Scan barcode
fractaltexan's review
4.0
Ted Steinberg’s monograph Down to Earth: Nature’s Role in American History, discusses the ways in which the dominant reasons behind nature and environmental change were the result of the commodification of nature, such as land, trees, water, and minerals. In doing so, he shows how history is affected by nature, but how our history has largely affected nature.
Steinberg’s historic intervention is that it places the environment at the center of American history by showcasing the numerous ways in which nature directly affected the course of development. To do this, he introduces us to three books of environmental history: Donald Worster’s The Wealth of Nature: Environmental History and the Ecological Imagination, Alfred Crosby’s Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900, and Tim Flannery’s The Eternal Frontier: An Ecological History of North America and its Peoples. These three books, mentioned in the preface and prologue, offer us a foundation from which Steinberg creates and expands upon his thesis.
He does this by dividing his book into three distinct parts. The first: Alienation of the land, introduces us not only to the agricultural systems of Native Americans but also to the ideas of personal property that Europeans brought over as they began to settle within the new world. These ideas began the process of looking at Nature as a commodity to be controlled. Part Two: Rationalization and Its Discontents, begins to take us into the ways in which the course of American History was changed, such as the ways in which food was a driving force in the defeat of the Confederacy, a stark contrast to the previous chapter in which climate was the driving force in the rise of a powerhouse southern economy. Part Three: Consuming Nature, revolves around the ways in which consumerism was also changed by nature. The rise of a movement to save nature, while also discussing modern problems such as recycling.
While this book shows the minute ways in which Nature has had an effect on nature, Steinberg also uses nature as a lens through which to survey the wide range of American History, from pre-contact to a modern era.
Steinberg’s historic intervention is that it places the environment at the center of American history by showcasing the numerous ways in which nature directly affected the course of development. To do this, he introduces us to three books of environmental history: Donald Worster’s The Wealth of Nature: Environmental History and the Ecological Imagination, Alfred Crosby’s Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900, and Tim Flannery’s The Eternal Frontier: An Ecological History of North America and its Peoples. These three books, mentioned in the preface and prologue, offer us a foundation from which Steinberg creates and expands upon his thesis.
He does this by dividing his book into three distinct parts. The first: Alienation of the land, introduces us not only to the agricultural systems of Native Americans but also to the ideas of personal property that Europeans brought over as they began to settle within the new world. These ideas began the process of looking at Nature as a commodity to be controlled. Part Two: Rationalization and Its Discontents, begins to take us into the ways in which the course of American History was changed, such as the ways in which food was a driving force in the defeat of the Confederacy, a stark contrast to the previous chapter in which climate was the driving force in the rise of a powerhouse southern economy. Part Three: Consuming Nature, revolves around the ways in which consumerism was also changed by nature. The rise of a movement to save nature, while also discussing modern problems such as recycling.
While this book shows the minute ways in which Nature has had an effect on nature, Steinberg also uses nature as a lens through which to survey the wide range of American History, from pre-contact to a modern era.
misterfix's review against another edition
4.0
I'm guessing this is often used as a textbook for environmental studies courses though it would be more effective if it was part of that curriculum for business or economics 101. Wonderful, will balanced and engaging synthesis of history and science as it relates to the development of the United States.
mojojomo's review against another edition
5.0
Steinberg's work is sweeping in its scope, from pre-Columbian North America to the early 21st century, ever focused on the history of man's interaction with nature in the geographic area that makes up the United States. This unusual, but extremely relevant approach is generally used to add to the traditional view of anthropocentric history, rather than focusing purely on nature, or even nature as the central factor in human history in the United States. That is a strength for traditional historians, but a weakness in recognizing the full importance of the planet's biosphere in supporting human societies and non-human life as well.
Ideally, a non-anthropocentric history would stake out the natural world as the basis for North American history. This would include all living and non-living things as central to the story, and thus de-emphasize humanity as "the point." While it's certainly true that humankind has had the greatest influence on nature, particularly since industrialization, Steinberg's overemphasis on human society downplays the importance of the biosphere's sustainability — its essential ability to nurture all life forms indefinitely.
