h-environment roundtable reviews - h-net | h-net · h-environment roundtable reviews, vol. 6, no. 7...

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviewsVolume6,No.7(2016)https://networks.h-net.org/h-environment

Publicationdate:September20,2016RoundtableReviewEditor:ChristopherF.Jones

PaulSutter,LetUsNowPraiseFamousGullies:ProvidenceCanyonandtheSoilsoftheSouth(Athens,GA:UniversityofGeorgiaPress,2015).ISBN:9780820334011ContentsPhotoIntroduction 2IntroductionbyChristopherF.Jones,ArizonaStateUniversity 5CommentsbyJayTurner,WellesleyCollege 7CommentsbyConeveryBoltonValencius,BostonCollege 11 CommentsbyClaireCampbell,BucknellUniversity 18 CommentsbyStevenStoll,FordhamUniversity 24Author’sResponsebyPaulSutter,UniversityofColorado,Boulder 27AbouttheContributors 36Copyright©2016H-Net:HumanitiesandSocialSciencesOnlineH-Netpermitstheredistributionandreprintingofthisworkfornonprofit,educationalpurposes,withfullandaccurateattributiontotheauthor,weblocation,dateofpublication,H-Environment,andH-Net:Humanities&SocialSciencesOnline.

Photo Introduction: Providence Canyon

Images 2 & 3 by Arthur Rothstein; images 1, 4, 5, & 6 unattributed. All images courtesy of the Library of Congress.

H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviews,Vol.6,No.7(2016) 5

IntroductionbyChristopherF.Jones,ArizonaStateUniversityeirdplacesaregoodtothinkwith.AnditishardtoimagineaweirderplacethanProvidenceCanyon.Itisasitethatneedstobeseentobeunderstood,whichiswhyIhavetakenaleadfromPaulSutter’sbookandopenedthisroundtablewithafewimages.Astheyshow,Providence

Canyonisastunninglocationwithvistasofdeepcanyons,exposedrock,andremarkablecolorcontrast.YetitisnotmillenniaoldliketheGrandCanyonortheslowresultofmillionsofyearsofgeologicalforces.Instead,thesebeautifulgullieshavebeenaroundlessthantwocenturies.AswelearninLetUsNowPraiseFamousGullies,theyarecurioushumancreations.Thegulliesemergedasanunintendedconsequenceofagriculturalpractices:chasmsintheearthdevelopedasvaluablesoilsweptaway.Thisbeautifulplaceoffersthepotentialtobaskinasublimelandscapewhilealsoponderinghumanity’sdestructivepowers.Aweirdplaceindeed.ProvidenceCanyonisaremarkableblendofnatureandculture.AnditislittlesurprisethatsuchaninterestinganalysisofahybridlandscapecomesfromSutter,whoidentifiedhybridityasthedominantthemeofrecentworkinAmericanenvironmentalhistoryinhis2013stateofthefieldessay.1Yethealsocautionedinthatarticlethatanextensivefocusonhybridityrantheriskofunderminingthemoralargumentsthathavebroughtmanytoenvironmentalhistoryinthefirstplace,leadingtoaconfusedmorassofrelativismandunsatisfyinggesturestowardcomplexity.How,hisessayasked,canenvironmentalhistoriansrecognizethatalllandscapesinvolvebothhumansandnaturewhilestilladvocatingforengagementwiththenaturalworldandenvironmentalprotection?LetUsNowPraiseFamousGulliescanbereadinonewayasameditationonthistopic.Suttermakesnoclaimtoofferdefinitiveanswers,buteffectivelyutilizesthisunder-appreciatedplacetoexplorethescienceofsoils,Southernagriculturalpractices,theeffortsofGeorgiaboosterstogainrecognitionforthesite,andthechallengesinvolvedinpreservingandinterpretingsuchlocationsforvisitors.Basedonthewide-rangingresponsestothisbookbyourreviewers,itisclearthathehassucceededinstimulatinganengagingconversationontopicsthatwillcontinuetooccupytheattentionofenvironmentalhistoriansforsometimetocome.IaskedJayTurnertoparticipateinthisroundtablebecauseofhisexpertiseinthehistoryofparks.AuthorofThePromiseofWilderness:AmericanEnvironmentalPoliticssince1964(Washington,2012)andarecentstateofthefieldessayon

1 Paul Sutter, “The World with Us: the State of American Environmental History” The Journal of American History June (2013): 94-119. As he noted on p. 96: “If I had to tersely sum up the drift of American environmental historiography since 1990, I would say, simply, that all environments are hybrid.”

W


nationalparks,hiscommentsexaminewhatProvidenceCanyoncantellusaboutlandscapesofconservationandtheecologyoferasure.2ConeveryBoltonValenciussharesaninterestwithSutterforforgottenSouthernlandscapesalongwithusingcontemporarysciencetoanalyzeenvironmentalchangeinthepast.Hermostrecentbook,TheLostHistoryoftheNewMadridEarthquakes(Chicago,2013),studiedthehistoricalandcontemporaryresponsestomassiveearthquakesintheearly19thcenturyalongtheMississippiRiver.Amongothertopics,hercommentsusefullyprobethemethodologicalandwritingchallengesofconvincingreaderstopayattentiontotopicsthatcanseem,ontheirsurface,tobequitedull.ClaireCampbellbringshernuancedunderstandingofnationalparksandpublichistorytotheroundtabletoexplorehowsuchplacesareinterpretedforparkvisitors.Hercurrentbookproject—WhatOnceWereYou?HistoricLandscapesinCanada—seekstointegrateenvironmentalhistoryintohistoricalsites,andsheconstructivelyopensadebateabouthowSutter’sfindingsmightbeincorporatedintothepracticesofagenciessuchastheNationalParksService.IfwetaketheenvironmentalhistoryofProvidenceCanyonseriously,sheasks,howshouldthatberepresentedtovisitors?StevenStollcompletesourroundtable,lendinghisparticularexpertiseinthehistoryofsoilscience.Authorofseveralbooks,includingLardingtheLeanEarth:SoilandSocietyinNineteenth-CenturyAmerica(HillandWang,2002),hiscommentsencourageSuttertoelaboratefurtheronconceptsofhybridity,theroleofideology,andtheselectionofthetitle.Beforeturningtothefirstsetofcomments,Iwouldliketopausehereandthankalltheroundtableparticipantsfortakingpart.Inaddition,Iwouldliketoremindreadersthatasanopen-accessforum,H-EnvironmentRoundtableReviewsisavailabletoscholarsandnon-scholarsalike,aroundtheworld,freeofcharge.Pleasecirculate.

2 James Morton Turner, “Rethinking American Exceptionalism: Toward a Transnational History of National Parks, Wilderness, and Protected Areas” in Andrew Isenberg, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Environmental History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).


CommentsbyJayTurner,WellesleyCollegehavealwaysbeenfascinatedbytheremnantsofasmalltownnamedLignite,locatedinsouthwesternVirginia.Lignitewasoncehometoasmall,butbooming,ironindustryand300men.Today,allthatisleftarethefoundationsofoldbuildingsandafewsturdybrickchimneys,mostovergrownwithkudzu.Inthe

latenineteenthandearlytwentiethcentury,workersminedironorefromthemountainridge,fireditinthefurnacesinthevalleybelow,andleftclearedforestsinbetween,wherewoodwasharvestedforcharcoal.Bythe1930s,thelandsaroundLignite,likemuchoftherestofthesouthernlandscape,waswornafteracenturyofintensiveuse.ThefederalgovernmentboughtupthelandandincludeditinthenewlyformedGeorgeWashingtonNationalForest—oneofthemanylandscapesofconservationthatproliferatedacrosstheSouthinthesedecades.Today,ittakesapracticedeyetoreadLignite’spastinthelandscape:thegradesofoldraillineshavegrownover,thesecondgrowthforestistallandmature,andtheironfurnacesalongthecreekbottomsseemlikelittlemorethanhistoricalcuriosities.Forestshaveawayofhidingtheirhistory.Itissuchplaces,manynowlandscapesofconservation,thatPaulSutterurgesustorevisitinhisbook,LetUsNowPraiseFamousGullies.Suchplacescaninform,toborrowhiswords,“anewageofconservation.”ProvidenceCanyon,thecenterpieceofhisanalysis,offersacompellingfocalpointforsuchaproject.Ifyouhavenotalreadydoneso,takeafewminutestobrowsetheinternetforfull-colorpicturesofProvidenceCanyon.ItisaspectacularlyanomalouslandscapelocatedinwesternGeorgia,whererollinghillsoffarmlandandforestgivewaytodeep,multihuedcanyonsreminiscentofSouthDakota’sBadlandsorUtah’scanyoncountry.Inthe1920sand1930s,Georgiaboosterschampionedtheareaasapotentialnationalparkthatexemplifiedasublimenaturallandscapethatwoulddrawtouristsandstrengthentheregion’seconomy.ButtoNewDealsoilconservationists,whowerekeenlyawareofthelegaciesofshiftingagricultureintheSouth,ProvidenceCanyonwasnotasublimegeologicalspectacle;instead,itwasaproductofacenturyofpoorsouthernagriculturalpracticesandintensesoilerosion.ProvidenceCanyonwasprotectedasastateparkin1971,andtheNewDealsoilconservationistslargelyprevailedintheirinterpretation.Today,thestatedescribesthepark’scanyonsas“simply”theresultof“ofpoorfarmingpracticesduringthe1800s.”3Unlikemanyconservationareas,whatmakesProvidenceCanyonuniqueistheextenttowhichitsunnaturalnessisapparentand,even,celebrated.Asaplacardinthevisitorscenterputsit,itstandsas“spectaculartestimonytomanandhismistakes.”4AlthoughunpackingthatclaimservesasthefocalpointofSutter’sbook,thehistoricallessonsthatemergeforenvironmentalhistoryoftheSouthandland3“ProvidenceCanyonOutdoorRecreationArea,”http://gastateparks.org/ProvidenceCanyon,accessedJune2,2016.4AsquotedinPaulSutter,LetUsNowPraiseFamousGullies:ProvidenceCanyonandtheSoilsoftheSouth(Athens:UniversityofGeorgiaPress,2015),1.

I


conservationaremuchfurtherreaching.ThereachofthisbookisaproductofSutter’snarrativeapproach.ItisabookthatbeginsnotwithlocalhistoryorthenaturaloriginsofProvidenceCanyon,asyoumightexpect.Instead,itbeginswiththeregionalandthesocial,andthengraduallynarrowsitsfocus,onlytofullyprobethepeculiaritiesandparticularsofProvidenceCanyoninthefinalchapters.Thus,abookthatisostensiblyabouttheoriginsofProvidenceCanyon,actuallyoffersarichanalysisofsouthernagriculturepractices,theinjusticesofsouthernslavery,thechallengesofsoilerosion,andhowreformersandscientistsrespondedtothesechallengesinthelatenineteenthandearlytwentiethcenturies(frequentlyinwaysthatexacerbatedtheproblems)acrosstheSouth.AsSutterreaffirmsthecentralplaceofbothsoilandtheNewDealinmodernU.S.environmentalhistory,heshowshowProvidenceCanyonwas,inmanyways,aproductofthesebroaderforces.Butthatbegsaquestion:WhythenweretheconsequencesofsoilerosionatProvidenceCanyonsospectacularlydisastrous?Hisansweristhatwecannotfullyunderstandtheextentofsouthernsoilerosionregionally,orthecaseofProvidenceCanyoninparticular,withoutwrestlingwiththespecificqualitiesofsouthernsoils.Hisargumentisthat“environmentalfactorsmayhavebeenjustasimportantashumanonesintheSouth’sextremepatternsofsoilerosion.”5Thisbookexplainsnotonlywhythatclaimisimportant,butalsowhyitishasbeensuchahardclaimtoadvanceinAmericanhistory,whichhasresistedanalysisthatexpandsculpabilityfortheinjusticesoftheantebellumSouthfromwhitesouthernerstoincludeenvironmentalfactors,suchasthephysicalpropertiesofthesoilitself.ThatisoneofthelessonsthatemergesfromLetUsNowPraiseFamousGullies.AnotherlessonisthatastheSouthbegantowrestlewiththelegaciesofsoilerosioninthe1920sand1930s,especiallyduringtheNewDeal,manyofthesedegradedlandscapesbecamelandscapesofconservation.ThisiswhatgotmethinkingabouttheabandonedtownofLigniteandtheforestsofAppalachia.AsSutteremphasizes,thereisasignificantoverlapbetweensouthernlandscapesofconservation—whetherstateparkslikeProvidenceCanyon,nationalforestsliketheGeorgeWashingtonorTuskegee,orotherparcelsofprotectedland,liketheAlcovyswamps—andlongerhistoriesofenvironmentaldegradationandrecoveryintheSouth.Butthehistoricalsignificanceofthatrelationshipisonethatslowlydisappearedinthetwentiethcentury,notsomuchasaresultofhumanactivities,astherapiditywithwhichlandscapesandforestsrecoverasemblanceofnaturalness,especiallyintheSouth.InSutter’swords,theecologyoferasureisthe“waysinwhichenvironmentalforceshave,withmuchhumanencouragement,obscuredtheSouth’shistoryofhuman-inducederosionfromview.”6Sutterprovocativelytitlestheepilogueofthebook“theecologyoferasure”anddrawsontheconceptasheexplorestheenvironmentalhistoryofotherlandscapesofconservationacrosstheSouthandtheUnitedStates.IwonderwhatambitionsSutterhasforthisconcept.Towhatextentisitspecifictolandscapesoferosion,andtowhatextentisitaboutlandscapesofsuccession,reforestation,orothermodesofecologicalrecovery?Isitlimitedto5Sutter,LetUsNowPraiseFamousGullies,170.6Ibid.,192.


