What do you think?
Rate this book
Down to Earth: Nature's Role in American History
In this ambitious and provocative text, environmental historian Ted Steinberg offers a sweeping history of our nation--a history that, for the first time, places the environment at the very center of our story. Written with exceptional clarity, Down to Earth re-envisions the story of America
"from the ground up." It reveals how focusing on plants, animals, climate, and other ecological factors can radically change the way that we think about the past. Examining such familiar topics as colonization, the industrial revolution, slavery, the Civil War, and the emergence of modern-day
consumer culture, Steinberg recounts how the natural world influenced the course of human history. From the colonists' attempts to impose order on the land to modern efforts to sell the wilderness as a consumer good, the author reminds readers that many critical episodes in our history were, in
fact, environmental events. He highlights the ways in which we have attempted to reshape and control nature, from Thomas Jefferson's surveying plan, which divided the national landscape into a grid, to the transformation of animals, crops, and even water into commodities. The text is ideal for
courses in environmental history, environmental studies, urban studies, economic history, and American history.
Passionately argued and thought-provoking, Down to Earth retells our nation's history with nature in the foreground--a perspective that will challenge our view of everything from Jamestown to Disney World.
"from the ground up." It reveals how focusing on plants, animals, climate, and other ecological factors can radically change the way that we think about the past. Examining such familiar topics as colonization, the industrial revolution, slavery, the Civil War, and the emergence of modern-day
consumer culture, Steinberg recounts how the natural world influenced the course of human history. From the colonists' attempts to impose order on the land to modern efforts to sell the wilderness as a consumer good, the author reminds readers that many critical episodes in our history were, in
fact, environmental events. He highlights the ways in which we have attempted to reshape and control nature, from Thomas Jefferson's surveying plan, which divided the national landscape into a grid, to the transformation of animals, crops, and even water into commodities. The text is ideal for
courses in environmental history, environmental studies, urban studies, economic history, and American history.
Passionately argued and thought-provoking, Down to Earth retells our nation's history with nature in the foreground--a perspective that will challenge our view of everything from Jamestown to Disney World.
368 pages, Paperback
First published May 9, 2002
45 people are currently reading
934 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews
October 27, 2020
Steinberg's angle of insight shows a fascinating underbelly of well-known historic events, be they government land sales, mill dams, gold rushes, fence enclosure laws, cattle booms, dust bowls, suburban sprawl, or sewage treatment plants. We get a clear overview on the march of privatization for rivers, Native lands, and national forests, or of public subsidies for farming, ranching, and forestry industries. The mistakes of the past, like systematically turning almost all organic wastes from fertilizer into garbage, are explained so practically that their reversibility seems equally doable. It's a book that provides a realistic grasp of what America's most basic issues are, and of what's most important for it's future.
January 8, 2016
I cannot recommend this book enough. I have never considered the role of nature in the history of the US before, probably because it was never part of any history course. This is a must-read. It will change the way you think about our history, about the way that "privatization" and economic interest has impacted nearly every aspect of the way we live, the ideas about the conservation movement, etc., etc. It takes a while to get through the book but be patient and keep reading. IMHO, every high school history class should read this book.
April 12, 2018
I read this book for my History of the Environment course, and I truly enjoyed it. It is accessible and easy to read, it is well-researched and, most importantly, it's interesting! This book was eye-opening and definitely worth the read!
November 11, 2015
I'd like to start out by saying that this isn't usually the type of book I read. This book was required for my American Environmental History class. With that said, I truly enjoyed this book. It took all of the information it wanted to convey and turned it into stories that were easy to read and humorous at times. I am not ashamed to say that this was the only textbook I read all semester. Steinberg really draws focus to environmental problems in the U.S., not only in the past, but problem that still plague us today. From logging to pesticides to leaded fuel the book covers a wide variety of topics and presents them in new ways with new solutions.
August 31, 2020
Steinberg's work is sweeping in its scope, from pre-Columbian North America to the early 21st century, ever focused on the history of man's interaction with nature in the geographic area that makes up the United States. This unusual, but extremely relevant approach is generally used to add to the traditional view of anthropocentric history, rather than focusing purely on nature, or even nature as the central factor in human history in the United States. That is a strength for traditional historians, but a weakness in recognizing the full importance of the planet's biosphere in supporting human societies and non-human life as well.
Ideally, a non-anthropocentric history would stake out the natural world as the basis for North American history. This would include all living and non-living things as central to the story, and thus de-emphasize humanity as "the point." While it's certainly true that humankind has had the greatest influence on nature, particularly since industrialization, Steinberg's overemphasis on human society downplays the importance of the biosphere's sustainability — its essential ability to nurture all life forms indefinitely.
But I'm quibbling. Despite this shortcoming, Steinberg's work is clearly groundbreaking. The incorporation of his framework into general U.S. history — including K-12 and undergraduate survey texts — is the next necessary step in the development of a more comprehensive, a more useful, and a more important history of North America.
Some other Goodreads reviewers have suggested that Steinberg has a "liberal bias," apparently due to his discussion of the negative effects of industrialization, such as destruction of wilderness and the biosphere itself through, for example, toxic pollution and climate change, and his favorable discussion of U.S. environmentalism. I would suggest that Steinberg's discussion is not only relevant, but vital to environmental history. One could argue that this is precisely the point of this historical account.