But I'm quibbling. Despite this shortcoming, Steinberg's work is clearly groundbreaking. The incorporation of his framework into general U.S. history — including K-12 and undergraduate survey texts — is the next necessary step in the development of a more comprehensive, a more useful, and a more important history of North America.
Some other Goodreads reviewers have suggested that Steinberg has a "liberal bias," apparently due to his discussion of the negative effects of industrialization, such as destruction of wilderness and the biosphere itself through, for example, toxic pollution and climate change, and his favorable discussion of U.S. environmentalism. I would suggest that Steinberg's discussion is not only relevant, but vital to environmental history. One could argue that this is precisely the point of this historical account.
Without a sustainable biosphere, human society is not possible. If Steinberg's focus or analysis are due to an underlying "value" such as the essential human requirement of a sustainable biosphere, so be it! In such a history, the destruction of carbon sequestering rain forests may rightly be seen as "negative" — because they are bad for human beings (if not other living things). Ignoring or de-emphasizing that obvious problem would only yield an account of the past that identifies no particular trend or events of concern. What's the use of such a history?
Ignoring or burying what is most significant to the development and maintenance of a good society is to pretend to uphold an "objective neutrality" and a "scientific" approach to history. But so-called objective history is most often supportive of the status quo, thus carrying its own bias. In these accounts, "things happened" only as a result of what preceded, in a seemingly unbreakable chain of cause and effect. In fact, what happened is indicative of the values held by those calling the shots. In other words, studying history while ignoring the values of the historical actors, and/or striving to support no particular values of one's own, carries its own bias.
Steinberg's Down to Earth is on the right path by emphasizing the central importance of the planet's ecology. As we hurtle forward into increasingly unstable and less hospitable planetary biosphere, this approach should —and likely will — become the norm, rather than the exception.
Ideally, a non-anthropocentric history would stake out the natural world as the basis for North American history. This would include all living and non-living things as central to the story, and thus de-emphasize humanity as "the point." While it's certainly true that humankind has had the greatest influence on nature, particularly since industrialization, Steinberg's overemphasis on human society downplays the importance of the biosphere's sustainability — its essential ability to nurture all life forms indefinitely.
But I'm quibbling. Despite this shortcoming, Steinberg's work is clearly groundbreaking. The incorporation of his framework into general U.S. history — including K-12 and undergraduate survey texts — is the next necessary step in the development of a more comprehensive, a more useful, and a more important history of North America.
Some other Goodreads reviewers have suggested that Steinberg has a "liberal bias," apparently due to his discussion of the negative effects of industrialization, such as destruction of wilderness and the biosphere itself through, for example, toxic pollution and climate change, and his favorable discussion of U.S. environmentalism. I would suggest that Steinberg's discussion is not only relevant, but vital to environmental history. One could argue that this is precisely the point of this historical account.
Without a sustainable biosphere, human society is not possible. If Steinberg's focus or analysis are due to an underlying "value" such as the essential human requirement of a sustainable biosphere, so be it! In such a history, the destruction of carbon sequestering rain forests may rightly be seen as "negative" — because they are bad for human beings (if not other living things). Ignoring or de-emphasizing that obvious problem would only yield an account of the past that identifies no particular trend or events of concern. What's the use of such a history?
Ignoring or burying what is most significant to the development and maintenance of a good society is to pretend to uphold an "objective neutrality" and a "scientific" approach to history. But so-called objective history is most often supportive of the status quo, thus carrying its own bias. In these accounts, "things happened" only as a result of what preceded, in a seemingly unbreakable chain of cause and effect. In fact, what happened is indicative of the values held by those calling the shots. In other words, studying history while ignoring the values of the historical actors, and/or striving to support no particular values of one's own, carries its own bias.