moretemperateclimates,suchastheSouth,ordoesitalsoextendtoplaceslikethefarnorth,whereecologicalprocessestranspiremoreslowly?OneoftheexamplesSutterofferstoillustratetheimplicationsoftheecologyoferasureisthatofthepresent-dayTuskegeeNationalForest.Inthe1930s,thefederalgovernmentpurchasederodedlandsaspartofaNewDealprojectinpartnershipwiththeTuskegeeInstitutetocreatetheTuskegeePlannedLandUseDemonstration.TheprojectrelocatedseveralhundredAfricanAmericanfamiliesasitassembled10,358acresoflandthatwastoberestoredthrougherosioncontrolandreforestationwiththeeventualgoalofsupportingtheregion’sAfricanAmericanfarmers.TheeventualcreationofTuskegeeNationalForestreflectedtheproject’sgreatersuccessesasaprojectinlandrestorationthansocialreform.Anotherexample—whichgetsattheimportanceoftheecologyoferasuretoconservationpolitics—isthatoftheAlcovyswamps.Inthe1970s,Georgiaenvironmentalistssucceededinprotectingthesmallriverswampasan“accessiblewildernessexperience”distinguishedbyitsstandofold-growthtupelogumtrees.7Butcarefulanalysisrevealedthattheprizedswamps,despiteharboringendemicspeciessuchasredbuckeyesandmolesalamanders,weremostlikelyaproductofnineteenthcenturysedimentdepositionresultingfromuplandagricultureanderosion.SutterquotestheecologistEugeneOdumonthispoint:“Thosefertilewetlandsaretheresultofouruplandfolly.”8Attheseplaces,asatProvidenceCanyon,Sutterurgesustoresisttheecologyoferasureandre-readplaceslikeTuskegeeNationalForest,theAlcovyswamps,andpresumablyLignite,suchthatinsteadofseparatingnaturefromhistory,theyinsteadbringthemtogether.Otherhistorianshavepointedusinsimilardirections,whichbringsmetoseveralquestionsI’llraiseforreadersandforSutter.TheselandscapesremindmeofthosethatMarcusHallexploresinhisbookEarthRepair.TowhatextentareconservationlandscapeslikeTuskegeeorProvidenceexercisesingardening,asopposedtonaturalizing?InwhatwaysaretheNewDeal’seffortstorightthedegradedlandsoftheSouth,suchasthoseatTuskegee,similartothoseoftheItalians,who“expandedrestorationbeyondlandtoincludepoliticalandsocialwell-beingtotherestorationenterprise”?9Whatdistinctionsshouldanecologyoferasuremakebetweentheactiveprocessesofrestoration,whichmorecharacterizedTuskegeeNationalForest’sreforestationanderosioncontrolprograms,andthemorepassiveprocessesofecologicalchange,whichcharacterizetheforestsaroundLigniteintheGeorgeWashingtonNationalForest?AndreadingaboutplaceslikeAlcovyswampsalsoremindsmeoftheApostleIslands,whereJamesFeldmanhashelpedustothinkcarefullyabouttheprocessof“rewilding.”AsFeldmannotes,therewildingoftheApostles,whichareacongressionallydesignatedwildernessareawithalonghistoryofsettlement,logging,andagriculture,presenteddilemmaswhichthe

7Ibid.,188.8Asquotedinibid.,191.9MarcusHall,EarthRepair:ATransatlanticHistoryofEnvironmentalRestoration(Charlottesville:UniversityofVirginiaPress,2005),83.


NationalParkServicenavigatedbytryingtodrawclearboundariesbetweenculturalresources,whichweremanagedfortheirhistoricalsignificance,andnaturalresources,whichweremanagedfortheirecologicalsignificance.SimilarlytoSutter,Feldmanurgesustorecognizethathistory“deepensandenriches”thatisland’swilderness.10WhatistherelationshipbetweenanecologyoferasureandtheprocessesofrewildingthatFeldmanilluminates?SutterholdsupProvidenceCanyonasa“modelforthinkingaboutthoseplacesinwaysthatmoveusbeyondtherigidity,andtheeasyironies,ofthenature-culturedivide.”11Inengaginginthisthinking,however,adeeptensionremainsthatisalsoimportanttoFeldman’sanalysisofrewilding—howdowemanagetheprocessesofecologicalchange,suchasthattheydonoterasethepast,andinsodoingcontributetohistoricalamnesia?SutterputsthepointclearlyinthecontextofProvidenceCanyon:“HowfaroughtweallowenvironmentalforcestoproceedinreclaimingapreservedProvidenceCanyoniftheresultwillbeadiminishmentofitspowerasasiteofhistoricalinterpretation?”12IfProvidenceCanyonisgoingtohelpusmovetowarda“newageofconservation,”thosebecomeurgentquestions.Isthechallengeprimarilyaninterpretiveone—sheddinglightontheintertwininghumanandnaturalhistoriesthatunderlietheseplaces,evenastheecologyoferasureslowlyovertakesthatpast?Or,ifwearetofullyrealizethegoalofmovingbeyondthenature-culturedivide,dosuchlandscapesofconservationdemandactivemanagement,suchasremovingtrees,maintainingclearings,stabilizinggullies,toslowtheecologyoferasure.AsSutternotes,we“needconservationcriteriathatdealwithtimeandhumaninfluenceinsubtlerandmoresatisfyingways.”13IfindthatLetUsNowPraiseFamousGulliesofferspowerfulandhelpfulmeditationsonsuchquestions,moresothanspecificprescriptions.AndthatleadstoafinalquestionforSutter:HowshouldthebroaderlessonsofProvidenceCanyoninformconservationpolicy?WhatwouldheaskthestateofGeorgiaDepartmentofNatureResourcestododifferently,andwhatbroaderrecommendationsmightthatsuggestforplacesliketheMalakoffDigginsStateHistoricalPark,theApostleIslands,orthehistoricalruinsinplacesliketheGeorgeWashingtonNationalForest?LetUsNowPraiseFamousGulliesisacompellingandthought-provokingbook.Itisanoutstandingexampleofhowaparticularlandscapecanserveasavehicleforfar-reachinghistoricalanalysis.AlthoughProvidenceCanyonmayneverjoinYellowstoneortheGreatSmokiesinthepantheonofnationalparks,asSutternotesinhisconclusion,hemakesclearthatithasjustasmuchtoteachusabouthowparkscanserveaspowerfulsitesofinterpretationforunderstandingU.S.andenvironmentalhistory.

10JamesFeldman,StoriedWilderness:RewildingtheApostleIslands(Seattle:UniversityofWashingtonPress,2011),223.11Sutter,LetUsNowPraiseFamousGullies,8.12Ibid.,193.13Ibid.,192.


CommentsbyConeveryBoltonValencius,BostonCollegeaulSuttergroundshismostrecentbookintwoseeminglycontradictorychallenges.First,hesetsouttoshowushowanextraordinarylandscapecametobe—andwhymostofusknownothingaboutit.Here,assometimeshappens,wordsfail.Thebookitselfopenswithadramaticfrontispiece:black

andwhitephotosshotduringtheGreatDepression.Thisisanexcellentchoiceonthepartofauthorandpublisher:theextraordinaryvistasoftheProvidenceCanyonlandscapearecentraltothemovementofthebook.Beautifulbuthauntingimagesshowcascadesofwhiteandgreythatformcanyonwalls.Likestalactites,theyarefascinatingforhowtheycapturemovementinstillness.Thesidesofthegulliesappearassailscaughtjustatthemomentofbillowingoutinagustywind.Layersofshading—compellingeveninblackandwhitegreytones—indicatedifferentlevels:mostofthewallshaveadarklayerontopandthenbrightenastheygodown.Striationsgroovewallsofthecurvedgorges,givingthephotographsthekindoftexturethatmakesyouwanttolookatthemalongtime.Butit’sthescalethatisperhapsmoststunning:asanybodyknowswho’severbuiltasandcastleoraplayedinmud,youcanmakeacanyonwallatmanyscales.Uptopofmostofthesephotos,usuallyslightlylessinfocusthanthecloserbillowsofthegullyedges,arebitsoftheimagethattakeaminutetosinkin.Trees—thosearetrees!ThisthingisBIG!Toy-lookingtreesstandalongthetopsofridges,whilefull-growntreesgrowdwarfedinsomeofthegullybottoms.Thisisnotonlyavisuallystrikingbutsubstantialplace.Readingthisbookalongasmallcreek,Ialmostfelloutofmychairandintothewater.Wow!!!Inudgedmyfamilyalongsideme:“Lookatthis!”Myspouse,whosuffersthroughfartoomuchfascinating-to-meminutiaofthenineteenthcenturytobeeasilyimpressed,atfirstlookedoverwithavaguelylongsufferingair,andthenreachedforthebookwithgenuineinterest.“ThisisinGeorgia!”Iexplained.“Georgia!”“Mmmmmm….”hereplied,studyingthephotosandgivingthespineanappraising“maybe-I’ll-read-that-one’”lookonlyrarelywarrantedbymyhistoricallibrary.Visually,PaulSutter’shookworked.OurfamilyhasdrivenacrossandvisitedmanypartsoftheAmericanSouth—howcouldwenotknowanythingaboutsuchagorgeouslycrazylandscape?HereiswherePaulSutter’ssecondmissionclicksin.InordertoaccomplishthatfirstpurposeofexplainingthedramaticgorgesofProvidenceCanyon,SuttersetsouttoengageusreaderswiththehistoryofAmericansoilscience.ThechallengehereisbestillustratedbywhatwouldhavehappenedifI’dnudgedmyfamilytosay“Hey,looky’all–I’mreadingaboutsoilscience!”(Igetquiteenoughadolescenteye-rollingasis,thankyouverymuch.)