Without a sustainable biosphere, human society is not possible. If Steinberg's focus or analysis are due to an underlying "value" such as the essential human requirement of a sustainable biosphere, so be it! In such a history, the destruction of carbon sequestering rain forests may rightly be seen as "negative" — because they are bad for human beings (if not other living things). Ignoring or de-emphasizing that obvious problem would only yield an account of the past that identifies no particular trend or events of concern. What's the use of such a history?
Ignoring or burying what is most significant to the development and maintenance of a good society is to pretend to uphold an "objective neutrality" and a "scientific" approach to history. But so-called objective history is most often supportive of the status quo, thus carrying its own bias. In these accounts, "things happened" only as a result of what preceded, in a seemingly unbreakable chain of cause and effect. In fact, what happened is indicative of the values held by those calling the shots. In other words, studying history while ignoring the values of the historical actors, and/or striving to support no particular values of one's own, carries its own bias.
Steinberg's Down to Earth is on the right path by emphasizing the central importance of the planet's ecology. As we hurtle forward into increasingly unstable and less hospitable planetary biosphere, this approach should —and likely will — become the norm, rather than the exception.
Ideally, a non-anthropocentric history would stake out the natural world as the basis for North American history. This would include all living and non-living things as central to the story, and thus de-emphasize humanity as "the point." While it's certainly true that humankind has had the greatest influence on nature, particularly since industrialization, Steinberg's overemphasis on human society downplays the importance of the biosphere's sustainability — its essential ability to nurture all life forms indefinitely.
But I'm quibbling. Despite this shortcoming, Steinberg's work is clearly groundbreaking. The incorporation of his framework into general U.S. history — including K-12 and undergraduate survey texts — is the next necessary step in the development of a more comprehensive, a more useful, and a more important history of North America.
Some other Goodreads reviewers have suggested that Steinberg has a "liberal bias," apparently due to his discussion of the negative effects of industrialization, such as destruction of wilderness and the biosphere itself through, for example, toxic pollution and climate change, and his favorable discussion of U.S. environmentalism. I would suggest that Steinberg's discussion is not only relevant, but vital to environmental history. One could argue that this is precisely the point of this historical account.
Without a sustainable biosphere, human society is not possible. If Steinberg's focus or analysis are due to an underlying "value" such as the essential human requirement of a sustainable biosphere, so be it! In such a history, the destruction of carbon sequestering rain forests may rightly be seen as "negative" — because they are bad for human beings (if not other living things). Ignoring or de-emphasizing that obvious problem would only yield an account of the past that identifies no particular trend or events of concern. What's the use of such a history?
Ignoring or burying what is most significant to the development and maintenance of a good society is to pretend to uphold an "objective neutrality" and a "scientific" approach to history. But so-called objective history is most often supportive of the status quo, thus carrying its own bias. In these accounts, "things happened" only as a result of what preceded, in a seemingly unbreakable chain of cause and effect. In fact, what happened is indicative of the values held by those calling the shots. In other words, studying history while ignoring the values of the historical actors, and/or striving to support no particular values of one's own, carries its own bias.
Steinberg's Down to Earth is on the right path by emphasizing the central importance of the planet's ecology. As we hurtle forward into increasingly unstable and less hospitable planetary biosphere, this approach should —and likely will — become the norm, rather than the exception.
August 25, 2016
This book has changed the way that I see the environment for the rest of my life. I realize such a claim is bold and dramatic but it is entirely true. I read this book for a college course that I took this semester and I did not expect to enjoy it since it was required reading. I am a Finance and Marketing major, I don't come from a history, science, or environment background. Nevertheless I enjoyed this book from its very beginning to its end. Even the parts of history that I thought I understood were told in new light with relevant information that had never come up in any of my prior classes on American history.
I was also sad to discover that this book was removed from regular print and circulation. I feel that everyone needs to read this book and that it should be released in a new print for the country to read and understand. I would consider it important enough to be on the list of required reading by anyone who considers themselves a reader. If not, this is the perfect book to get started!
I was also sad to discover that this book was removed from regular print and circulation. I feel that everyone needs to read this book and that it should be released in a new print for the country to read and understand. I would consider it important enough to be on the list of required reading by anyone who considers themselves a reader. If not, this is the perfect book to get started!
November 26, 2023
Started reading this book for a class in the spring and just finished all of the chapters were weren't assigned. Super interesting and well written book! I love the way it made the connections between nature and history clear, as well as when it was slightly more narrative when using specific examples.
July 13, 2018
Ted Steinberg, Down to Earth: Nature’s Role in American History (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).
With more and more environmental historians emerging, it was high-time for a comprehensive history of the United States that explores the role of the environment in shaping the history of this nation. Ted Steinberg’s Down to Earth does just that. Down to Earth chronologically explores the indefatigable role that nature has played in the formation of the United States from the earliest times of the American Indians to the desperate times of the modern age, where places like Disney World sell nature as an attraction for guests. Brilliantly written, Down to Earth spans an impressive period of time and though lacking a core argument, each chapter succinctly presents their own arguments and interpretations on a variety of pressing issues faced by ecologists, environmentalists, and historians in their respective fields.