Steinberg's Down to Earth is on the right path by emphasizing the central importance of the planet's ecology. As we hurtle forward into increasingly unstable and less hospitable planetary biosphere, this approach should —and likely will — become the norm, rather than the exception.
avolyn's review against another edition
5.0
This book has changed the way that I see the environment for the rest of my life. I realize such a claim is bold and dramatic but it is entirely true. I read this book for a college course that I took this semester and I did not expect to enjoy it since it was required reading. I am a Finance and Marketing major, I don't come from a history, science, or environment background. Nevertheless I enjoyed this book from its very beginning to its end. Even the parts of history that I thought I understood were told in new light with relevant information that had never come up in any of my prior classes on American history.
I was also sad to discover that this book was removed from regular print and circulation. I feel that everyone needs to read this book and that it should be released in a new print for the country to read and understand. I would consider it important enough to be on the list of required reading by anyone who considers themselves a reader. If not, this is the perfect book to get started!
I was also sad to discover that this book was removed from regular print and circulation. I feel that everyone needs to read this book and that it should be released in a new print for the country to read and understand. I would consider it important enough to be on the list of required reading by anyone who considers themselves a reader. If not, this is the perfect book to get started!
katenetz's review against another edition
3.0
Steinberg takes us on a whirlwind tour of American history, focusing on the environmental factors that affected and influenced the key transitions and developments of America. The drought and wet seasons that prompted the move West, the mud and failed crops that forced Lee's hand during the Civil War, the sanitation efforts of early 20th cities.
Overall, this was a very interesting reinterpretation of American history. The earlier sections were actually the most interesting, showing how much environmental factors affected the earliest communities. However, Steinberg definitely comes to the topic from a strong environmentalist bias and I think the later chapters suffer from a one-sided look at 20th century environment-related events and decisions. While I often agreed with his interpretation of the dangers and evils of unchecked economic growth and industry monopolies (especially globally), I think his analysis would be strengthened by a more objective look at the the 20th century. Although he offered some very clear and insightful analysis on the effects of radical environmental groups (like Earth First!).
For a textbook, this was a smooth read and offered many interesting examples coupled with solid analysis.
Overall, this was a very interesting reinterpretation of American history. The earlier sections were actually the most interesting, showing how much environmental factors affected the earliest communities. However, Steinberg definitely comes to the topic from a strong environmentalist bias and I think the later chapters suffer from a one-sided look at 20th century environment-related events and decisions. While I often agreed with his interpretation of the dangers and evils of unchecked economic growth and industry monopolies (especially globally), I think his analysis would be strengthened by a more objective look at the the 20th century. Although he offered some very clear and insightful analysis on the effects of radical environmental groups (like Earth First!).
For a textbook, this was a smooth read and offered many interesting examples coupled with solid analysis.
maplemariposa's review against another edition
4.0
[b:Down to Earth: Nature's Role in American History|270443|Down to Earth Nature's Role in American History|Ted Steinberg|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1389121628l/270443._SY75_.jpg|262175] is a brief and broad tour of American environmental history. Rather than focusing on the way humans interacted with one another (as many of our high school textbooks have), Steinberg shines a light on how Native Americans, colonists, and modern-day Americans interact with their North American landscape and how the land and its amenities and climates affected North American history.
Steinberg objectively details early American history, giving intriguing anecdotes and detailed analysis along the way. However, as the book moves from early American history more to present-day history, Steinberg's tone increasingly becomes bias and sometimes one-sided. But this tonal shift isn't necessarily a bad thing. It likely occurred because 1) the complexity and the massive scale of the issues that plague our modern-day society are far more difficult to delve into in a sufficient way in a small number of pages. However, Steinberg still manages to supply a good overview and short history of the issues being discussed. And 2) while people today have increased awareness and scientific knowledge of how they affect the land around them, they still commit many of the same sins (and some new and more severe ones) today as they did in the past. Steinberg gave early American settlers the benefit of the doubt and more forgiveness for their role in early widespread environmental destruction, but his voice clearly becomes less forgiving and more critical to the people and enterprises that take part in it now.