P


Boringmatters.Anythingthatseemstoodeadlyboringjustdoesn’tgetlookedat.I’dventuretosaythatinU.S.historiographythescienceofsoilsoccupiesalonelyplacealongsidetopicssuchasbankingregulationandMedicaidreform:areasthatdoinfactshapeourentireculture,butthatpossesssuchadauntingbureaucraticandarchaicnaturethatonlyfewhardyanalysts—usuallynothistorians—attempttotakethemon.14(IoncereadafoodpolicyexpertexplainthatdeepinCapitolHillthereareacoupleoffamedCongressionalstafferswhoreallyandtrulyunderstandtheFarmBill,thatmassiveevery-five-yearslegislationthatdrivesmoreofournationaleconomythanmostanythingelseexceptperhapsdefensespendingandfederalhealthprograms:thesefewwonkysoulsareapparentlyreveredforactuallyhavingreaditandunderstanditinallitsparts,unlikeanybodyelsewhomodifies,voteson,orliveswiththisbill.)Thestudyofwhatmakesgoodsoilmightwarrantagoodcomedyskitaboutthetopicleastlikelytogetyouaseconddateorascintillatingconversationatmostparties(ruralareasexcepted—I’llcomebacktothat).Surely,someonesomewherehastopayattentiontosuchthings—butdowereallyneedtohearaboutthem?Inmycrankiestmoments,I’dsaythatthesensethatsoilsciencemustbeamongthemostboringtopicsknowntohistoriansisyetanotherpieceofevidencethatweareallgoingtohellinahandbasket.Soilscienceisofcoursevital,intheoriginalsenseofrelatedtolife:withoutfoodgrowningoodsoilwecannotexist.AfewAmericans—thoseless-than-two-percentwhomakepartofalivingfromfarming—probablyneednoconvincinghere.Gardenerstoounderstandthecomplexityandattimesfragilityofgoodgrowingearth.Ifweallstoptothinkaboutit,weallprobablywould.Butwedon’tstoptothink,becausereally,whyshouldwe?Here’swherePaulSutterusesthedramaticlandscapesowell:this,heargues,isoneplacethatshowsuswhyweneedtostopandthink.Why,intheeasternrangesofGeorgia’srollingmid-section,inJimmyCarterGeorgia,doweseecanyonssodramaticthattheylooklikesomethingoutofamid-centuryspaghettiWestern?Because,heargues,ofthescienceofsoil.ItisinbringingthesetwohalvesofhisparadoxicalmissiontogetherthatPaulSutter’sbooksshines,showingusnotonlymoreaboutafascinatingplace—worthyinitself—butabouthowthisplacestandsforothers,moreordinaryoreasilyoverlooked.

***

14Yes,therearewonderfulsalutaryexceptionsofhistorianswhohaveactuallyventuredforthintosoilscience!–andItalkabouthowI’dlovetoteachtheirbooksabitlater.Theyare,though,abravefew:bycontrast,whatseemslikeanewbookshelf’sworthofCivilWarbookscomesouteveryyear.


LetUsNowPraiseFamousGulliesisinlargemeasureaperceptualhistory.Wefollowthechangingperceptionsofthisdramaticlandscapethroughtime,catchingglimpsesofhowpeoplesawitthroughfragmentsofnewspaper,mentionsinguidebooks,theframingofgovernmentalreports,eveninpoems.Afterintroducingustosomeofthebasic“where”oftheplace,PaulSutternarrateshowearlygeologicalsurveysspreadacrosstheU.S.intheearlynineteenthcentury:scienceintheserviceofagriculture,mineraldevelopment,andAmericanlandclaims.PartofSutter’sargumentfirstunfoldshere.Geology,heargues,wasdeeplyagriculturalintheearlynineteenthcentury:scientificstudyofsoiltypeswasafterallnotaseparatepursuitfromthestudyoftheearth,butcentraltoit.Indeed,bymid-centurymanyofthesubsurfaceresourcessoughtbygeologistsinearlyAmericawerenotonlypreciousmetalsbutfertilizersandfertilesoils.15PartOneofthistripartitestructureisaboutsoilerosionasascientificproblem,andhowitwasseenornotseenbychanginggenerationsofscientistsintheserviceofbothgovernmentandcommerce.InPartTwo,Suttershowsthehopeandtheimpactof1930s“highwayprogressives,”localswhointheeraofcartourismbegantoseizeuponstrikinglandscapeasapotentialmoney-maker.NotjustSundaypicnics,perhaps,butentrancefees?Seeingthesuccessofwesternboosters,localleadersnearProvidenceCanyonpushedfornationalparkstatusfortheir“LittleGrandCanyon.”(Itdidbecomeastatepark,butonlyintheearly1970s,andisnowdowngradedto“stateoutdoorrecreationarea”outofbudgetaryconstraints).Thesesomewhathokeyeffortsformpartofahistoryofsmall-scaleandruralenvironmentalactivismintheearlytwentiethcenturythatistoolittlenoted.It’seasy(Iadmitguiltily)whenteachinganenvironmentalhistorysurveyclasstopayhomagetoYosemiteandYellowstoneandthenbreezeonintothechallengesofteemingcities,aridwesterndrought,andWorldWarII,notpayingattentiontowhatelsewashappeninginruralareasthatwerelessspectacularorsimplylesssuccessfulatgettingnoticed.Yetmuchthatwasinterestingwashappening,includingeffortstomarketProvidenceCanyonasasiteofenvironmentalmarvel,andaswarning.Frustratingmanylocalboosters,whentheydidgetProvidenceCanyonnoticed,itwasnotasappealinglocalattraction,butasfearsomemorallessoninenvironmentaldegradation.Here,ProvidenceCanyonregisterednotaspuzzleorattraction,butasstarkproblem.TheemergingandincreasinglypowerfulsoilsciencebureaucracyoftheNewDeal—partofanagriculturalscienceincreasinglyhivedofffromgeologyprofessionallyandinpractice—seizeduponProvidenceCanyonasastunningexampleofhumanharmtogoodAmericanfarmland.SuttertracesthefascinatingdebatesoversoilerosionwithinUSgovernmentalbureaucracy,contrastingthe

15IwasstruckbythispointinSutter’sbookinpartbecauseDavidSpanagaladdressesthisin“ScienceinEarlyAmerica:PrintCultureandtheSciencesofTerritoriality,”co-writtenbyDavidI.Spanagel,EmilyPawley,SaraSidstoneGronim,PaulLucier,andme,JournaloftheEarlyRepublic,36,no1.(Spring2016):73-123.


essentialoptimismofargumentsthatevenheavily-usedsoilswillremainrobustwiththegriminsistencethatprofligateuseandun-carefulagriculturewouldsquanderthepreciousnationalresourceofAmericansoil.Onlyafterwearecommittedtothestoryofhowaparticularplacecouldbecomeseeninsomanydifferentways—onlyaftershowingusthehumanstory—doesSutterturninPartThreetotheactualsoilscienceaswecurrentlyunderstandit,tothetopographicandgeologicalfactorsthatwethinkconstituteProvidenceCanyonasaphysicalaswellasperceptualenvironment.It’sanicemove:bythatpoint,wereadersarecommittedandinterestedandwillingtoploughthroughmineralcompositiontounderstandwhat(wethink)isreallygoingon.Thischapteronsoilscienceshowsourcontemporarymisunderstandinginourhistoriesof“soilexhaustion.”Sutterarguesconvincinglythatforgeologicreasons,soilsoftheAmericanSouthwerebyandlargenotthatfertiletobeginwith—andthatmanagingsoilfertilityisacomplicatedtask.Notwastywaysbutstratigraphymayexplainthebreath-takingspectacleofthewater-shapedlandformsinProvidenceCanyon.Becauseoftheebbandflowofancientseas,muchofthesubsurfaceiscomposedofhighlyerodibleunconsolidatedsand,underavisiblydarkercap.Farmersinthatregionwerenotparticularlydifferentfromthoseinmanyotherplaces.ProvidenceCanyon,forallitsstartlingvisualqualities,isnotunique,butrepresentative.Throughout,Sutterguidesuswithoccasionalfirst-personcomments.Heopensthebookasatravelerandhistorianseeingplaceswithhisfamily,andthenreappearsasguideasthebookunfolds.Theconversationaltoneandpaceisengagingandworkswell.Sutter’sfirstchaptersareshort,withsuccinctsummaries—liketheopeningphotos,excellentstrategiesforkeepingreadersinabookthatisessentiallyaboutthecompositionofsoil.Atthesametime,Ifoundthetitleitselfsurprisinglyunsatisfyingforsuchadistinctiveplaceandsuchawell-writtenhistory,andIworrythatbecausethislovelybookcoverssomanytopicsitwillbehardtopigeonholeandputonabookstoreshelforaclasssyllabus.YetIcouldimagineusingthisbookinmyownteachingandlearning.IfIcouldsomehowshoehornaseminar’sworthofstudentsthroughthedoor,theycouldlearnatremendousamountaboutU.S.historyandthehistoryofscienceinacourseonthehistoryofsoil,withworkbyexcellentcolleaguesStevenStoll(LardingtheLeanEarth,2002),BrianDonahue(TheGreatMeadow,2005),BenCohen(NotesfromtheGround,2011),DavidSpanagel(GeologyandPowerinEarlyNewYork,2014),andEmilyPawley(forthcomingbookonagriculturalscience)aswellasothers,andmaybesomehistoryofmineralogyandfarmingthrownin.Landandlaborarebothcentralthemesofthisbook.Sutteroffersathoughtfuldiscussionofthecomplicatedandhard-to-discernrelationshipofslaverytosoilerosion,bothpracticallyandpolitically.Incontrast,LetUsNowPraiseFamousGulliesservesasasearingindictmentofthedirectcausalconnectionsbetween


sharecroppingandsoilerosion.ProvidenceCanyonisnot,intheend,providential:itisadirectresult,inSutter’sargument,ofthehumanartificethatpeggedagriculturetotenantfarmingandinstitutionalizeddebtpeonageinaneraofincreasinglyindustrializedfarmtechnologyandfertilizerinput.Thisbookaddressesthehistoryofscience,thoughdoesn'tseemtofullywanttoacknowledgedoingso.Nowheredoesauthororjacketcopyrefertothebookasahistoryofscience,thoughitdoesprovideahistoryofagreatdealofscientificworkandthinking.ThisisoneplaceIwantedtoasktheauthorsomequestions.Paul:howdidyoudecidetousesuchalighttouchwithrespecttothehistoryofscienceasananalyticapproach?Doyouseeplaceswhereyourargumentmighthavebeendifferentifyou’dcastthebookas,say,ahistoryofagriculturalsciencesaswellasanenvironmentalhistory?ThisinterestisinpartbecauseofmyappreciationforhowSutterdoesusepresent-dayscientificknowledge.Thegeekinmerejoicedtofindtowardtheendofthebookaformulaforsoilerosion.Sutterusesthistoshowhowamainhistoricalargumentofhis—thatmanydiversefactorsshapedthesoilhistoryoftheSouth—isbuttressedbytheanalysisofotherdisciplinesaswell.Iappreciatedthatthiscameattheend,asfriendlyconfirmation,ratherthanaswarrantatthebeginning.Itsparkedmorequestions:Paul,Ifoundyournarrativeuseofscienceaspartnerwithhistoricalevidenceratherthanasgatekeeperandbosstobeeffective!Couldyouhavehelpedyourreadersseebehindthecurtainabitmoretowhyorhowyoumadethechoicestoemploycontemporaryscientificfieldsasyoudo?Thehistoryofmedicine,bycontrast,isnotkeptatthedoorstepbutinvitedrightin:Suttershowshowsoilerosionisrelatedtomalaria(chapter5)andtowidespreadmalnutritionamongtenantfarmers(chapter6).Iappreciatedthisthoughtfulinterweaving,andIhopethatthebookisrecognizedaspartofthelargerhistoryofenvironmentandhealthintheU.S.South.Sadly,itmaynotbe.Subspecialtiesaresoseparated,andtimepressuressointense,thatitmaytakeananalyticleapoffaithformanyhistoriansofmedicinetodecidetospendtimewiththisbook.Aquestionbothforthisauthorandforallofus:Iwonderwhatwecoulddoasaprofessiontoencouragethecross-pollinationofbooks—atconferencesorsimplyinconversations,andcruciallyinourownreading—whenoneortwochapterscrossoverbeautifullyintoanadjoiningdisciplinarysubfield?Asanenvironmentalhistory,thebookdoessatisfy.LetUsNowPraiseFamousGullieshasadelightfulamounttosayaboutthemanysometimesurprisingaspectsofthe“declineoftheplantationlandscape”(154).Fertilizers,rangelaws,thebollweevil,andTexastickfeverareallpartofthestoryofhowsouthernfarmerswereabletouselandandalsosooftenwatcheditgullyaway.IwasmovedbythepoetryofoneblackGeorgianoftheearlytwentiethcentury,whousedProvidenceCanyonasPaulSutterwouldlater,toseelargerpatternsofloss,hope,beauty,andbetrayal.


Ajoyofanygoodbookisseeingthefamiliarnew.Ihavebeenfascinatedwithsouthernkudzusincecartripsasachild.Iappreciatedtheroleofthatterrifyinglyeffectiveplantinsoilconservationmuchbetterafterconversationwiththisbook.IappreciatedtooSutter’semphasisonhowsoilconservationmapsusedcolortohighlightvividthreat(87).So,too,inmyworkdohazardplannersuseabrightredbulls-eyeofearthquakehazard.16Colorchoicestendtobelittlenotedbymostofuswordyhistorians,buttheyareoftenanimportantelementofargumentinthesourceswestudy.

