millions into poverty. The Civilian Conservation Corps, one of the programs devised to address it, instilled new appreciation for the landscape and helped democratize conservation, which had been an elite movement, bringing newfound support from working people and the middle class by the end of the 1930s. Shortly thereafter, World War II and the Cold War together brought a revolution, or perhaps several revolutions, in environmental thought. The modern environmental movement, with its beginnings in various strands of conservation in the early twentieth century, reached maturation after 1945 in public anxieties over insidious new environmental hazards such as radiation, pesticides, and air pollution. Amidst these concerns, environmentalism rose to such heights that politicians from across the political spectrum competed with one another for environmentalist support, with the result that the 1960s and 1970s saw a blizzard of environmental legislation with bipartisan sponsorship.
Almost as soon as it had begun, the environmental movement attracted critics. Among the most persuasive of these came from the political left, alleging that the movement was overwhelmingly concerned with securing quality of life for America’s most powerful people, middle- and upper-class whites, while ignoring living and working conditions of the poor and peoples of color. In 1982, the civil rights activist Benjamin Chavis coined the term “environmental racism” to describe the disproportionate allotment of environmental risk, especially pollution, on minority communities. Obviously, the problem has roots that reach back to colonial days, when war against Indians and seizure of their lands, and the enslavement of Africans to work those lands, expressed a core faith in the justice of shunting dark-skinned people into environmental danger to guarantee the wellbeing of white-skinned people. Continuing attempts to address the problems of environmental racism have done much to transform the environmental movement in recent years. Environmental concern and racial prejudice arguably have reinforced one another at times, a tendency that helps explain historical genesis of the movement for environmental justice.
A very different critique of the environmental movement hailed from the political right. The successes of the environmental movement were followed, in the 1980s, by a backlash which has become an enduring political sub-movement. By the end of the twentieth century, environmentalism was under frequent attack from conservatives, who saw it as an obstacle to efficient government and traditional economic opportunity and entrepreneurialism.
In our final chapter, we discuss “the mother of all environmental problems,” climate change and global warming. We shall consider ways to think about climate change and ways not to think about it. Environmental history proves remarkably helpful in highlighting previous international and even global efforts to address atmospheric pollutants that created acid rain and the ozone hole, and how these efforts succeeded to a remarkable degree.
For all the vehemence of anti-environmental critics in the last few decades, Americans in general retain a pervasive belief in the need to protect clean air, clean water, and environmental systems. It may be that these beliefs are now a central feature of American culture – yet another example of how our ideas about nature continue to evolve. Now two decades into the twenty-first century, as concerns about global warming and other ominous threats continue to grow, the discipline of environmental history provides key insights into environmental relations and problems of the past. It can teach us how we might better understand our current predicaments. But more than that, in instructing us about how people once saw nature, it offers powerful insights into how they saw themselves and one another. In illuminating how Americans have “perceived, changed, and been changed by nature,” environmental history teaches us how Americans have understood and shaped their politics, culture, and society.
1 The Natures of Indian America Before Columbus
Given that so many people believe that America before Columbus was a version of the Garden of Eden, the history since then is usually understood as a fairly straightforward story, which goes like this: when Indians dominated America, the place was beautiful and natural. When Europeans arrived, they trashed the place.
The truth is far more complicated and interesting, however. William Denevan explores pre-contact Indian America with an eye to seeing how Indians shaped and changed the natural worlds around them. To be sure, most Indians did not impose nearly as great a strain on natural environments as subsequent non-Indian settlers or modern industrial capitalism eventually would. But nonetheless, they did alter the earth around them in important ways. This points to a key insight of environmental history: all peoples change nature to achieve their notion of the good life. To suggest that any people does not do this – that some people are part of nature without being willing or able to change it – is to remove them from history and to dehumanize them.
As you read Denevan’s article, ask yourself how Native changes to the natural environment before 1500 differed from the kinds of alterations, modifications, and wholesale changes in nature that your society makes today. Is there any way in which they were similar? How does it change your perception of American history to consider that Indians did not live in a Garden of Eden?
The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of the Americas in 1492
William M. Denevan
(Annals of the Association of American Geographers 82(3) 1992: 369–385.)
This is the forest primeval …
Evangeline: A Tale of Acadie (Longfellow 1847)
What was the New World like at the time of Columbus? …
Scholarship has shown that Indian populations in the Americas were substantial [in 1492], that the forests had indeed been altered, that landscape change was commonplace. This message, however, seems not to have reached the public through texts, essays, or talks by both academics and popularizers who have a responsibility to know better ….
The evidence is convincing. By 1492 Indian activity throughout the Americas had modified forest extent and composition, created and expanded grasslands, and rearranged microrelief via countless artificial earthworks. Agricultural fields were common, as were houses and towns and roads and trails. All of these had local impacts on soil, microclimate, hydrology, and wildlife. This is a large topic, for which this essay offers but an introduction to the issues, misconceptions, and residual problems. The evidence, pieced together from vague ethnohistorical accounts, field surveys, and archaeology, supports the hypothesis that the Indian landscape of 1492 had largely vanished by the mid-eighteenth century, not through a European superimposition, but because of the demise of the native population. The landscape of 1750 was more “pristine” (less humanized) than that of 1492.
Indian Numbers
The size of the native population at contact is critical to our argument. The prevailing position, a recent one, is that the Americas were well-populated rather than relatively empty lands in 1492. In the words of the sixteenth-century Spanish priest, Bartolomé de las Casas, who knew the Indies well:
All that has been discovered up to the year forty-nine [1549] is full of people, like a hive of bees, so that it seems as though God had placed all, or the greater part of the entire human race in these countries.
(Las Casas, in MacNutt 1909, 314)
Las Casas believed that more than 40 million Indians had died by the year 1560. Did he exaggerate? In the 1930s and 1940s, Alfred Kroeber, Angel Rosenblat, and Julian Steward believed that he had. The best counts then available indicated a population of between 8 and 15 million Indians in the Americas. Subsequently, Carl Sauer, Woodrow Borah, Sherburne F. Cook, Henry Dobyns, George Lovell, N. David Cook, myself, and others have argued for larger estimates. Many scholars now believe that there were between 40 and 100 million Indians in the hemisphere