Steinberg objectively details early American history, giving intriguing anecdotes and detailed analysis along the way. However, as the book moves from early American history more to present-day history, Steinberg's tone increasingly becomes bias and sometimes one-sided. But this tonal shift isn't necessarily a bad thing. It likely occurred because 1) the complexity and the massive scale of the issues that plague our modern-day society are far more difficult to delve into in a sufficient way in a small number of pages. However, Steinberg still manages to supply a good overview and short history of the issues being discussed. And 2) while people today have increased awareness and scientific knowledge of how they affect the land around them, they still commit many of the same sins (and some new and more severe ones) today as they did in the past. Steinberg gave early American settlers the benefit of the doubt and more forgiveness for their role in early widespread environmental destruction, but his voice clearly becomes less forgiving and more critical to the people and enterprises that take part in it now.
marie_evanston's review against another edition
5.0
This book describes how a certain way of relating to the land and the natural world developed through American history. American culture views nature as first and foremost a commodity: something which has the potential to be traded for profit (i.e., money). This idea was imported with the first European colonizers, and partly explains why they saw land which was clearly inhabited as “wild” and “free for the taking”. John Locke theorized that a person has property rights over something when they have combined their labor with it to produce something of value. In other words, we own something when we have successfully commodified it. I do not know if Locke was the seed of this view or simply the solidifier of it (although I suspect the latter); in either case, this was the guiding assumption of the European settlers. Steinberg takes cares to show that the Native Americans had altered the land in significant ways, but they did not have a conception of owning a particular piece of land, and they had not ravaged it in the ways Europeans were clearly comfortable doing. So in the eyes of the colonizers, the indigenous peoples had not “improved” the land and so did not own it; and in the eyes of the Natives, talk of “owning” the land was simply incoherent.
Fascinating changes take place once you adopt the mindset of commodities. Since the nature of a commodity is that it can be traded with other things in order to increase wealth, it seems that commodification will always irresistibly lead to over-extraction. Whereas before (say) a beaver pelt was simply a beaver pelt, and you would only require a few to satisfy your needs, once it becomes a commodity the pelt is no longer just a pelt. It becomes a potential for wealth; it becomes an abstraction. One can say (if one is philosophically inclined) that the pelt becomes “alienated from itself”. It is no longer seen in terms of its actual, concrete usefulness – that is, it is no longer valued for itself but in terms of what it can be traded for. This means you will no longer be satisfied with what you actually need. You will want to extract as much as possible, because this means you will gain as much wealth as possible.
From this fundamental alienation of the object from itself follows a host of other alienations, which together cause a fundamental disconnectedness which leads to apathy towards the environment. When you shift from a subsistence lifestyle to a market-based lifestyle, this means you have to earn your living by participating in the commodities market. This ultimately leads to the products being alienated from the land and circumstances in which they were produced. Once an object is seen solely in terms of its trade value, then it no longer matters where it came from; anyone who is willing to pay for it can buy it, even if that person is completely removed from where and how the product was made. (Of course, this depends on transportation being available; and this is one of the big themes of the book. In the 1800s, railroads were the great enabler of the market and the great displacer of goods. As soon as a railroad came in, commercialization began in full force.) Disparate parts of the countries become connected, and the needs and demands of one place would dictate the production strategies of another. Usually, this meant the demands of one group of people drove the ecological depletion of a place they were entirely removed from and had no stake in. A vicious cycle often emerges: if the land has been crippled, then you won’t be able to subsist off it, and you will be forced to produce goods for the market so you can trade for what you need to survive, thus perpetuating the very commodification system which depletes the environment.
Commodification also leads to the object being alienated from the land in the sense that production becomes disconnected from nature. This is because commodification creates a pressure to increase production, and this pressure to increase production means that you'll want to overcome any limitations posed by the natural environment or natural cycles. Artificial fertilizer and irrigation are just a two examples of this. This in turn leads to alienation from natural cycles, a sense of apartness - or more accurately, a complete lack of awareness or interest.