Steinberg seeks to shed as much light as possible on the American environment, reasoning that the United States’ history begins not with Jamestown nor Columbus, but with the breaking-up of Pangea, some 180 million years ago. Each chapter offers insights into various challenges, innovations, and trends in the American environment. Steinberg touches on many issues that many Americans face today, from the advent of the meat industry and its adverse effects on the environment, to the rise of roads and infrastructure, a product of the New Deal and Cold War, and the reciprocal effects of logging and clearing the land. In addition to addressing modern issues, Steinberg also sheds light on some issues of the past that readers may not be familiar with. One example is the so-called “death of the organic city” where late nineteenth century reformers drove out an array of pigs and horses living in New York City, putting an end to nature’s role in the city and increasing pressure on the lower class and taking away jobs (159). Such interesting anecdotes exemplify the dominant role that nature has played in shaping even small and forgotten aspects of American history.
While Down to Earth undoubtedly shows the “ways in which nature figures as a force in American history,” it undermines some important cultural, social, and religious relationships between people and the environment. For instance, the Native Americans lived a culture defined by their environment and practiced a religion heavily involved in nature. Steinberg does not overlook the significance of the outdoors in Indian culture, but neglects to explore the too-often-overlooked religious implications of this nation’s first people. Such oversights don’t necessarily detract from the text, but further exploration of the topic would certainly benefit the reader and add context. Additionally, the book fails to mention the various City Beautiful Movements of the late nineteenth century or the various issues of energy consumption that plagued the Carter administration. The last glaring oversight in Down to Earth is the absence of oil. Written during the tense political climate of the September 11 attacks and wars for oil, one would think that, at least in the conclusion, the fight for oil would be of prime concern to readers and writers alike. Given Steinberg’s objections to corporate America, it is surprising that no attention is giving to the destructive quests for oil, including fracking offshores and drilling through the Earth’s crust to create oil wells.
In general, Down to Earth delivers on its promise to provide an environmental history of one of the most influential nations in the world. Though it has some shortcomings, it proves to be very informative for the popular reader, student, or professional historian alike.
With more and more environmental historians emerging, it was high-time for a comprehensive history of the United States that explores the role of the environment in shaping the history of this nation. Ted Steinberg’s Down to Earth does just that. Down to Earth chronologically explores the indefatigable role that nature has played in the formation of the United States from the earliest times of the American Indians to the desperate times of the modern age, where places like Disney World sell nature as an attraction for guests. Brilliantly written, Down to Earth spans an impressive period of time and though lacking a core argument, each chapter succinctly presents their own arguments and interpretations on a variety of pressing issues faced by ecologists, environmentalists, and historians in their respective fields.
Steinberg seeks to shed as much light as possible on the American environment, reasoning that the United States’ history begins not with Jamestown nor Columbus, but with the breaking-up of Pangea, some 180 million years ago. Each chapter offers insights into various challenges, innovations, and trends in the American environment. Steinberg touches on many issues that many Americans face today, from the advent of the meat industry and its adverse effects on the environment, to the rise of roads and infrastructure, a product of the New Deal and Cold War, and the reciprocal effects of logging and clearing the land. In addition to addressing modern issues, Steinberg also sheds light on some issues of the past that readers may not be familiar with. One example is the so-called “death of the organic city” where late nineteenth century reformers drove out an array of pigs and horses living in New York City, putting an end to nature’s role in the city and increasing pressure on the lower class and taking away jobs (159). Such interesting anecdotes exemplify the dominant role that nature has played in shaping even small and forgotten aspects of American history.
While Down to Earth undoubtedly shows the “ways in which nature figures as a force in American history,” it undermines some important cultural, social, and religious relationships between people and the environment. For instance, the Native Americans lived a culture defined by their environment and practiced a religion heavily involved in nature. Steinberg does not overlook the significance of the outdoors in Indian culture, but neglects to explore the too-often-overlooked religious implications of this nation’s first people. Such oversights don’t necessarily detract from the text, but further exploration of the topic would certainly benefit the reader and add context. Additionally, the book fails to mention the various City Beautiful Movements of the late nineteenth century or the various issues of energy consumption that plagued the Carter administration. The last glaring oversight in Down to Earth is the absence of oil. Written during the tense political climate of the September 11 attacks and wars for oil, one would think that, at least in the conclusion, the fight for oil would be of prime concern to readers and writers alike. Given Steinberg’s objections to corporate America, it is surprising that no attention is giving to the destructive quests for oil, including fracking offshores and drilling through the Earth’s crust to create oil wells.
In general, Down to Earth delivers on its promise to provide an environmental history of one of the most influential nations in the world. Though it has some shortcomings, it proves to be very informative for the popular reader, student, or professional historian alike.
October 22, 2020
This book describes how a certain way of relating to the land and the natural world developed through American history. American culture views nature as first and foremost a commodity: something which has the potential to be traded for profit (i.e., money). This idea was imported with the first European colonizers, and partly explains why they saw land which was clearly inhabited as “wild” and “free for the taking”. John Locke theorized that a person has property rights over something when they have combined their labor with it to produce something of value. In other words, we own something when we have successfully commodified it. I do not know if Locke was the seed of this view or simply the solidifier of it (although I suspect the latter); in either case, this was the guiding assumption of the European settlers. Steinberg takes cares to show that the Native Americans had altered the land in significant ways, but they did not have a conception of owning a particular piece of land, and they had not ravaged it in the ways Europeans were clearly comfortable doing. So in the eyes of the colonizers, the indigenous peoples had not “improved” the land and so did not own it; and in the eyes of the Natives, talk of “owning” the land was simply incoherent.