***Thebookendswithreflectionsonotherlandscapesofdegradationandpuzzle.Iappreciatedtheinterestingandwell-toldexamplesofotherplaces.Ithought,too—followingmyowninterests—thatIwouldhavebeeninterestedtohearmoremeta-levelreflectionabouthoworevenwhytouncoverlandscapeswhosehistoriesarehiddenorlost.Paul,atpresentyouranalysisisevocativebutmoresuggestivethandefinite:infuturework,mightyoupushabitmoretohelpusreadersseehowhistoryisshapedbywhichplacesareovergrown?HeretooIthoughtofmystudentsaswellasmyownwork.Icouldpicturea“lostspaces”syllabuswithessaysinthecollectionAgnotologybyRobertProctorandLondaSchibinger,JoyParr’sSensingChanges,myownLostHistoryoftheNewMadridEarthquakesandthefabulous(inallsenses)memoirnovelLetUsBuildUsACity:ElevenLostTowns,bymyfellowArkansanDonaldHarington.Perhapsitcouldinsteadbea“placesandknowledgedenied”coursethatwouldincludeCivilWarmonuments,ErikConway&NaomiOreskes’MerchantsofDoubt,recentworkonsitesofenergyandweaponsproduction,andmosteverythingproducedbysturdysecond-wavefeminism.Paul,arethesetheprojectsyou’dimagineyourbookbeingreadalongside?OrareyoutryingtomakeadifferentsetofinterventionsinhowweunderstandU.S.Southernhistory?TheepiloguealsocentersaroundSutter’schiefclaimintheintroduction:thatironyisinsufficient.Here’swhereI’dmakemymaincritique:perhapsI’mgenerationallyill-equippedorjustplaintoocrankytofindironysufficientformuchofanything.Iwaseasilyconvincedthatironycouldneveradequatelyencompassafull,complicated,hot,growing,eroding,realplace,becauseIdon’tthinkironyevercandescribeanyplace.Instead,IwouldhaveratherhadSutterputtheparadoxofdramaticvistasandseeminglyboringsciencefrontandcenter.

16Inspring2016,theUSGeologicalSurveyreleasedanearthquakehazardmapincludingnewly-analyzedriskofinducedearthquakes.Thebrightshadingofformerlyblandly-coloredareasofOklahomaandKansasisinspiringbothscientificargumentandpoliticalargumentatpresent.Searchfortheterms“USGS2016seismicforecast”orgoto:http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/induced/images/ProbDamagEQ.pdf


Paul,you’resogoodattalkingwithusreaders,atdrawingusin:didyouconsiderhowitmightworktofranklyacknowledgethechallengeofwritingtheseeminglydustyhistoryofsoilsciences?Doyouthinkyoucouldhavebroughtusreadersalongasaccomplicesinyourbestingofhistoricalboredom?Orareyouperhapssatisfiedwithnarrativechoicesthatledtoabookwith208pagesoftext,ratherthanadoor-stopper?Myperspectivehereisfundamentallyoneofsympathy:thesubjectoferodedsoilisahardsell,nomatterhowdramaticthepictures.Inthis,PaulSutter’sprojectislikemuchofwhatmanyofusexploreandtrytoexplain,andI’dlikegoodhistoriestoreachawiderangeofreaders,expertornot,whoprefergunfireorblood-sportpoliticsorsomethingwithabitmoresexythansandy,erodiblesoil.AsIreadit,Sutter’saiminthishistoryofGeorgia’sProvidenceCanyonistoshowthepulsingvitalityofsoilscienceandsoilerosion.Hehitstrue.LetUsNowPraiseFamousGulliesshowsushowcomingtoappreciateavistaofsublimeandmysteriousgrandeurmayrequireunderstandingthehistoryofeachsimpleparticleoffast-erodingsoil.


CommentsbyClaireCampbell,BucknellUniversity orsometimenow,environmentalhistorianshaveseenparks–betheynational,state,orprovincial–astheworkofhumanhandsratherthanislandsofwilderness.Sotoo,forthatmatter,havearchaeologists,otherparkstaff,FirstNations,andothers.Bordersdrawnforpoliticalexpediencyratherthan

ecologicalintegrity;landscapedforautomobilesratherthanwildlife;monumentstocontemporaryculturalprioritiesmorethantimelessnaturalformations.Butthesewaysofseeingparkshavenotreallyunsettledtheiconographicstatusofparksasplacesofsuperiornaturalandnationalworth,ineitherCanadaortheUnitedStates.IconfessIhavetobeenGeorgiaonlyonce,anddidnotvisitStewartCountyoritsformerlyfamouscanyon.SoPaulSutter’sLetUsNowPraiseFamousGulliestaughtmealotabouttheterrestrialandhumancontoursofthispartofthesouth,anditsgeological,racial,andagroeconomiccharacter.Butitalsogotmethinkingaboutothernationalparks,farremovedfromStewartCounty.Thestatusofnationalpark,ofcourse,carriessignificantcurrency.Itdenotesexclusivity,rarity,andacollectivevaluethatelevatescertainplacesoutofthecrassrealmof“private,commercializedroadsidenaturalwonders”andintoaselect“pantheonoftouristsites”(71).(MyparentsalwayspreferrednationalparkstoKOAsorotherprivatecampgrounds–theyweremorerustic,moreeducational,formallysanctionedbyNationalHistory,andforallofthis,morevirtuousforfamilycamping.)AlthoughboththeCanadianandAmericanparksservicestalkabouttheir“family”ofnationalparksorhistoricsites,werarelythinkoftheseplacesinsuchassociationalways.YosemiteandJasperaremeanttobeexceptional,notrepresentativeorcomparative.CanyouimagineaNot-QuiteHaidaGwaii,aReminiscent-OfRedwood?SoeventhoughlocalpromotersofProvidenceCanyoninsistedtheirswasalittleGrandCanyon,it’sunlikelywe’dseeanationalparkcalleda“little”anything.(I’vejustlearnedthatPennsylvaniahasitsownGrandCanyon,intheTiogaStateForest:andyes,borrowingthenamefeelsmorederivativethanelevating.)Wehaveassembledacabinetofgeographicalcuriosities,acollectionoftheunusual(I’mtemptedtoextendthefamilymetaphorhere,butforthesakeofdiplomacyandself-preservation,probablyshouldnot.)YetsomuchsouthernandAmericanenvironmentalhistorytrackedacrossandthroughProvidenceCanyon.Whatdoesitmeantocelebratetheone-of,butnotdesignatethemoretypical,moreprevalent,thehistoricallymoreinfluential?Sutterdoesn’tgointodepthastowhyProvidenceCanyonneverbecameanationalpark,butpresumablyithadsomethingtodowiththefactthattheGrandCanyonwasalreadytheunsurpassedplaceholderfor“grandlandscapesoferosion”(34).Theconceptof“thegeologicalsublime”(60)gotmethinking:whenandwheredoes

F


scienceinfluenceournotionsofbeauty?Arethereotherplacescanonizedthankstoscientifically-informedaesthetics?Suchsublimitywas“awfulandbeautiful,”andthustomany,ratherconfusing(101).Fromthenineteenthcenturytherehadbeensimilarambivalenceregardingitsorigin–ofnaturalorhumandesign–andthusitstruemeaning.ProvidenceCanyonthusbecameanobjectofnationalscrutinybutnotveneration.Sutterpresentsthe1930sasakeypointinthestory:whenthesetwoperspectivesdivergedinthe,uh,gully.TheGreatDepressionandautomobiletourisminspiredaboosterishpromotionbythosewhofeltthattheirGeorgiaversionwaseitherprovidentialorattheveryleastanaturalwonder.ButNewDealconservationistsandsoilscientistswrotevoluminouslyabouterosionandgullyingasscarsoffaultandblame,atopographicalscoldingofdestructivesouthernagriculturalpracticesthatneededtobecorrectedandrepaired.Andthatambivalence,ultimately,iswhyProvidenceCanyonisnotanationalpark.CertainlybothParksCanadaandtheNationalParkServiceaddresshumanhistoryinnationalparks,andhavedonesoexplicitlyinaframeworkof“culturallandscapes”forageneration.Butitisgenerallyaveryparticularkindofhumanhistorythatwesee–thekindofusethatmostcloselyresemblesourstoday.TheBanfftownsiteortheSouthRimoftheGrandCanyonbothdiscussacenturyandmoreoftourism,suchthatvisitorstodaymightrealizethattheytreadinfootstepsofmillionsofothers.Butthatuponwhichthetouristsaretogaze–thenaturalwondersoftheRockiesandtheColoradoRiver–couldnot,unlikeProvidenceCanyon,beexplainedasevenpartlytheresultofhumaninterventionorhumanfailing.AsSutterpointsout,we’reaccustomedtothinkingofnationalparksasplacesthatprotectexamplesofnaturalprocesses,that“[keep]theworksofhumanityatbay”(102).Butshouldthey?Shouldn’ttheretreatoftheColumbiaIcefieldbetweenBanffandJasperbeseenasacondemnationoffossilfuelemissionsandglobalwarming?Shouldn’tthediminishedflowoftheColoradothroughdrought-strickenCaliforniahaveusrethinkingacenturyofunsustainablewaterconsumptioninthesouthwest?WhatLetUsNowPraiseFamousGulliesmakesclearisthatneithertheprocessesofparkcreation,norparkinterpretation,northeirscholarlycritics,havegottentothatpoint.Wemayacknowledgeparksasnatureframedforhumanconsumption,butarenotyetreadytoconsiderthemasnaturesinrecoveryfromotherkindsofhumanuses.SutterpointsoutthatalmostalloftheparksandforestsoftheSouth“havehistoriesofhumanlandusehiddenbeneaththeirmantleoftrees”(194).Thesearerecoveredagriculturallands,abandonedfromprivateownershipandfailedfarming,reclaimedbythestate,andregreenedbynature.This,thisiswhatparksagenciesinNorthAmericaneedtotalkabout.Acrossthecontinentresourcecommunitiesareasking,“Whatdowedonow?”Whatdowedonowthatthetimberislogged,thecoalismined?Howcanparkland–andanewkindofparkland,onethatfeatureshistoricalawarenessratherthanahistoricalfacades–


servetorehabilitateandreuseexhaustedindustriallands?ThissectionofSutter’sbookremindedmeofthecurrentcontroversyovertheproposedMaineWoodsNationalPark:aremarkableexpanseofforest,riverineheadwaters,andwildlifehabitatinastatewithacollapsedtimberindustry,closedmills,andnorealplanB(whichinturnsremindedmeofNovaScotia…).Ironically,environmentalhistoriesarethestumblingblock.Localresidentsfearland-usebyfederalfiat,withoutacknowledgingtheirownhistoriesinthearea.Atthesametime,weareunaccustomedtoparkswithsuchhistories.Canweacceptsuchsecond-generationparksaspartofahumanhistorywithnature–whichmayincludearebukeofourunsustainable,exploitativepractices–ratherthanescapesintoanaturesomehowprotectedfromus?Thisisadilemmaforthepublicallymindedenvironmentalhistorian.Howcanwemakecomplex,multiscalar,narrativesofenvironmentalhistorypartoftheinterpretationandexperienceofparksorhistoricsites?Because,forthemostpart,theyhaven’tbeen.ArchaeologistsgrapplewithseasurgeswashingawaytheoutlandsofFortressLouisbourg;biologistsstudytheeffectofclimatechangeonmountainflora.Butthesearediscussionsamong(eroded)professionalstaffs,primarilyinscientificterms,andrarelyplacedinpublicview,inhistoricalcontext,ormostambitiously,inconversationwithpublicpolicy.SuttersuggestsProvidenceCanyoncouldbeanewkindofpark,“onethathonestlycontendswiththelegacies,sometimesspectacular,ofhumanlanduseonthiscontinent”(109).Ashenotes,thisrangesfromtypesofclearanceandroadconstructiontotheglobalcapitalismthatrewardedexportmonoculturesofcertaincrops.Healsopointsoutthatagriculturallandscapesdeservemoreattention,havingfadedfromtheenvironmentalistspotlightasNorthAmericabecamesuburban(107).Agriculturalconservationwasaprominentconcernintheantebellumperiod.PatrickHenrydeclared,“heisthegreatestPatriot,whostopsthemostgullies”(21)asearlyrepublicanselevatedprosperous,sustainableagricultureintocivicvirtue;farmersexperimentedwithnumerousconservationmeasures,liketerracing,or“horizontalplowing,”afavouriteofHenry’scontemporaryThomasJefferson(e.g.124-127).Suttertracksdowntheenduringappealofthesouthernpracticeof“shiftingcultivation”:awastefuluseoflandandbrutaleconomyofslavelabour,yes,butalsoastrategicresponsetoeconomicdownturnsandthefundamentallimitationsofsouthernsoils.Whatcanwelearnfromtheseexperimentsinconservation?Still,therearetwo,verybigproblemswithreimaginingaparkalongtheselines.Sutteraddressesoneofthem.ItturnsoutthatProvidenceCanyonisitselfkindofexceptional,theresultofsouthernagriculture’s“peculiarregionalpathologies”(177),certainly,butatopaverylocalizedcombinationofspecificgeologicallayersthatprovedparticularlyvulnerabletoerosion.Gullieshappenedin“areasprimedforsucherosion”(179).Whichmeansthatwearetalkingscalesofspaceandtime,natureandhistory.Sutter’svisionofthisisworthquotinginitsentirety:


ProvidenceCanyonStateParkoughttobemorethananironiccuriosity.Itshouldbeaplacetomeditateontheprofoundhistoryofhuman-inducedsoilerosionintheAmericanSouthanditsdiversecausesandeffectsacrossthelandscapegradientsofthatregion.Morethanthat,itneedstospeaktoallofthewaysinwhichhumanmotivationsanddecisionsshapedthathistory,bothwithinandbeyondtheSouth.Itoughttobeamonumenttothesettlersocietythatproduceditandtothemarketforcesthatdrovethosesettlers.ItoughttobeamemorialtothefarmingpracticesandstrategiesthatdepletedthesoilsoftheSouthandtothebrutalanddegradingsystemsofslaveryandtenancythatundeniablycontributedtosoilerosionacrosstheregion.ProvidenceCanyon...sitsinaregionwithnoshortageofenvironmentalsinstobewashedaway.Butitalsoneedstodomore.Itneedstocommunicatethatconservationcuresweresometimesasdestructiveasthemaladiestheyweredesignedtoalleviate.Itneedstoraisetoughquestionsaboutthemorallysatisfyinglinkageswehavedrawnbetweentheexploitationoflandandlabor.Anditneedstoembodytheextraregionalforcesthatmotivatedsouthernerstoworkthelandthewaythattheydid...(Emphasisadded)

Andevenafterthatenormouslistof“realmsofhumanagency,”headds,“thatisnotallitembodies”(157).HereIamtorn.Igreatlyadmirehisambitious,big-picturethinking.Iabsolutelylovetheideaofapark/historicsitehybridthatteachessuchconceptsofenvironmentalhistory.(Hey,I'mwritingawholebookaboutthis.)Wehavenothinglikethis,nothingthatapproachesthis.AndProvidenceCanyonmightbeagoodcandidateforanewgenreofpark.Insteadofrestylinganiconicsite,perhapsitwouldbeeasiertoreinventaforgottenone.Buthow?ThatsingleparagraphisathumbnailofSutter’sentirebook,anddoesn’tevenencompasshisfinalarguments.Wecanbegintountangletheseissuesoverseveralmonthsinseminarsinenvironmentalhistory,intheprotectedspaceofauniversityclassroom.Butpublichistorianshavestruggledfordecadeswithhowtocommunicatecomplex,sensitive,andunfoldingscholarship.Considerthelimitationsofaudience,ofaccess,ofmedia,ofresources.Thisisnottosuggestforamomentthatitcannotbedone,butitwillbedifficult.Iamgenuinelycurioustoknowhowhethinkssucharemodelingcouldtakeplace,inwhatform,andbywhom.TheNationalParkService,thestateofGeorgia,theASEH?Goodenvironmentalhistoryisaboutspecificplacescaughtinlargerpatterns;theorymadethree-dimensional.IhopeSutterwilltakeitasacomplimentthattowardstheendofthebookIfoundmyselfthinkingaboutplacesfarremovedfromsouthernsoils:theAtlanticshorelinesofCanada’sMaritimeprovinces.


First,IthoughtofthenorthshoreofPrinceEdwardIsland,calvingintotheGulfoftheSt.Lawrence,thefamousredsoilswashedbystormsurgesamidrisingsealevels.This,too,isaplacewithitstraditionstilledintofarmlandsandpastures.Andindeed,ParksCanadaonceproposedasecondnationalparkontheIsland:aculturallandscapeparkthatwouldconsistprimarilyoffarmscapes.Whileforahostofreasonsitneverhappened,thatquestion–howtopresentlandscapeashumanhabitat,howtodesignateandinterpretworkingnatures–continuestoeludeus.ButIreallyadmireSutter’smotivatingimpulse,andhissenseofhimselfrelativetotheregionofProvidenceCanyon.AfewmonthsagoIgaveatalkcriticizingCanada’stransprovincialdependenceonfossilfuels,butadmittedthatIfeltconflictedovermakingsuchcriticism.Afterall,Ihavecontributedto–andbenefittedfrom–thepetrostatewealthasmuchasmost.(IfeltthisagainwatchingthedevastatingwildfiresnearandthroughFortMcMurrayinthespringof2016.Thetarsandsareshort-sighted,asisasprawlingcityinaborealforest–butneitherInoranyoneinmyfamilyhaveeverhadtoworktherigstopayoffdebtsanditseemscrueltomakesuchcommentsfromthesafetyofmyoffice.)AsanenvironmentalhistorianIoftenstrugglewiththeethics(andefficacy)ofweighinginmoreforcibly,caughtbetweenanacademic’scaution(andperhapsaCanadianconservatism?)andtheknowledgethattheseissuesaretooimportantnottosaysomething.“But,”someoneintheaudienceasked,“isn’tthisyourintervention?”Inotherwords:isn’tthisyourjob?Despiteaself-deprecatingreferencetohisworkas“environmentalcarpetbagging”(xvii)–whichsurelyalmostallofus,inalmostallenvironmentalfields,doatsomepoint!–Suttershowsgreatempathytowardsouthernfarmerswhilestillstandingfirminjudgmentofracistanddestructivepractices.Histone–generallysympathetic,butnotromantic;scholarly,butnotdetached;historical,butnotdetermined–remindedmeabitofGraemeWynn’slongviewofAtlanticCanada:

thatwegottowherewearetodaynotaspawnsmovedacrossthecheckerboardofcenturiesbysomeinvisible,inevitableforceor“tendency,”notbecausewewere,collectively,atribeofthoughtlessecologicalhooligans,andnotbecausewedidnotcare,butbecausepeoplepersisted,actinginpursuitofcomplex,ever-shiftingindividualandcollectivehumanhopesrefractedthroughoft-rearrangedprismsofeconomic,legal,political,social,scientificandtechnologicalideasandstructures.Whatkeptourpredecessorsgoingthroughallofthiswas,atleastinpart,afaiththattheycouldacttosustaintheirfamiliesandcommunitiesandshapetheirfutures.…itencouragesunderstandingof,andsympathyfor,thestrugglesandfoiblesofothers,acceptanceofone’sownandother’sfailings,andafairdoseofhumilityaswecomparethecircumstancesinwhichearlierliveswerelivedwiththoseinwhichweenjoyourown.17

17GraemeWynn,“Epilogue:ReflectionsontheEnvironmentalHistoryofAtlanticCanada,”Landand


Suchwisdomseemsappropriateforsomanyofthelandscapesthatneedhealingaroundus.

Sea:EnvironmentalHistoryinAtlanticCanada,eds.ClaireCampbellandRobertSummerby-Murray(AcadiensisPress,2013)254-255.EdwardMacdonald’sessayinthesamecollection–“ALandscape...withFigures:TourismandEnvironmentonPrinceEdwardIsland”–discussesthefailedsecondparkinthecontextofIslandtourismandparkhistory.Ithankhimforthereference.


CommentsbyStevenStoll,FordhamUniversityetendtoseefarmsandfieldsasafixedorpermanentformoflanduseandhunter-gatherersaswanderingaround,neverstayinglonginoneplace.Butthisisanillusion.Theoppositeistrue.Huntersremaininthesameregionsforgenerations,evencenturies,shiftingonlyslightlywithinthem.

Colonialgambitsforterritory,stunningratesofreproduction,andtheformationandconsolidationofnation-statesagainstaboriginalclaimshavecontributedtoadiasporaoffamerssincetheseventeenthcentury.AsanthropologistHughBrodyputsitinTheOtherSideofEden,agriculture“dependsupon,andgivesriseto,themostpervasiveformofnomadism.Theurgetosettleandareadinesstomovearenotantagonistsinthesociologyofourera.”18Nothingrepresentsthisfranticmovementlikethedestructionoftheecologicalbase.Agriculturedepletesitsnecessarystoreofnutrients,andifthesearenotreplenished,farmersneedtoleave.Severeerosionisthemostspectacularformofthisdepletion,thedrainingawayoftheveryessenceofsubsistenceandthesocialorder.PaulSutter’sLetUsNowPraiseFamousGulliesgivesusanAmericanstoryofsevereerosionbyconsideringoneextraordinaryandvexinglandscape:ProvidenceCanyon,Georgia.Thenarrativemovesbeyondthestrangenessoftheplaceanditsoriginstocontemplatehowerosionenteredscienceandpolicyduringtheperiodwhenthecanyonformedandcametopublicattention.Sutterweaveshislargerhistoricalaccountthroughthestoryoftheplace,consistentlydepictingthecanyonasbothahumanartifactandarepresentativeofacertainenvironment,yetthisiswhatisvexingaboutthebook.AtplayistheapparentdialecticbetweenNatureandCulture,withProvidenceCanyonrepresentingbothtodifferentpeopleandatthesametime.Sutterisrighttodoawaywiththepasséironyoftheoddandbeautifultouristattractionthatowesitsexistencetoerosion.Butifthepointisthatwecannotpickthesetwocategoriesapart,thatnoplaceonEarthliesoutsideofeither,thentheyformafalsedialectic.Thenwhykeepwritingaboutthem?Icanonlybesuggestivehere.Thesubjecthasreceivedgreatattention,mostnotablyfromtheanthropologistBrunoLatour.InWeHaveNeverBeenModern,Latourarguesthatmodernitydependsonthepurityofthesecategories.Yetbyinsistingonthisdivision,fusionsorhybridscomposedoftheeffectsoftechnologyonvariousenvironmentsmultiply.Formostofhumanhistory,thesehybridsoccupiedacentralpositioninritualandreligion.Examplesincluderaingods,bisondances,thefifty-yearSabbaticalcycleoftheIsraelites,andspringfertilityrites.Acknowledgingtheunintendedconsequencesofhumansubsistencedidnotalwaysbringaboutrealpalliation,butitdidmakeexplicitthedegreetowhichhumanneedsandecologicalcyclescoulddisrupteachother.“Toundertakehybridization,”writesLatour,“itis18HughBrody,TheOtherSideofEden:Hunters,Farmers,andtheShapingoftheWorld(NewYork:NorthPointPress/FSG,2000),84.