Mass extraction(/mass production) and specialization are two offshoots of the same root. If how you survive is by selling a product, you have to be willing to either extract or produce (or both, as required) as much of that product as possible. This leads to specialization. It's simply more efficient to produce a lot of one thing than a smaller amount of various things. Interestingly, this means mass production has layers of impoverishment to it. Extraction depletes the land in an obvious sense, but when you force the land to only produce one thing, the variety of what the land is actually capable of producing becomes crippled. The diversity of an ecosystem is the key to the richness of production; when you specialize, and force the land to specialize, this diversity and richness is lost. The most obvious example of this is of course agriculture/monoculture, but any area that is engaged in mass production or involved in the chains of mass production necessarily cuts into the land in this way. In this way, the cycles of nature are completely disrupted, and all the organisms that are left are poorer for it.
I'm tempted to say that the object also becomes alienated from itself when it becomes subject to standardization. When all production is geared to fitting a certain criteria, to creating as close to identical products as possible, the uniqueness of the object is lost. This might be a less significant point, although I suspect it has large psychological impacts. If I walk into a store and see 50 basically identical pears, I will be less motivated to make sure the ones I bring home don't go to waste. After all, I can just walk back in the store and buy replacements! Since I'm talking about psychological impacts (and since it is clear at this point that I'm a damn dirty hippy), I also think it's significant that this complete separation from the production process completely amputates our ability to truly appreciate all the work that has gone into producing the things we consume.
Of course, this alienation doesn't just happen at the "front end" of production - it also happens at the back-end of waste disposal. What happens to our trash and where it goes becomes a process which is far removed from our every day lives, and we become completely oblivious to the impacts this has on us.
Obviously, we have perfected this system of alienation with modern globalization. I can buy strawberries from Chile and a T-shirt from Cambodia. I produce none of my own food (I live in an apartment and have no garden), and while I love nature, I am substantially disconnected from all the ways that the environment provides for me. Because it does provide for me; from the metal in my laptop, to the plastic in my (reusable!) water bottle, to the electricity lighting my lamp, to whatever my clothes are made of (I don't even know). My whole existence is supported by the earth, and I am completely cut apart from how (and let's not forget who) my needs are fulfilled. I go out into the natural spaces I live by as an observer, not as an active participant - and the fact that there even are "natural spaces" near me is a privilege not everyone has. And somehow, this feels lonely and impoverished. This is the ultimate conclusion of the alienation of the object from itself; I am alienated from the object, and from the larger environment which intimately connects me to it.
Fascinating changes take place once you adopt the mindset of commodities. Since the nature of a commodity is that it can be traded with other things in order to increase wealth, it seems that commodification will always irresistibly lead to over-extraction. Whereas before (say) a beaver pelt was simply a beaver pelt, and you would only require a few to satisfy your needs, once it becomes a commodity the pelt is no longer just a pelt. It becomes a potential for wealth; it becomes an abstraction. One can say (if one is philosophically inclined) that the pelt becomes “alienated from itself”. It is no longer seen in terms of its actual, concrete usefulness – that is, it is no longer valued for itself but in terms of what it can be traded for. This means you will no longer be satisfied with what you actually need. You will want to extract as much as possible, because this means you will gain as much wealth as possible.
From this fundamental alienation of the object from itself follows a host of other alienations, which together cause a fundamental disconnectedness which leads to apathy towards the environment. When you shift from a subsistence lifestyle to a market-based lifestyle, this means you have to earn your living by participating in the commodities market. This ultimately leads to the products being alienated from the land and circumstances in which they were produced. Once an object is seen solely in terms of its trade value, then it no longer matters where it came from; anyone who is willing to pay for it can buy it, even if that person is completely removed from where and how the product was made. (Of course, this depends on transportation being available; and this is one of the big themes of the book. In the 1800s, railroads were the great enabler of the market and the great displacer of goods. As soon as a railroad came in, commercialization began in full force.) Disparate parts of the countries become connected, and the needs and demands of one place would dictate the production strategies of another. Usually, this meant the demands of one group of people drove the ecological depletion of a place they were entirely removed from and had no stake in. A vicious cycle often emerges: if the land has been crippled, then you won’t be able to subsist off it, and you will be forced to produce goods for the market so you can trade for what you need to survive, thus perpetuating the very commodification system which depletes the environment.