Fascinating changes take place once you adopt the mindset of commodities. Since the nature of a commodity is that it can be traded with other things in order to increase wealth, it seems that commodification will always irresistibly lead to over-extraction. Whereas before (say) a beaver pelt was simply a beaver pelt, and you would only require a few to satisfy your needs, once it becomes a commodity the pelt is no longer just a pelt. It becomes a potential for wealth; it becomes an abstraction. One can say (if one is philosophically inclined) that the pelt becomes “alienated from itself”. It is no longer seen in terms of its actual, concrete usefulness – that is, it is no longer valued for itself but in terms of what it can be traded for. This means you will no longer be satisfied with what you actually need. You will want to extract as much as possible, because this means you will gain as much wealth as possible.
From this fundamental alienation of the object from itself follows a host of other alienations, which together cause a fundamental disconnectedness which leads to apathy towards the environment. When you shift from a subsistence lifestyle to a market-based lifestyle, this means you have to earn your living by participating in the commodities market. This ultimately leads to the products being alienated from the land and circumstances in which they were produced. Once an object is seen solely in terms of its trade value, then it no longer matters where it came from; anyone who is willing to pay for it can buy it, even if that person is completely removed from where and how the product was made. (Of course, this depends on transportation being available; and this is one of the big themes of the book. In the 1800s, railroads were the great enabler of the market and the great displacer of goods. As soon as a railroad came in, commercialization began in full force.) Disparate parts of the countries become connected, and the needs and demands of one place would dictate the production strategies of another. Usually, this meant the demands of one group of people drove the ecological depletion of a place they were entirely removed from and had no stake in. A vicious cycle often emerges: if the land has been crippled, then you won’t be able to subsist off it, and you will be forced to produce goods for the market so you can trade for what you need to survive, thus perpetuating the very commodification system which depletes the environment.
Commodification also leads to the object being alienated from the land in the sense that production becomes disconnected from nature. This is because commodification creates a pressure to increase production, and this pressure to increase production means that you'll want to overcome any limitations posed by the natural environment or natural cycles. Artificial fertilizer and irrigation are just a two examples of this. This in turn leads to alienation from natural cycles, a sense of apartness - or more accurately, a complete lack of awareness or interest.
Mass extraction(/mass production) and specialization are two offshoots of the same root. If how you survive is by selling a product, you have to be willing to either extract or produce (or both, as required) as much of that product as possible. This leads to specialization. It's simply more efficient to produce a lot of one thing than a smaller amount of various things. Interestingly, this means mass production has layers of impoverishment to it. Extraction depletes the land in an obvious sense, but when you force the land to only produce one thing, the variety of what the land is actually capable of producing becomes crippled. The diversity of an ecosystem is the key to the richness of production; when you specialize, and force the land to specialize, this diversity and richness is lost. The most obvious example of this is of course agriculture/monoculture, but any area that is engaged in mass production or involved in the chains of mass production necessarily cuts into the land in this way. In this way, the cycles of nature are completely disrupted, and all the organisms that are left are poorer for it.
I'm tempted to say that the object also becomes alienated from itself when it becomes subject to standardization. When all production is geared to fitting a certain criteria, to creating as close to identical products as possible, the uniqueness of the object is lost. This might be a less significant point, although I suspect it has large psychological impacts. If I walk into a store and see 50 basically identical pears, I will be less motivated to make sure the ones I bring home don't go to waste. After all, I can just walk back in the store and buy replacements! Since I'm talking about psychological impacts (and since it is clear at this point that I'm a damn dirty hippy), I also think it's significant that this complete separation from the production process completely amputates our ability to truly appreciate all the work that has gone into producing the things we consume.
Of course, this alienation doesn't just happen at the "front end" of production - it also happens at the back-end of waste disposal. What happens to our trash and where it goes becomes a process which is far removed from our every day lives, and we become completely oblivious to the impacts this has on us.
Obviously, we have perfected this system of alienation with modern globalization. I can buy strawberries from Chile and a T-shirt from Cambodia. I produce none of my own food (I live in an apartment and have no garden), and while I love nature, I am substantially disconnected from all the ways that the environment provides for me. Because it does provide for me; from the metal in my laptop, to the plastic in my (reusable!) water bottle, to the electricity lighting my lamp, to whatever my clothes are made of (I don't even know). My whole existence is supported by the earth, and I am completely cut apart from how (and let's not forget who) my needs are fulfilled. I go out into the natural spaces I live by as an observer, not as an active participant - and the fact that there even are "natural spaces" near me is a privilege not everyone has. And somehow, this feels lonely and impoverished. This is the ultimate conclusion of the alienation of the object from itself; I am alienated from the object, and from the larger environment which intimately connects me to it.
