the South’s agricultural production and the Confederates access to commodities. Brady referred to the North as being “focused not on overcoming nature as object, but on destroying the enemy’s primary relationship with the natural world.” Brady references various sources to make his points that war can be viewed through the lens of “nature as a material object” (423).
ReplyDeleteBrady goes on by referencing Mark Feige, who wrote "Gettysburg and the Organic Nature of the American Civil War", and stating “Feige’s emphasis on the material realities of waging war exposed the power—military and social—that the physical control of nature offered. War is not fought only on the ground, however; it also is fought in the hearts and minds of those involved. It is here, in the realm of ideas, where environmental history can contribute most to our understanding of the Civil War and to military history more generally. Nature is not just a material reality; it also has intellectual and psychological importance to human societies. When Grant, Sheridan, and Sherman planned their campaigns against the southern landscape, they did not simply set out to gain physical control over the rebellious territories, they developed a specific strategy that exploited one of the oldest relationships Americans had with the natural world: a fear of wilderness” (425).
Brady continues explaining the Unions operations as they sought to take over the Confederate stronghold in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley. The North knew the importance of the railroad and as a secure transportation route, but after an unsuccessful attempt. According to Wesley Merritt, who wrote "Sheridan in the Shenandoah Valley", Grant instead chose to destroy the valley’s resources, which made the area worthless for both sides (432-33). This proved to be successful and the Union army defeated the Confederate army.
I found several things in Emerson’s “On Wealth and Nature” to be interesting. First, he acknowledges that “every man is a consumer,” but adds the caveat that a decent person should also produce something that amounts to more than he consumes. This extra production means that theoretically, the economy expands with each new person. I was also intrigued by Emerson’s notion that “getting rich consists not in industry,” but, instead, can be found in a multitude of approaches. These approaches are different ways of being productive based on personal preference and skill such as “mak[ing] a clearing to the river.” In addition, Emerson hits on a theme that most of us can appreciate; the idea that a capitalist devotes his entire existence to making more money. Work and money eventually become the main concern in a capitalist’s life.
ReplyDeleteIn Thoreau’s “Nature versus Civilization,” I could not help but to think it was a little ridiculous that he planted seven miles of beans simply as a side project. Thoreau must have been a hardworking man.
I felt that the Emerson and Thoreau were the most interesting in my opinion. The main reason is because with all of these different advances in technology and transportation going on around them both of these men were still in touch with the land. In the Emerson text he talks about how people use the land to get wealthy off of, but once they acquire that wealth it doesn't really seem like they put back into the land. Rather they go and buy more material things to make their lives better, and the things they buy just consume more materials which in turn just keeps taking more and more from nature. Instead he talks about people need to do things to help nature out, and not let their entire existence become monetary while there is so much nature around them to take advantage of.In the Thoreau text he is basically just talking about his life, and I think it was interesting that he in a way pushed away technology and society from his life so that he could just live. It talks about how he would hear other farmers in the area around him planting too many crops, not hoeing them at the right time, or just planting the wrong crops in general, but he doesn't seem to care about that. I thought it was cool that he was just living off the land without any slave assistance or any real technological assistance while still being able to survive even though all of these amazing advances were going on around him.
ReplyDeleteI am including the link to the series of paintings that I referenced in class tonight. It turns out that they were indeed painted by Cole.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nga.gov/cgi-bin/pinfo?Object=52168+0+none