Commodification also leads to the object being alienated from the land in the sense that production becomes disconnected from nature. This is because commodification creates a pressure to increase production, and this pressure to increase production means that you'll want to overcome any limitations posed by the natural environment or natural cycles. Artificial fertilizer and irrigation are just a two examples of this. This in turn leads to alienation from natural cycles, a sense of apartness - or more accurately, a complete lack of awareness or interest.
Mass extraction(/mass production) and specialization are two offshoots of the same root. If how you survive is by selling a product, you have to be willing to either extract or produce (or both, as required) as much of that product as possible. This leads to specialization. It's simply more efficient to produce a lot of one thing than a smaller amount of various things. Interestingly, this means mass production has layers of impoverishment to it. Extraction depletes the land in an obvious sense, but when you force the land to only produce one thing, the variety of what the land is actually capable of producing becomes crippled. The diversity of an ecosystem is the key to the richness of production; when you specialize, and force the land to specialize, this diversity and richness is lost. The most obvious example of this is of course agriculture/monoculture, but any area that is engaged in mass production or involved in the chains of mass production necessarily cuts into the land in this way. In this way, the cycles of nature are completely disrupted, and all the organisms that are left are poorer for it.
I'm tempted to say that the object also becomes alienated from itself when it becomes subject to standardization. When all production is geared to fitting a certain criteria, to creating as close to identical products as possible, the uniqueness of the object is lost. This might be a less significant point, although I suspect it has large psychological impacts. If I walk into a store and see 50 basically identical pears, I will be less motivated to make sure the ones I bring home don't go to waste. After all, I can just walk back in the store and buy replacements! Since I'm talking about psychological impacts (and since it is clear at this point that I'm a damn dirty hippy), I also think it's significant that this complete separation from the production process completely amputates our ability to truly appreciate all the work that has gone into producing the things we consume.
Of course, this alienation doesn't just happen at the "front end" of production - it also happens at the back-end of waste disposal. What happens to our trash and where it goes becomes a process which is far removed from our every day lives, and we become completely oblivious to the impacts this has on us.
Obviously, we have perfected this system of alienation with modern globalization. I can buy strawberries from Chile and a T-shirt from Cambodia. I produce none of my own food (I live in an apartment and have no garden), and while I love nature, I am substantially disconnected from all the ways that the environment provides for me. Because it does provide for me; from the metal in my laptop, to the plastic in my (reusable!) water bottle, to the electricity lighting my lamp, to whatever my clothes are made of (I don't even know). My whole existence is supported by the earth, and I am completely cut apart from how (and let's not forget who) my needs are fulfilled. I go out into the natural spaces I live by as an observer, not as an active participant - and the fact that there even are "natural spaces" near me is a privilege not everyone has. And somehow, this feels lonely and impoverished. This is the ultimate conclusion of the alienation of the object from itself; I am alienated from the object, and from the larger environment which intimately connects me to it.
buttermellow's review against another edition
5.0
This book followed American history under the premise that everything that happened in the history of our country was intricately linked to our environment and happened because of the natural resources that we've been able to extract & utilize, especially in regards to energy. Unlike other countries with less natural wealth, the U.S. is very lucky to have the Great Plains as our breadbasket, our original forests as our early source of fuel, our rivers to dam for hydroelectric, and the vast reserves of natural gas & coal that lie under the ground. We have been able to exploit these, which enabled the U.S. to become the world power it is today. This didn't happen just because of politics, or military strength, it happened because of the natural resources and energy that we've been able to use.
Now, as we're running out of our own energy and we have to look elsewhere around the globe, the U.S. military is assuming a role of energy security around the globe to protect the assets (oil) that we so desperately need to keep our country going. Fascinating read that put American history into a very new light.
Now, as we're running out of our own energy and we have to look elsewhere around the globe, the U.S. military is assuming a role of energy security around the globe to protect the assets (oil) that we so desperately need to keep our country going. Fascinating read that put American history into a very new light.