Technology, Nature, & History

In their respective articles, Rebecca Conard and David Glassberg discuss environmental history and preservation of both the natural environment and the historic environment.

Conard, in her article “Spading Common Ground” is especially critical of the various preservationists – historic preservationists, environmentalists, and land managers – for not fully communicating with each other and collaborating on projects that have similar end goals. Too often these three individual groups fail to network with each other, fail to pool their resources, and ultimately fail to achieve such similar goals.

For example, she discusses something as simple as a pier: One group of individuals wanted to make an accessible pier, so that all individuals could access the water to fish. Meanwhile, another group wanted to restore a historic stone pier that was still heavily used. It was somewhat accessible, but not without great difficulties. The two groups clearly had the same goal of allowing access for all to the water. Their approaches were different, as the first group wanted to construct an entirely new pier, while the second group wanted to restore an existing pier. Adaptive restoration to the stone pier would have satisfied all involved, but instead a new pier was created – all of the money and effort that could have been expended to modernize, while preserving, the existing stone pier went towards constructing a little used, modern pier.

In this instance, it was very clear after the fact that the two groups had a similar goal, but because of a lack of communication between the two, the historic pier didn’t receive the money it needed and instead a new pier was constructed, that simply is rarely used.

Conard also discusses the idea of ‘natural heritage’ and the establishment of American national parks in the 1930s. These places of ‘nature’ were not so natural, as the landscapes preserved had been manipulated and changed by Native American inhabitants.

Glassberg also discusses the ideas of fabricated nature in his article “Interpreting Landscapes.” Just as technology affected the development of cities and towns, technology impacted the establishment of the national park system. He argues that the landscape tourists experienced in the park setting was manufactured at the same time Native American reservations were established out west. The park system would not exist without the removal of Native Americans from the land, nor would it exist without the careful management of wildlife “to encourage picturesque megafauna and discourage pesky wolves.” (Glassberg, 25)

He also discusses the difficulties in preserving both natural heritage and built heritage. In the urban landscape, it is obviously much easier to preserve one building of historic significance, but much is lost if it’s just one building and the environment around it changes. In the urban setting, it’s much more beneficial, but also that much more difficult, to preserve as much of the neighbourhood as possible. In doing this, the heritage of the buildings and the people who lived in them will be properly preserved for future generations.

Along with preserving the built heritage of buildings, Glassberg also argues that historians can learn much from the buildings about the social, political, and economic standing of the peoples that lived in them. The structure of a neighbourhood can provide a historian with a wealth of information about the lives of previous residents – for example, he suggests that historians can learn about segregation during the time of the Jim Crow laws by the set up facilities in the American south, or that historians can learn about race relations through the development of reservations in the west.

Something that I identified the most with was Glassbergs discussion of how groups of people can interpret the same building or community so very differently. Simply by examining how a group of tourists see a church versus how the locals see that same church is very interesting. Having grown up in a small, tourist-trap of a town, this different interaction is very visible. Perhaps the best personal example is the issue with a new bridge in that town. Tourists did not want a new bridge, as it would alter the ‘charm’ of the town, meanwhile town councilors (my dad was one at the time) wanted a new bridge, as the old one needed to be replaced. For the sake of the town, a new bridge was necessary. Enter the tourist voter. Any councilor (including my dad) who voted in favour of the new bridge, which was constructed, were voted out of office. Did the ‘charm’ of the town change? Not really – the bridge looks the much same, it’s just modernized.

The key for both Conard and Glassberg seems to the be that there is much to be learned from both natural and built heritage. Society can better understand the past very simply through the type of heritage preserved: not every building or natural landscape passes muster. European-American created buildings were demolished to make way for the national parks, and the nature created by Native Americans was preserved instead. In urban settings, the houses of the elite have been saved, while the tenement houses are torn down in favour of parking lots or new houses. What’s been removed from the historical landscape is just as important, if not more so, that what has remained.


Articles:
Conard, Rebecca. “Spading Common Ground: Reconciling the Built and Natural Environments.” Public History and the Environment. Ed. Martin V.Melosi and Philip V. Scarpino. Florida: Krieger, 2004, 3-22.

Glassberg, David. “Interpreting Landscapes.” Public History and the Environment. Ed. Martin V. Melosi and Philip V. Scarpino. Florida: Krieger, 2004, 23-36.