Fascinating changes take place once you adopt the mindset of commodities. Since the nature of a commodity is that it can be traded with other things in order to increase wealth, it seems that commodification will always irresistibly lead to over-extraction. Whereas before (say) a beaver pelt was simply a beaver pelt, and you would only require a few to satisfy your needs, once it becomes a commodity the pelt is no longer just a pelt. It becomes a potential for wealth; it becomes an abstraction. One can say (if one is philosophically inclined) that the pelt becomes “alienated from itself”. It is no longer seen in terms of its actual, concrete usefulness – that is, it is no longer valued for itself but in terms of what it can be traded for. This means you will no longer be satisfied with what you actually need. You will want to extract as much as possible, because this means you will gain as much wealth as possible.
From this fundamental alienation of the object from itself follows a host of other alienations, which together cause a fundamental disconnectedness which leads to apathy towards the environment. When you shift from a subsistence lifestyle to a market-based lifestyle, this means you have to earn your living by participating in the commodities market. This ultimately leads to the products being alienated from the land and circumstances in which they were produced. Once an object is seen solely in terms of its trade value, then it no longer matters where it came from; anyone who is willing to pay for it can buy it, even if that person is completely removed from where and how the product was made. (Of course, this depends on transportation being available; and this is one of the big themes of the book. In the 1800s, railroads were the great enabler of the market and the great displacer of goods. As soon as a railroad came in, commercialization began in full force.) Disparate parts of the countries become connected, and the needs and demands of one place would dictate the production strategies of another. Usually, this meant the demands of one group of people drove the ecological depletion of a place they were entirely removed from and had no stake in. A vicious cycle often emerges: if the land has been crippled, then you won’t be able to subsist off it, and you will be forced to produce goods for the market so you can trade for what you need to survive, thus perpetuating the very commodification system which depletes the environment.
Commodification also leads to the object being alienated from the land in the sense that production becomes disconnected from nature. This is because commodification creates a pressure to increase production, and this pressure to increase production means that you'll want to overcome any limitations posed by the natural environment or natural cycles. Artificial fertilizer and irrigation are just a two examples of this. This in turn leads to alienation from natural cycles, a sense of apartness - or more accurately, a complete lack of awareness or interest.
Mass extraction(/mass production) and specialization are two offshoots of the same root. If how you survive is by selling a product, you have to be willing to either extract or produce (or both, as required) as much of that product as possible. This leads to specialization. It's simply more efficient to produce a lot of one thing than a smaller amount of various things. Interestingly, this means mass production has layers of impoverishment to it. Extraction depletes the land in an obvious sense, but when you force the land to only produce one thing, the variety of what the land is actually capable of producing becomes crippled. The diversity of an ecosystem is the key to the richness of production; when you specialize, and force the land to specialize, this diversity and richness is lost. The most obvious example of this is of course agriculture/monoculture, but any area that is engaged in mass production or involved in the chains of mass production necessarily cuts into the land in this way. In this way, the cycles of nature are completely disrupted, and all the organisms that are left are poorer for it.
I'm tempted to say that the object also becomes alienated from itself when it becomes subject to standardization. When all production is geared to fitting a certain criteria, to creating as close to identical products as possible, the uniqueness of the object is lost. This might be a less significant point, although I suspect it has large psychological impacts. If I walk into a store and see 50 basically identical pears, I will be less motivated to make sure the ones I bring home don't go to waste. After all, I can just walk back in the store and buy replacements! Since I'm talking about psychological impacts (and since it is clear at this point that I'm a damn dirty hippy), I also think it's significant that this complete separation from the production process completely amputates our ability to truly appreciate all the work that has gone into producing the things we consume.
Of course, this alienation doesn't just happen at the "front end" of production - it also happens at the back-end of waste disposal. What happens to our trash and where it goes becomes a process which is far removed from our every day lives, and we become completely oblivious to the impacts this has on us.
Obviously, we have perfected this system of alienation with modern globalization. I can buy strawberries from Chile and a T-shirt from Cambodia. I produce none of my own food (I live in an apartment and have no garden), and while I love nature, I am substantially disconnected from all the ways that the environment provides for me. Because it does provide for me; from the metal in my laptop, to the plastic in my (reusable!) water bottle, to the electricity lighting my lamp, to whatever my clothes are made of (I don't even know). My whole existence is supported by the earth, and I am completely cut apart from how (and let's not forget who) my needs are fulfilled. I go out into the natural spaces I live by as an observer, not as an active participant - and the fact that there even are "natural spaces" near me is a privilege not everyone has. And somehow, this feels lonely and impoverished. This is the ultimate conclusion of the alienation of the object from itself; I am alienated from the object, and from the larger environment which intimately connects me to it.
July 7, 2020
Down to Earth: Nature's Role in American History is a brief and broad tour of American environmental history. Rather than focusing on the way humans interacted with one another (as many of our high school textbooks have), Steinberg shines a light on how Native Americans, colonists, and modern-day Americans interact with their North American landscape and how the land and its amenities and climates affected North American history.
Steinberg objectively details early American history, giving intriguing anecdotes and detailed analysis along the way. However, as the book moves from early American history more to present-day history, Steinberg's tone increasingly becomes bias and sometimes one-sided. But this tonal shift isn't necessarily a bad thing. It likely occurred because 1) the complexity and the massive scale of the issues that plague our modern-day society are far more difficult to delve into in a sufficient way in a small number of pages. However, Steinberg still manages to supply a good overview and short history of the issues being discussed. And 2) while people today have increased awareness and scientific knowledge of how they affect the land around them, they still commit many of the same sins (and some new and more severe ones) today as they did in the past. Steinberg gave early American settlers the benefit of the doubt and more forgiveness for their role in early widespread environmental destruction, but his voice clearly becomes less forgiving and more critical to the people and enterprises that take part in it now.
Steinberg objectively details early American history, giving intriguing anecdotes and detailed analysis along the way. However, as the book moves from early American history more to present-day history, Steinberg's tone increasingly becomes bias and sometimes one-sided. But this tonal shift isn't necessarily a bad thing. It likely occurred because 1) the complexity and the massive scale of the issues that plague our modern-day society are far more difficult to delve into in a sufficient way in a small number of pages. However, Steinberg still manages to supply a good overview and short history of the issues being discussed. And 2) while people today have increased awareness and scientific knowledge of how they affect the land around them, they still commit many of the same sins (and some new and more severe ones) today as they did in the past. Steinberg gave early American settlers the benefit of the doubt and more forgiveness for their role in early widespread environmental destruction, but his voice clearly becomes less forgiving and more critical to the people and enterprises that take part in it now.
January 18, 2018
I use this book when I teach courses in environmental history at the community college where I teach. I like it quite a bit--especially the last couple chapters discussing corporations & globalization in modern US history. Another great feature of the book is its focus on viewing the environment through the lens of commodification, and how doing so alienates people from understanding nature and natural processes.
Another strength is that the book has nice geographic balance. My specialty is the American West, but there is also good coverage here of the northeastern and Great Lakes states, plus the South. No matter where you live in the United States, you'll probably learn a thing or two about your region.
This is a very good book for anyone who wants to understand US history in a way rarely found in conventional texts. Some basic knowledge of US history is useful when reading, but you don't need to be a specialist by any means to get enjoyment and a good education from this book. The same goes for concepts in biology or environmental science--if you know anything in these disciplines, all the better, but specialty knowledge isn't necessary for getting a lot out of this book.
Generally speaking, the writing scores reasonably well on readability and clarity. Steinberg avoids too much jargon or too many technical words, and the book features a nice mix of generalities and specifics. It includes the occasional map, although I'm a big fan of maps and always like to see more of them.
I scored the book a strong 4, and I suspect most of my students would score it a 4 or 5. They tend to like the book as much as I do, and sometimes more.
Another strength is that the book has nice geographic balance. My specialty is the American West, but there is also good coverage here of the northeastern and Great Lakes states, plus the South. No matter where you live in the United States, you'll probably learn a thing or two about your region.
This is a very good book for anyone who wants to understand US history in a way rarely found in conventional texts. Some basic knowledge of US history is useful when reading, but you don't need to be a specialist by any means to get enjoyment and a good education from this book. The same goes for concepts in biology or environmental science--if you know anything in these disciplines, all the better, but specialty knowledge isn't necessary for getting a lot out of this book.
Generally speaking, the writing scores reasonably well on readability and clarity. Steinberg avoids too much jargon or too many technical words, and the book features a nice mix of generalities and specifics. It includes the occasional map, although I'm a big fan of maps and always like to see more of them.
I scored the book a strong 4, and I suspect most of my students would score it a 4 or 5. They tend to like the book as much as I do, and sometimes more.
May 18, 2013
Steinberg takes us on a whirlwind tour of American history, focusing on the environmental factors that affected and influenced the key transitions and developments of America. The drought and wet seasons that prompted the move West, the mud and failed crops that forced Lee's hand during the Civil War, the sanitation efforts of early 20th cities.
Overall, this was a very interesting reinterpretation of American history. The earlier sections were actually the most interesting, showing how much environmental factors affected the earliest communities. However, Steinberg definitely comes to the topic from a strong environmentalist bias and I think the later chapters suffer from a one-sided look at 20th century environment-related events and decisions. While I often agreed with his interpretation of the dangers and evils of unchecked economic growth and industry monopolies (especially globally), I think his analysis would be strengthened by a more objective look at the the 20th century. Although he offered some very clear and insightful analysis on the effects of radical environmental groups (like Earth First!).
For a textbook, this was a smooth read and offered many interesting examples coupled with solid analysis.
Overall, this was a very interesting reinterpretation of American history. The earlier sections were actually the most interesting, showing how much environmental factors affected the earliest communities. However, Steinberg definitely comes to the topic from a strong environmentalist bias and I think the later chapters suffer from a one-sided look at 20th century environment-related events and decisions. While I often agreed with his interpretation of the dangers and evils of unchecked economic growth and industry monopolies (especially globally), I think his analysis would be strengthened by a more objective look at the the 20th century. Although he offered some very clear and insightful analysis on the effects of radical environmental groups (like Earth First!).
For a textbook, this was a smooth read and offered many interesting examples coupled with solid analysis.
July 16, 2010
This book followed American history under the premise that everything that happened in the history of our country was intricately linked to our environment and happened because of the natural resources that we've been able to extract & utilize, especially in regards to energy. Unlike other countries with less natural wealth, the U.S. is very lucky to have the Great Plains as our breadbasket, our original forests as our early source of fuel, our rivers to dam for hydroelectric, and the vast reserves of natural gas & coal that lie under the ground. We have been able to exploit these, which enabled the U.S. to become the world power it is today. This didn't happen just because of politics, or military strength, it happened because of the natural resources and energy that we've been able to use.
Now, as we're running out of our own energy and we have to look elsewhere around the globe, the U.S. military is assuming a role of energy security around the globe to protect the assets (oil) that we so desperately need to keep our country going. Fascinating read that put American history into a very new light.
Now, as we're running out of our own energy and we have to look elsewhere around the globe, the U.S. military is assuming a role of energy security around the globe to protect the assets (oil) that we so desperately need to keep our country going. Fascinating read that put American history into a very new light.
April 1, 2013
This narrative textbook history of U.S. environmental history is a comprehensive summary and introduction to the field. It is immensely fascinating at times and holds nothing back in describing how the United States has become what it is today ecologically, agriculturally, and industrially. Tracing the United States' history all the way back to North America's geological formation and development billions of years ago up to the present day, it's an all-encompassing book that leaves no part of the country untouched (except maybe Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico, the often forgotten parts of the country). Steinberg explains how the ecological status that the European colonists found North America in largely defined and set the course for the U.S.'s economic and military ascendance in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Who would have known that the last ice age depositing minerals into America's northern soils would allow for bumper crops millions of years later? Not me. I am new to environmental history as a whole and this book is a great introduction. Everything from the Civil War to the Dust Bowl are given new understanding in this history.
January 29, 2016
Steinberg's goal for this book is to "bring natural forces to the fore of the historical process (p. 284)." I found his alternate approach to the history of North America as the ongoing interaction of human culture and the natural environment as compelling as it is sobering. Although I found the book both well-researched and engagingly written, in such a geographically and chronologically wide-ranging survey depth must of necessity occasionally yield to breadth. The author compensates through footnotes referring readers to other readily accessible works by respected authorities in related fields. Much of humanity's impact on the natural environment of North America (and - by extension - that of the rest of the globe) over time is admittedly a sorry legacy, one Steinberg presents as fairly as he does the failures of various well-intended philanthropic endeavors and aspects of the environmental movement. For me this book was a worthwhile read: consistently interesting, often revelatory, always thought-provoking.
September 6, 2010
With more education comes more responsibility. By the end of this book I am vowing never to turn on another light or drive another mile in my car. This book was a fascinating look at how the environment impacted the early settlers in the US to how much we have impacted the environment since the 1950's. The early history of the book was relatively new information for me. The recent info didn't break any new ground for me, but is still alarming. Steinberg does issue a call for manure. Manure seems to come up in every chapter, which is kind of amusing. Basically it felt like as humans got further from the land and divorced themselves from producing for their own consumption and moving to treating nature as a product to be sold the balance between humans and nature has fallen in favor of humans...for now.
March 9, 2015
Good survey of U.S. Environmental History [2013 edition]: accessible to general and undergraduate readers. Fairly comprehensive, though missing a treatments of the early 1800s transportation revolution, the transition from an iron industry to a steel industry, the Dust Bowl, and the Donora, PA incident and the movement for smog abatement. Satisfactory treatment of differences between the environmental movement and the ecology movement, including Rachel Carson's part in the differences. Okay on current events including the Deep Water Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, presidential administrations since Carter. Climate Change is cover as is Climate Gate, though the later is minimized regarding the academic suppression of research that does not support the IPCC reports, which are accepted by the author without qualifications.
January 27, 2019
So it's a textbook. Each chapter sets up a thesis and ends with a conclusion that wraps everything up.
But as far as textbooks go, this one is pretty interesting. I will say, the first half of the book is a bit more engaging, just because it's using an ecological perspective on a time period that usually doesn't get that treatment. By the time we get to the westward expansion days -- and especially into the post-WW2 era -- if you're the kind of person who's interested in reading a book like this there's a pretty good chance you've come across a lot of this material in some form or another before.
Still, Steinberg is a solid synthesist and the book will make you step back to question which lens you're looking at events in history through.
But as far as textbooks go, this one is pretty interesting. I will say, the first half of the book is a bit more engaging, just because it's using an ecological perspective on a time period that usually doesn't get that treatment. By the time we get to the westward expansion days -- and especially into the post-WW2 era -- if you're the kind of person who's interested in reading a book like this there's a pretty good chance you've come across a lot of this material in some form or another before.
Still, Steinberg is a solid synthesist and the book will make you step back to question which lens you're looking at events in history through.
April 18, 2011
Steinberg writes of the U.S.'s checkered environmental past, covering colonial days and the early years of the industrial revolution when pigs (and horses) ruled city streets and night soil was collected and sent to farms through its later years with rivers catching on fire, the blossoming of monoculture farming and the burdens of agribusiness to today's various green movements. A very helpful overview for those wanting a distinctly US glimpse of some of the intricacies behind the current ecological crises.
October 23, 2012
One of a small group of environmental historians, the author provides fascinating details and insights into U.S. History through the viewpoint of environmental episodes. Learn how natural conditions and mankind's impact have interacted and affected American life. Learn more from a review by E. Voves, "Informing the Debate" http://www.januarymagazine.com/artcul... in January Magazine. (lj)
Want to read
January 12, 2012Fascinating--explores the environmental reasons behind almost every event in American history. While some of this may be mentioned as part of the background picture in any history class, this book shows climate--both difference (from England) and change--to be more of a motivating force that most people realize.
September 15, 2008
I read this after Guns, Germs and Steel and it was a great follow-up because during the former I kept trying to relate it to my homeland. It was an absolutely fascinating lesson on the impact of the environment and climate on American history. It was also a very easy read - far easier than Guns! If you like history, anthropology, or conservation - this is perfect... a great blend of all 3.
June 14, 2018
Excellent. By taking chapters to focus on common areas of American history Steinberg has written a book that can be effectively utilized in general history classes over the course of the examination of the length and breadth of the study of United States and how the land played a vital, yet previously unmentioned, role in the shaping of all things American.
December 20, 2018
Ted Steinberg writes a compelling narrative about how humanity has shaped the environment of the Americas for better or worse. He leaves no stone unturned while exploring deforestation, the development of the modern waste management system, and early environmental activism and legislation. This was, hands down, my favorite non-fiction book read this year.
July 19, 2012
The first half of the book is rather generic, but Steinberg shines once he reaches the 20th century where he includes many environmental considerations that are often overlooked in undergrad history classes, making it a good (though liberally biased) textbook selection.
June 23, 2013
Thought-provoking survey of the sometimes disastrous results when Americans reshaped their environment in their image. I craved a little more depth; each topic discussed by Steinberg could be expanded into its own book.
February 18, 2008
This book is a great survey of American environmental history from "natures'" perspective.
April 18, 2009
How the American (and global) landscape has changed over the centuries due to 'progress.' Not a blame book, just how it is. Makes one stop and think...
June 29, 2011
An exercise in Aha! moments. This book examines how the landscape influenced major events/trends throughout our country's history.
July 28, 2022
(Read as a textbook)
This book does get major points for organization and readability. It covers a lot of very important points in an easy to read and understand way. It flows and doesn't focus on complicated ego-inflating jargon. Truly a book I believe that nearly, if not literally, everyone can read, understand, and learn from.
I will also say that a lot of the book, particularly the further-back-history (for example, in the chapters surrounding initial colonization, slavery, the civil war) section was extremely informative. I learned a ton of really important information not discussed in a typical history class.
And extra extra points for doing the extremely rare thing of placing blame where blame is due- the exploitative systems rather than the poor people trying to make an effort to survive. Especially pointing out malicious actions of the US Government in installing complaint dictatorships as well as the hole institutions like the World Bank and IMF has shoved the global south into.
The only place it really loses points for me is some of the bizarre focus points that really seem to point to biases, mostly in the last section of the book. Instead of talking about Banana Republics we talk about the California raisin; instead of global vegan markets driving impoverishment of the global south (taking food like quinoa out of the literal mouths of the people who farm it for distant markets) we talk about Orange advertisement. Perhaps this is so the author can blame meat consumers in the next chapter and say veganism is the solution when in reality veganism really deserves a whole chapter in itself. (The fact that this book does not have a chapter about Veganism is a huge huge red flag for me.) Especially if we're gonna pretend here to talk about excessive waste, low durability products, a meals carbon footprint, damaged ecological systems, and a privilege-driven market system. It's a shame the end of this book has such massive pitfalls-- like lunar craters really-- in a book that I would otherwise call nearly phenomenal.
Also, yes, you lose two stars for such egregious oversight- especially one thst hints so sharply at a bais in a book supposed to be informational.
This book does get major points for organization and readability. It covers a lot of very important points in an easy to read and understand way. It flows and doesn't focus on complicated ego-inflating jargon. Truly a book I believe that nearly, if not literally, everyone can read, understand, and learn from.
I will also say that a lot of the book, particularly the further-back-history (for example, in the chapters surrounding initial colonization, slavery, the civil war) section was extremely informative. I learned a ton of really important information not discussed in a typical history class.
And extra extra points for doing the extremely rare thing of placing blame where blame is due- the exploitative systems rather than the poor people trying to make an effort to survive. Especially pointing out malicious actions of the US Government in installing complaint dictatorships as well as the hole institutions like the World Bank and IMF has shoved the global south into.
The only place it really loses points for me is some of the bizarre focus points that really seem to point to biases, mostly in the last section of the book. Instead of talking about Banana Republics we talk about the California raisin; instead of global vegan markets driving impoverishment of the global south (taking food like quinoa out of the literal mouths of the people who farm it for distant markets) we talk about Orange advertisement. Perhaps this is so the author can blame meat consumers in the next chapter and say veganism is the solution when in reality veganism really deserves a whole chapter in itself. (The fact that this book does not have a chapter about Veganism is a huge huge red flag for me.) Especially if we're gonna pretend here to talk about excessive waste, low durability products, a meals carbon footprint, damaged ecological systems, and a privilege-driven market system. It's a shame the end of this book has such massive pitfalls-- like lunar craters really-- in a book that I would otherwise call nearly phenomenal.
Also, yes, you lose two stars for such egregious oversight- especially one thst hints so sharply at a bais in a book supposed to be informational.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 50 reviews