W


alwaysnecessarytobelievethatithasnoseriousconsequencesfortheconstitutionalorder.”19Thepurityofcategoriesmightbeanillusion,buttheideologyofmodernismhasrealconsequences,likeclimatechange,speciesextinction,andgiantgullies.SuttermighthavespeculatedaboutProvidenceCanyonasjustsuchahybrid,bothinthecircumstancesofitscreationandinthethinkingabouttheenvironmentthatitspawned?Whenpromoterscalleditanaturalwonder,theyattemptedtoeraseitshumanhistory,furtheringtheillusion.Yetinalargersense,seeingthecanyonasahybridwouldhaveallowedSuttertomovepastthefalseduality.IdeologydoesnotfigureinSutter’sinterpretation,butitmighthavedeepenedhisnarrative.IhaveinmindtheconflictbetweenMiltonWhitneyandCyrilHopkins,twosoilscientistswhosedivergentviewsattheturnofthecenturyappeartohaveusedsoilasavehicleforotherideas.Whitney’sinexplicablecommitmenttoempiricallyflawednotionsofindefinitefertilityrevealsinarguablecommitmentsaboutthebenigneffectsofhumansonthelargerenvironment.Hedenied,explicitly,thatagriculturehadecologicalorsocialconsequences.AcriticalreadingofHopkins’snovel,TheStoryoftheSoil(1911),wouldhaveopenedthenarrativetoafull-blowntheoryofracialnationalism.Thisisaromanticnotiontraceabletonineteenth-centuryGermany.Themythof“bloodandsoil”createdanorganicpan-nationalismandlinkedittoaparticularterritory.TheNazisusedittojustifytheinvasionoftheSudentenland.Hopkinsbelievedthatareinvigoratedsouthernenvironmentwouldeliminateracialconflictbysecuringthewhitepoweroverthedangerousfreedomofblacks.InTheStoryoftheSoil(whichIdidnotreadthoroughlyforthisreview),theprotagonistPercyJohnsonparticipatesinanumberofviolentconflictswithAfricanAmericansinthemidstofdecayingplantations.Helearnsfromaformerplanterthatblacksbroughtupinslaveryweredocileandtrustworthy.Percythenacceptsthetaskofrestoringtheworn-outsoilsofaformerplantation,withallthescientificdetailfromhisownresearch.Theconnectionisobvious.Arestoredsoilwouldreinvigoratethecivilizingmissionofwhitelandowners.Theywouldshapeablackraceintheimageofwhitedomination,repudiatingforalltimethenorthernperversionofracialorderrepresentedbyReconstruction.ThenoveloffersafictionalandscientificantecedenttoI’llTakeMyStand:TheSouthandtheAgrarianTradition(1930),aseriesofessaysbytwelvesouthernwritersarguingthatareturnto(alargelyimagined)agriculturewouldrestoretheSouthtodignityandculturalinfluence.MypointissimplythatWhitneyandHopkinsusedsoilsciencetospinoutdistinctideologicalfantasies.WhataboutProvidenceCanyonitself?Asidefromtheoccasionitoffersforadiscussionofsoilscience,whatisit?ThestrengthofSutter’sbookisthatitliftsthe19BrunoLatour,WeHaveNeverBeenModern(Cambridge,Massachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress,1993),41.


canyonoutofitsantiquariancontext.Butthereaderalsogetsthesensethatthecanyonismoreaccidentthanartifact.Itseemstosaymoreaboutitsexceptionalgeologythanitdoesaboutagriculture.Clearly,thecountyinwhichthecanyonliesispoorlyadaptedtoplowing.Anyonewhoopenedupthegroundwouldhavecausedittogiveway.ThelorethatanIndiantrailsetoffachainreactionthatresultedinthisunparalleledgullymakesthispoint.ButSutterkeepsoureyeonthelargerpointthatwhatpeopleinthepastthoughtaboutProvidenceCanyonandtheroleitservedasmeditativeobjectforsoilscienceandpolicyisofgreaterimportancethanthegullyitself.Sutter’stitlebothersmealittle.AgeeandEvanscreatedastunningrebuketosocialscience.Theirbookattemptedaradicalsubjectivitythatalsofunctionedasfirst-rateethnography.LetUsNowPraiseFamousMenpromotespoetryoverstatistics,andwheresocialworkersvisitedsharecropperslookingforsignsofmalnutritionandthe“degeneracy”thatsupposedlycamefromruralisolation,AgeeandEvansfounddignityinlamplightandSundaydresses,astruggleagainstsociallyconstructedpoverty,andadesireforsomethingbetter.Sutter’stitleevokestheSouth,Isuppose,andperhapstheGreatDepression.Itsuggestspraiseforasomethingmisunderstood,thewaythatAgeepraisedun-famouspeople.Butitborrowstoomuch.ButIwanttobeclearaboutthemanystrengthsandmanyinsightsofLetUsNowPraiseFamousGullies.It’sabrightandlucidbookthatcollectsanimportantdebateontheenvironment.Ittracesatimeduringwhichsoilwasdiscoveredasascientificproblemandasocialcrisis,anditupholdsoneplaceinparticularasemblematicofthatdebate.Perhapsmostofall,itpresentsateachablemomentinlucidprose.ProvidenceCanyoncannotbeunderstoodasanattractionora“sickeningvoid”oraparticularsoilphase.Itisallofthem,aswellasashadowlandscapeofarecklessAmericanregardforland.


ResponsebyPaulSutter,UniversityofColorado,BoulderwanttobeginbythankingChristopherJones,theeditoroftheseH-EnvironmentRoundtables,forfeaturingLetUsNowPraiseFamousGullies,andthereviewerswhogavemybooksuchcarefulreadings,whoengagedwithitcreativelyandthrewintriguingquestionsmyway.Iwilltrytoaddresssomeoftheirquestions

andcritiques,thoughanappropriateresponsetotheircommentarieswouldinvolvewritingalongeressaythananyonewouldwanttoread.First,abriefhistoryoftheproject.IinitiallycameacrossProvidenceCanyonbyaccidentand,intriguedbytheplace,Idecidedtowriteanessayaboutitsironies.WhatIdiscoveredwhenIstarteddoinghistoricalresearchwasmoreinterestingthanIcouldhaveimagined:aplacethatalmostnoonehasheardoftodaywasallovertheplaceinthehistorical.IhaveneverhadamoresatisfyingresearchexperienceasIdidsearchingforhistoricaltracesofthisnowanonymousplace.NosmallpartofwhatIwantedtoaccomplishinLetUsNowPraiseFamousGullieswastobringthisoncefamousspectaclebackintoview,andtomuseonhowandwhywehaveforgottenit.IwasparticularlyfascinatedbytheNewDealimpulsetousetheProvidenceCanyonasavisualexemplarofalargerregionalstory,thoughIbecameconvinced,despitemysympathieswiththeNewDealers’criticalreadingofAmericanenvironmentalhistory,thattheiruseofProvidenceCanyonwasnotentirelyaccurate.AndsoIwroteaconferencepaperthateventuallyturnedintoanarticleintheJournalofSouthernHistory.20Theprojectmighthaveendedthere–andmaybeshouldhave–butfortheencouragementofseveralpeopletorenderthisstoryasashortbook,aprocessthatImistakenlythoughtIcouldaccomplishquicklyandeasily.Thebookversionalsosprangfrommydesiretohaveasayintherapidlydevelopingfieldofsouthernenvironmentalhistory.DuringmorethanadecadeattheUniversityofVirginiaandUniversityofGeorgia,Idabbledinsouthernenvironmenthistory–editingabookseriesandco-editingareaderonthesubject,workingwithsuperbgraduatestudentsinsouthernenvironmentalhistory,andcollaboratingonanenvironmentalmemoironlongleafpinemanagement–butIfelttheneedtowritemyownmanifestoandthoughtProvidenceCanyoncouldbeartheweightofthatlargeragenda.LetUsNowPraiseFamousGullieswasthusbornasanodetoaregionwhosefascinatingenvironmentalhistoryhijackedmyresearchlife.Iinitiallythoughtthatthebookwouldjustbeaninflatedversionofthearticle,butthat’snotthewayitturnedout,atleastnotentirely.Muchofthebookremainstruetothearticleandcomesasanexpandeddiscussionofthethemesexploredtherein–particularlythesectionsthatexaminethe1930scontestoverProvidenceCanyonandwhetheritwasanaturalwonderorsouthernblunder(PartII),andmyownparticularinterpretationofhowweoughttointerpretthisplacetodayinitslargersoutherncontext(PartIII).Buttwoothersections,whichthereviewersseemtohavedisproportionatelyfocusedon,werenewtothebook:PartI,whichlooksat20PaulS.Sutter,“WhatGulliesMean:Georgia’s‘LittleGrandCanyon’andSouthernEnvironmentalHistory,”JournalofSouthernHistory76,3(August2010):579-616.

I


howdevelopmentsingeologyandsoilsciencehelpedtomakeProvidenceCanyonameaningfulplacebythe1930s,andthesubstantialEpilogue,alongmeditationonProvidenceCanyon’smeaningasasouthernlandscapeofconservation.Ihadnotexpectedtospendsomuchtimewritingaboutsoilscienceandscientists,butthestorygrabbedme(againstallodds)andIfelttheneedtotellit,thoughforthespecificpurposeofexplaininghowandwhyProvidenceCanyoncametomeanwhatitdidwhenitdid.AndwhileIknewIwantedtoendwithameditationonsoilerosionandlandscapesofconservation,thatpartofthebookalsotookonalifeofitsown.Theresultisabookthatisindulgentlyperipatetic.Thereviewershave,Ithink,reactedtothatapproach,bothinitsstrengthsanditsweaknesses.Twoofthereviewers,JayTurnerandClaireCampbell,havefocusedheavilyonLetUsNowPraiseFamousGulliesasaparkandconservationhistory,andIampleasedthatthebookmadebothofthemthinkaboutanalogousplaces:inJay’scase,Lignite,Virginia,aformercenteroftheearlyAmericanironindustrynowensconcedwithintheGeorgeWashingtonNationalForest,andinClaire’scasetheAtlanticshorelinesofMaritimeCanada.Iabsolutelydotakethatasacompliment.Theirchoicestofocusontheparksandconservationaspectsofmybookarenotsurprising,asbothhavemadetheirscholarlyreputationsashistoriansofNorthAmericanparksandwildernesssystems.BothpointusefullytoplaceswhereImighthavesaidmoreaboutwhatIwastryingtodowithProvidenceCanyon.Jay’sreviewraisesaseriesofquestionsthatIcannotdojusticetoinashortresponse,excepttosaythattheyareallimportant,Iamgladthebookraisedthesequestionsforhim,andIwillneedtothinkaboutsomeofthemmoredeeply.Toagreatextent,myinvocationof“theecologyoferasure”wasmeanttobespecifictotheformertobaccoandcottonSouth,wherethepostwarreturnoftheforesthasbeencomplexandmultivalent,andwherereforestationofteninvolvedreplacingoneformofplantationproductionwithanother.CertainlyplacessuchNewEngland,theNortheastmorebroadly,andtheupperMidwesthavesimilarhistoriesofreforestationandthoseprocessestoohaveslowlyoverwrittenpasthistoriesofhumanlanduse.ButintheAmericanSouththerewasaparticularkindofforgettinggoingonasithasrelatedtothereturnofforeststotheregion.AlthoughthepracticedeyecertainlycanfindallsortsofevidenceofpasterosionintheformerplantationSouth,andIhopemybookwillencouragesouthernersandvisitorstotheregiontotraintheireyesonthelandscapeforsuchsigns,Ialsosensedthattheenvironmentalhistoryofplantationagriculture,andparticularlyitseffectsonsouthernsoils,hasbeenneglectedinpartbecauseofhowthelandscapelevelchangestotheregionafterWorldWarIIobscuredtheevidence.Asimportantly,Iwantedtouse“theecologyoferasure”topointtothewaysinwhichmundaneconservationareastodaynotonlyobscurethehistoriesofpastlandusebutalsoofinnovativeconservationinterventionswithfascinatingsocialcomponents.Inaregionwherethereturnoftheforesthasonlysometimescomeasrestorationorrewilding,Iwaslookingforaconceptthatofferedabitmoreofaneutralstanceonecologicalchangesthatothershavetoofacilelycelebratedasthe“greeningoftheSouth.”Finally,theareasIgestureatwerenotmerelyconservationareasthathad


historiesofhumanlandusewithinthem;morethanthat,asJayrecognizes,theseconservationareascorrespondedwithsomeoftheplaceswherethelandwasmostabused.Or,inacaseliketheAlcovyConservationCenter’sgumswamp,theywereplaceswhoseconsiderableecologicalvirtueswerepartlyartifactsofpasterosion.So,inthatsense,Idoseesomedifferencesbetween,say,thestonewallsthatwindtheirwaythroughsomanynow-matureNewEnglandforests,andthedeeplygulliedsouthernfieldsthathavegrownupinold-fieldpines.Idonotwanttooverstatethosedifferences,butcertainlymysenseofthe“ecologyoferasure”wasborninthespecificsofthissoutherncontextoftheforest’sreturntoformerplantationregions.Havingsaidthat,though,IamgladthatJayraisedtheworkofpeoplesuchasMarcusHallandJimFeldman,andconceptssuchasrestorationandrewilding.Hecouldhavealsomentioned,andImighthavedonemoretocite,workbyscholarssuchasEllenStroud,SaraGregg,DavidFoster,orthemanyotherswhohavefocusedtoonedegreeofanotheronsimilarprocessesofforestregenerationinplaceswherehumanagricultureandotherlandusesoncereigned.21IshareJimFeldman’sbeliefthatrecognizingandhonoringthehistoricaldimensionsofconservationlandscapesaddstotherichnessoftheirenvironmentalprotection.Indeed,Imightpushthatinsightonestepfurthertosuggestthatthechallengeofpreservingbothlandscapesofregenerationandthehistoricalartifactswithinthemisbestconceptualizednotasacompetitionbetweennaturalandhistoricpreservation,butasparallelformsofhistoricpreservation.Everyinchofthisearthistheproductofhistoricalchangeovertime,andthereisnonaturethatexistsoutsideofhistory.Ifmybookhasanyoverarchingconservationintervention,itisthatweshouldthinkbeyondnotionsofpre-historicalnature,recognizethatwheneverweinterveneinlandscapestoprotectthemwearemakinghistoricalchoices,andevenuseapparentlynaturalareas–ordecidedlyunnaturalbutnonethelessconventionallypark-likeareas–toteachhistoricallessons.ThatlastpointleadsmetoJay’sfinalchallenge:tothinkthroughmyquickend-of-bookreferencetohowProvidenceCanyonand“theecologyoferasure”mighthelpustonavigatea“newageofconservation.”Jaypointstothetensionthatremainsbetweenhistoricpreservationandtheecologicalprocessesthatthreatenit.Morespecifically,heaskswhetherIseethechallengeprimarilyasoneofinterpretation–ofkeepingpastlandusesandtheirimpactsatthecenterofinterpretationsevenasenvironmentalprocesseserasetheirpresenceinthelandscape–orwhetherIhave

21JamesFeldman;AStoriedWilderness:RewildingtheApostleIslands(Seattle:UniversityofWashingtonPress,2011);WilliamCronon,“TheRiddleoftheApostleIslands,”Orion(May/June2013);MarcusHall,EarthRepair:ATransatlanticHistoryofEnvironmentalRestoration(Charlottesville:UniversityofVirginiaPress,2005);SaraGregg,ManagingtheMountains:LandUsePlanning,theNewDeal,andtheCreationofaFederalLandscapeinAppalachia(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2010);andEllenStroud,NatureNextDoor:CitiesandTreesintheAmericanNortheast(Seattle:UniversityofWashingtonPress,2012);DavidFoster,NewEnglandForeststhroughTime:InsightsfromtheHarvardForestDioramas.IamalsoabigfanofTomWessels’work,andparticularlyReadingtheForestedLandscape:ANaturalHistoryofNewEngland(Woodstock,Vt.:Countryman’sPress,1997).


somethingmoremanagerialinmind.Toanswernarrowly,IofferProvidenceCanyonasanewkindofparkthatislessaboutsettingasideanaturalareathanpreservingandinterpretingaspectacularartifactofhuman-environmentalinteraction.Here,thechallengeisprimarilyinterpretive,andPartIIofthebookismyefforttooffersuchaninterpretation.ButIcouldalsoseeProvidenceCanyonbeingactivelymanaged,gardenedeven,tocontaintheecologyoferasureandkeepthespectacleoferosionfrontandcenter.ButProvidenceCanyonisaspecifickindofparkinmyimagining,andapproachestobothinterpretationandmanagementwouldlikelyvaryacrossthespectrumofconservationdesignationsandareas.SomewherelikeFeldman’sApostleIslands,whererewildingisatthecoreofwhytheareahasbecomeavaluableconservationareainthefirstplaceandwherewildernessdesignationdefinesthetensionbetweennaturalandhistoricpreservationinspecificways,mightbemanagedquitedifferentlyfrom,say,aCivilWarbattlefield,wherehistoryistheprimarypreservationpurposebutwherenaturalprocessesmuststillbeconfronted.Ithinktherearewaysofhonoringandincorporatinghistoryintohowweinterpretallofourlandscapesofconservation,butthereisnooneformulafordoingso.ProvidenceCanyonisanextremeexampleonaspectrumofsuchsites,morelikeaCivilWarbattlefieldthantheApostleIslands,andIdonotwanttoimposeasingleformulaonhowwewouldinterpretorconservesuchplaces.Inasense,Iamcontenttooffer“powerfulandhelpfulmeditationsonsuchquestions,moresothanspecificprescriptions,”touseJay’swords.MostlyIwantedtopressbeyondtheimportantrevisionistargumentthatpreservedareasthatwelongthoughtofas“islandsofwilderness”areinfact“theworkofhumanhands”(toquoteClaire),andtopointoutthat,ifwemovebeyondthisironiesofanaturebeforehistory,wemightdomoretoprotectpartsofthelandscapeasparksthatprovideuswithpotentenvironmentalhistorylessons,evenasweareprotectingtheimportantnon-humanqualitiesoftheseplacesaswell.ClaireCampbellbeginsherreviewonthisverypoint,andappropriatelyso.ClairethenasksaquestionthatIwishIhadaskedinherway:“Canweacceptsuchsecond-generationparksaspartofahumanhistorywithnature–whichmayincludearebukeofourunsustainable,exploitativepractices–ratherthanescapesintoanaturesomehowprotectedfromus?”Iftheanswerisyes,thequestionbecomes,whereshouldwemakethesesecond-generationparks,andwhatwillbeourcriteriaforsettingasidesuchplaces?Claire’snextquestionisequallyimportant–howdowegetthepublictoappreciate,andevenparticipatein,“thecomplex,multiscalarnarrativesofenvironmentalhistory”thattheinterpretationofsuchplacesrequire?Inasense,ClairetakesJay’sconservationquestionsandreframesthemasaproblemofeffectivepublichistory.IamnotsureIhavegreatanswers,exceptperhapstotrytoexposethepublictoreallywhackyplaceslikeProvidenceCanyonandthenseeifwecanconvertshockvalueandsuperficialironyintosubtlerenvironmentalhistoryappreciation.Claireraisedtwootherpointsthatstruckchordswithme.Thefirstwasherquestionaboutwhatitmeanstocelebrateandprotectone-of-a-kindspectaclesbutnotthemoremundane,prevalent,andhistoricallyinfluentiallandscapes.Myentireanalysis


ofProvidenceCanyonpivotsonavariationofthatquestion,andyetevenasItrytopullthemoretypicalandprevalentintomyinterpretationofProvidenceCanyonasaplaceofanthropogenicerosion,myargumentformakingitanewkindofparkstillfallsbackonitsspectacularnature.Itssuigenerisqualitiesarestillmyhook.ClairealsopointsoutthatbothParksCanadaandtheU.S.NationalParkService“addresshumanhistoryinnationalparks,”animportantpointandoneworthemphasizing.Morethanthat,andinthemidstofthecentennialcelebrationoftheU.S.NationalParkService(whichcomesafullfiveyearsafterParksCanadacelebrateditscentennial),Ihavebeenincreasinglyimpressed(ashavemanyothercommentators)byafactabouttheParkServicethathasbeenhidinginplainsite:themajority,perhapsthevastmajority,ofthesitesthatitprotectsandinterpretsarehistoricalsites.Thenaturalwondersmaystillbethe“lodestones,”asStephenMathercalledthemacenturyago,butthehistoricsitesaremorenumerousandincreasinglyimportant,andtheymaketheNationalParkServicearguablythemostimportantpublichistoryorganizationintheUnitedStates–eveniftheNPSisstilldoingalotofthatpublichistoryonashoestring.OnceweseetheNationalParkServiceasfundamentallysteepedinhistory,perhapswemighttakeabitmorehopeintothepublichistoryproblemthatClairesensiblyraises.22Theothertworeviewersspendlesstimeonmyculminatingmeditationsonconservationandmoreonthesoilsciencedimensionsofthebook.IwasparticularlyhappythatStevenStollwasoneofthereviewers,ashisLardingtheLeanEarthwasaninspiration.Anyonewhohasreadhisbookandthenminewillrecognizethat,intheplaceswherewecoverthesameterritory,Ihavemostlyfollowedapaththathehelpedtoblaze.ButwhileIappreciatedhisconcludingcompliments,Ifoundhismajorthoughtsandcritiqueshardertomakesenseof.Hisfirstsuggestion,followinganiceexplicationofLatourianhybridity,isthatImighthavetreatedProvidenceCanyonasjustsuchahybrid.IthoughtthatwaswhatIwasdoing,ifnotquiteinafullyLatouriansense.Certainlythatwasmyintent,soIwonderwhetherStevemisreadwhatIwastryingtoaccomplish.OrperhapsIhavemisreadhiscritiquehere?Steve’ssecondmajorpointisthatideologydoesnotfigureinmyinterpretation.Iamnotsurethatisright,thoughcertainlymyanalysisisnotideologicallydriven.Stevechoosesanarrowexampletomakethatpoint–adebatebetweenMiltonWhitneyandCyrilHopkinsoversoilfertilityasitplayedoutinthewritingsofeach.Idonotdisagreewiththequickreadinghegivesoftheideologicaldimensionsofthisdebate,thoughheseemsquickertojumptosweepingideologicalconclusionsthanIwouldhavebeen.Idonotdisagreethat“WhitneyandHopkinsusedsoilsciencetospinoutdistinctideologicalfantasies,”but,atthatpointinmyanalysis,Iwaslessinterestedinthosefantasies(orthevarietiesofotherfantasiesthatothersoilscientistsandsoilconservationistsspunout)thaninthequestionsofsoilsciencethatrelatedtomyargumentabouttheriseofsoilconservation.Laterin

22DeniseMeringolo’srecentbookhelpedmetoappreciatethis.SeeherMuseums,Monuments,andNationalParks:TowardaNewGenealogyofPublicHistory(Amherst:UniversityofMassachusettsPress,2012).TheOrganizationofAmericanHistorianshasalsoproducedanimportant,andlesshopeful,recentreport,ImperiledPromise:TheStateofHistoryintheNationalParkService(2011).


thebook,though,IdomakeclearthatweneedtoseetheerosionthatProvidenceCanyoncametorepresentasatleastinparttheresultofbothracistandcapitalistideologies.Ifthisbookhasanyquietheroes,theymaywellbeArthurRaper,anagrarianreformerwhoseideologicalinterpretationof“GulliesandWhatTheyMean”wascentraltomyown,andThomasJeffersonFlanagan,theAfricanAmericanpoetwhoofferedareadingofProvidenceCanyonthatwasatonceconventionalandtransgressive.23Stevemaybeonsurergroundwhenhecritiquesmefor,inasense,ignoringProvidenceCanyonitself.IamnotsureIwouldagreewiththelanguageheuseshere.Forinstance,Idecidedlywouldnotcharacterizethecanyonas“moreaccidentthanartifact.”ButasIzoominonthecanyonitselfanditsspecificcauses,IamdecidedlytryingtocomplicatenarrativesthatparticularlandusepracticesandideologiesaresufficienttoexplainProvidenceCanyon,eventhoughIabsolutelyseetheseforcesascentraltoexplainingwhatcausedProvidenceCanyon.ButSteveisrightthatIcouldhavedonemoretoworkupadetailedportraitoflocalagricultureandsaidmoreaboutthesocial,ratherthantheenvironmental,forcesthatmadethegullyitself.Butagain,atthatpointinthebook,mymajorpointwasnottoexplainthathumanscausedthegully,whichtheyclearlydid.Itwas,rather,toexplainthatifwearetomakesenseofwhyProvidenceCanyonwassuchanextremeexampleofhuman-inducedgullyingintheSouth,thespecificenvironmentaldimensionsareperhapsmoreimportantthanthelargersocialandculturaldimensions.Thatdoesnotmeanthatitwasanaccident,butitdoesmeanthatitwasnotmerelyanartifactofhumanlandusepracticesandpoliticaleconomies.Intheend,thegullyitselffunctionsinaparticularwayinmynarrative,asacountertothosewhowould,notunderstandingitsspecifichistory,useittoadvanceparticularideologicalcritiques.PerhapsthatiswhySteveseesmeasbothneglectingideologyandthegullyitself.Thenthereismytitle.IshareConeveryBoltonValencius’sconcernthatmytitlemaybetooopaqueandnotasufficientadvertisementforthebookinitsfullscope,thoughIstruggledtofindonethatwasabletodothatwork.AndtherearecertainlywaysinwhichwhatIamdoinghereandwhatEvansandAgeedidintheirworkdonotmatchup.Inre-readingmyownjustificationforthetitle,IrealizeImayhavebeentooapologeticabouthowmyintentionsweredifferentfromthoseofAgeeandEvans,feelingshyaboutappearingtoclaimformyprojectanythingapproachingwhattheyachieved.ButIthoughtIwasprettyclearthattherewereseveralreasonsforchoosingthistitle.First,Iwantedtoplaywiththetensioninherentinthetitlebetweenfameandanonymity,partlytoinvokethelessonthatthereismuchtobelearnedbyfocusingonthebiglessonsthatemergefromsmallanonymousplacesandpartlytoinvokemyclaimthatProvidenceCanyononcehadbeenafamousgullyandthatitdeservedtobesuchagain.Second,IwantedtoinvokeEvans’andAgee’ssearingcritiquenotjustofsocialsciencebut,moreimportantly,ofdocumentaryjournalismandthewaysinwhichthatgenremadeportraitsoftheparticularstandforthegeneralanduniversal.Justasportrayingthem,inwordsandimages,as23ArthurRaper,“GulliesandWhatTheyMean,”SocialForces16(1937):201-207.


exemplarsofruralpovertydidviolencetothethreefamiliesinHaleCounty,AlabamathatAgeeandEvansfocusedtheirbookon,soitseemedtomedishonesttouseaplacesuchasProvidenceCanyon,withitsveryparticularnaturalandhumanhistory,totextuallyandvisuallyrepresentalargerandveryrealenvironmentalproblem.CertainlymybookisnotastudyinradicalsubjectivityofthesortthatAgeeengagedin,butitisanattempttotreatthelocalandtheparticularwithdignityandcare.ThatexplanationmaynotsatisfySteve,orothers,butit’sthebestIhavegot.ConeveryBoltonValencius’scommentswerecharacteristicallysmart,enthusiastic,andcurious,andtheywerewelcomepreciselybecause–asherreviewmakesclear–shetooisanenthusiastforstrangeandlostlandscapes.IparticularlyappreciatehersensethatIhaveatleastpartiallyovercomethechallengesofwritingaboutsuchadrysubjectassoils.Oneofthebanesoflivingwiththisprojecthasbeentryingtoquicklydescribeittofriendsandcolleaguesandevenstrangers.Pictureglazedeyes.Coneveryfocusesonthecentralityofsoilsciencetomystory,bothinhowIdiscussthehistoryofsoilscienceanditsrelationtosoilconservationandtheninhowIuseittospinoutmyowninterpretationofProvidenceCanyonasasouthernlandscapeoferosion.OneofhermostimportantquestionsiswhyIdidnotself-consciouslyengagewiththehistoryofscienceandwhatthebookmighthavelookedlikeifIdid.AsIalreadymentioned,myforayintosoilsciencewasunexpected,aclassiccaseofthinkingyouwouldwriteaparagraphortwoaboutatopicandthenfindingitthreateningtotakeoverthewholeproject.Ihadtoconstantlyreininthatsection,inpartbecauseIcouldnottellwhetheritwouldbeinterestingormerelydigressiveandinpartbecauseIdidnotwanttostraytoofarintoahistoryofsciencethatwouldhavemoveoffmyparticularfocus.Fromahistoryofsciencestandpoint,IthinkthereareseveralimportantaspectsaboutmydiscussioninPartIthatIprobablycouldhavedonemorewith.First,thereisthecuriouscaseofMiltonWhitney,acriticalinstitutionbuilderinthefieldofU.S.soilsciencewhoseideasaboutsoilfertilityandexhaustionwerewrong.IneverquitefiguredouthowWhitneymanagedtomaintaincontrolofthefederalsoilsbureaucracyformorethanthreedecades,orevenfullyfathomedthescientificreasoningbehindhismisapprehension(riddlesthatagoodhistorianofsciencewouldhavepursuedmoredoggedly),buthereissurelyafascinatingcaseoftheinterrelationshipbetweenscientificideasandideology,scientificpractices,andinstitutionbuilding.Second,IdidbecomefascinatedwiththeU.S.SoilSurveyasaformoffieldscience,andwhileit’snotatopictowhichIcoulddojustice,Idohopeotherhistoriansofsciencesomedaywill.Third,thehistoryoftheriseofAmericansoilconservation,whichhastoooftenbeenoverdeterminedbytheDustBowl,isincomprehensiblewithoutcarefullyattendingtoearlyAmericansoilscience.Modernerosionconsciousnessemergedasaproblemofsoilclassification;theidealofpermanentagriculture,sooftenascribedtoNewDealreformersandthatwaslaterreinventedasorganicagriculture,emergedoutofdebatesamongsoilscientistsoversoilfertility;andIamconvinced,thoughIamnotsureIhavequiteproven,thatHughHammondBennett’semergenceasamajornationalfigureinthesoilconservationmovementinthelate1920shadalottodowithMiltonWhitney’sdeathandthedownfalloftheWhitneyorthodoxy.Moreover,thesceniccaseforProvidenceCanyonwasitselfabyproductofhow


geologyandsoilsciencediverged.Intheend,though,Idealtwiththehistoryofsoilscienceinthisfirstsectionmostlytoexplainhowandwhyamoderndiscourseonsoilerosionandtheneedforsoilconservationemergedwhenitdid,howandwhyotherscametoseeProvidenceCanyonasscenic,andhowthesedevelopmentsinturnhelpedmakeProvidenceCanyonabrieflyfamousplace.Thatwasmypurpose.BecauseIwantedtokeepthebookshort(evenshorterthanitturnedouttobe)andfocused,Ihadtoresistafullerengagementwiththeseandotherhistoryofsciencepoints,whichcertainlyoccurredtomebutwhichwouldhavemadethisamuchbiggerbook.AnotherthingworthsayingaboutmytreatmentofthehistoryofsoilscienceisthatIpivotawayfromitatakeymomentinitsdevelopment.IresistedsayingmuchabouttheAmericansoilscientistCurtisMarbut,orthegrowinginfluenceofRussiansoilscience,ortheimportanttransformationsinsoilscienceandclassificationacrosstherestofthecentury.IamacutelyawarethatImerelydippedmytoesinamuchdeeperpoolhere.Finally,andtobeperfectlyhonest,doingjusticetothehistoryofAmericansoilsciencewouldhaverequiredalotmorearchivalresearch.Somylighttouchwasdecidedlyintentionalandhard-won,andwhileIabsolutelyagreethatahistoryofscience-focusedanalysiswouldbeworthwhile,Icanonlyhopemybookinspiresotherstopursueit.ConeveryalsoasksmetosayawordaboutmyresorttocurrentscienceinmyinterpretationofsoilsandlargerenvironmentalforcesinPartIII,whichIamgladshefoundsatisfying.IdonotgivemyuseofcontemporarysciencetherethekindofcriticalanalysisthatIgivetotheearlyhistoryofsoilscienceinPartI.Rather,inafairlytypicalenvironmentalhistoriankindofway,Iutilizetheinsightsofsoilscientiststotrytoreconceptualizesomeofourunderstandingsofthereceivedwisdomontherelationshipbetweensoilsandsouthernagriculturalhistory(workalreadydonetoadegreebyotherscholars).Icertainlycouldhaveproblematizedsuchanapproachtocontemporaryscience,somethingIhavedonemoreexplicitlyinotherwriting,butfornarrativepurposesIchosetoavoiddoingso.24WhatIdiddowastoreadselectivelyinthesoilscienceliterature,and,asimportantly,totalkwithsoilscientistsandhydrologistsabouthowImightapplysciencetohistoricalexplanation.Butinmakingacasethatweneedtopayattentiontosoilsthemselves,Imighthavedonemoretomakeitclearthatdoingsoalsorequirespayingattentiontothepeoplethatpayattentiontosoils.AfewotherquickthoughtsonConevery’sgenerousreview.Shegivesmesomecreditforengagingwiththehistoryofmedicine,whichmightbeabittoogenerous.Myanalysiscertainlydoesintersectwiththehistoryofmedicineacoupleoftimes,andperhapsmostintriguinglyinspeculationthattherewasarelationshipbetweenuplanderosion,lowlandswamping,andmalariaintheSouth–thatsoilerosion,inotherwords,mighthavemadesouthernerssick.Butthat’sreallyjustaparagraph,notenoughtoengageallbutthemostadventuresomehistoriansofmedicine.

24Seemyarticle,“Nature’sAgentsorAgentsofEmpire?EntomologicalWorkersandEnvironmentalChangeduringtheConstructionofthePanamaCanal,”Isis98(December2007):724-754.


Coneveryalsoasksmetomeditateonthemeta-historyoflostandovergrownlandscapes,andhowhistoryisshapedbywhichlandscapesgetovergrown.It’sagreatquestionthatI’mgoingtoleavehanging,sincethisresponseisgettinglong.ButherrecentbookontheNewMadridearthquakesisawonderfulcasestudyofwhatistobelearnedfromattendingtosuchplaces.Finally,Conevery’sprimarycritiquehastodowithmyuseofironyasaframingdevice.WhileIcancertainlyseeheradmittedlycrankypoint,Iwouldonlycounterthat,inthecaseofProvidenceCanyon,mostpeoplehavehadahardtimegettingpasttheironyoftheplace,andthatthatisitselfindicativeofcontinuingpatternsofthought,ifnotamongenvironmentalhistoriansthencertainlyamongapublicinterestedinenvironmentalissues.Steveasked,whykeepwritingaboutthefalsenature-culturedialecticthatundergirdsthisirony?Thesimpleanswer,itseemstome,isthatitremainsincrediblypotentinthemindsofmany,andthatProvidenceCanyonofferedanoff-kilterwayofexposingitslimitationswithoutresortingtoatoo-facilenotionofhybridity.Letmefinishbythankingthereviewersagain.Thegreatvirtuesofthisformatarethatitencouragesprobingandcreativequestioningratherthanblandsummaryandcritique,andthatitallowsauthorandreviewerstoengageinmeaningfulconversation.Ihopethatthisisjustthebeginningofmanyconversations,withthesereviewersandwithothers,abouttheissuesraisedbyLetUsNowPraiseFamousGullies.Wecannothopeformuchmorefromourbooksthanthattheystartconversations.


AbouttheContributorsClaireCampbellisanassociateprofessorinHistoryatBucknellUniversity.RecentworkincludeseditingACenturyofParksCanada,1911-2011andLandandSea:EnvironmentalHistoryinAtlanticCanada.Sheisnowcompletinganewmanuscript,titledWhatOnceWereYou?HistoricLandscapesinCanada,thatarguesforenvironmentalhistoryathistoricsites.ChristopherF.Jones,AssistantProfessorintheSchoolofHistorical,Philosophical,andReligiousStudies,studiesthehistoriesofenergy,environment,andtechnology.HeistheauthorofRoutesofPower:EnergyandModernAmerica(Harvard,2014)andiscurrentlyworkingonaprojectexaminingtherelationshipsbetweeneconomictheoriesofgrowthandthedepletionofnon-renewablenaturalresources.StevenStollisProfessorofHistoryatFordhamUniversity.HeisfinishingamanuscriptonagrarianeconomyandcapitalisminAppalachia.PaulSutterisaProfessorofHistoryattheUniversityofColorado,BoulderandtheserieseditorofWeyerhaeuserEnvironmentalBooks,publishedbytheUniversityofWashingtonPress.HeiscurrentlyafellowattheRachelCarsonCenterforEnvironment&SocietyinMunich.JayTurnerisanassociateprofessorintheenvironmentalstudiesprogramatWellesleyCollege.HeistheauthorofThePromiseofWilderness:AmericanEnvironmentalPoliticssince1964(UniversityofWashingtonPress,2012).Heiscurrentlyatworkonabookontheenvironmentalhistoryoflead-acidbatteries,energy,andthefutureofsustainability.ConeveryBoltonValenciusisProfessorofHistoryatBostonCollegeandtheauthoroftwobooks:TheHealthoftheCountry:HowAmericanSettlersUnderstoodThemselvesandTheirLand(BasicBooks,2002),andTheLostHistoryoftheNewMadridEarthquakes(UniversityofChicagoPress,2013).Hercurrentprojectisahistoryoffrackingandinducedearthquakes.Copyright©2016H-Net:HumanitiesandSocialSciencesOnlineH-Netpermitstheredistributionandreprintingofthisworkfornonprofit,educationalpurposes,withfullandaccurateattributiontotheauthor,weblocation,dateofpublication,H-Environment,andH-Net:Humanities&SocialSciencesOnline.

h-environment roundtable reviews - h-net | h-net · h-environment roundtable reviews, vol. 6, no. 7...

Documents