At last! Something I really understand – trees! Thank you, Cronon! I love trees too! And to
dove-tail off of Lee Ann’s post title, even though no-one may be in the forest
to hear if the falling tree makes a noise, to Cronon it is still a historical
event! I love that and it really encapsulates
Cronon’s whole point that nonhuman agents can cause historical change. I really enjoyed Cronon’s constant
interweaving and layering of human (both Native and European colonist) and
environmental agency in changes in the landscape as well unintentional changes
which resulted from those actions and events.
In particular, I found his discussion on “Bounding the Land” to be most
interesting. I have done a few
paper/projects involving maps, maps as expressions of community identity, and
storied maps and Cronon’s insights have given me a whole new layer of
complexity to consider.
Regarding other historians we have read for class, such as
Prescott and Bloch, I think they view the environment as somewhat important,
but only insofar as how individuals or societies respond to certain situations
or circumstances. In other words,
Prescott and Bloch see the landscape as background scenery and not a main
character; Cronon on the other hand, is arguing that the landscape should be
viewed as one of the main characters in historical narratives. Cronon does not go so far as to suggest that
the landscape should be the only main
character, but he argues that the landscape should at least be considered and
included in the narrative.
I also see Cronon as emerging out of the Annales tradition
because of his interdisciplinary approach which included a wide variety of
sources – including information about and quotes from minority groups such as
women and the Native Indians. I found
his struggle with the Marxist perspective to be interesting and I found it refreshing
that he freely admits that the issue is problematic. As Cronon explains, emerging capitalist
desires and economic factors certainly have a voice in the precolonial
narrative, but those capitalist voices should not be overemphasized nor should
they exclude the many other voices which were present and equally important to
the holistic scope of the narrative.
I’m not completely sure that I have an accurate understanding
of the Linguistic Turn concept/theory yet, but I think there may have been
elements of this as well in Cronon’s work.
For example, Cronon describes several instances where misunderstanding
and conflict arose when crucial meaning was lost in translation – and not just
a literal translation of words from one language to another, but he describes
how different cultures can have a completely different ideology towards certain
concepts. For example, Cronon spends
much time explaining the different cultural ideas of the Native Indians and Colonists
regarding owning and using land. Cronon
makes it very clear that you can’t always simply transfer a word from one
language to another and have equivalent meaning, the process involves layers of
ideology, spiritual belief, social/political structures, etc. and if the two
parties aren’t aware of the other’s ideologies, or understand them, there is a
great opportunity for misunderstanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment