5 July 2015 Matt Ariniello 5 July 2015 Matt Ariniello Article Review Essay Assignment HST 481 (e-campus) Oregon State University Down to Earth: Nature’s Role in American History Ted Steinberg Main Point (thesis): Conservation and preservation. Steinberg’s article in chapter nine of Down to Earth encompasses a discussion on how conservation and preservation of nature in the U.S. has evolved over the time. It began with its initial theories of good intentions, but nature had its way of proving the necessity of every living creature and plant around for all else to survive. Discuss ways in which author develops the ideas: Steinberg developed the story on a sort of timeline as things happened. Such as when Yellowstone National Park was created, when the military was brought in to protect the wildlife inside and when the U.S. Forest Service began and took over operations. Each event had a story of why and what Roosevelt and Pinchot were thinking and theorizing about conservation. Then how they would make the change to help conserve the wildlife and a sort of evaluation of that of what went well and what may need to be done differently. For example, Pinchot learned that, “Forestry is handling trees so that one crop follows another” (Steinberg, 142). Because before he was involved, entire forests were cut down for wood and there was nothing left for the future wildlife or even humanity. Soon enough, the animals would be affected and that would lead to their predators’ death. For instance, the moths in the Oregon Blue Mountains fed on the pine needles of trees and were wiped out causing the death of birds, wasps, spiders and flies who fed on the moths (Steinberg, 143). Why/why not persuasive? Steinberg was very persuasive in my opinion. He had good, effective evidence from stories of the importance of everything happening in nature; from rain and sun to fires and predators. A key quote Steinberg brings forth gave the purpose of conservation the level of importance everyone needed to know, “We have here conservation of the few at the expense of many” (Steinberg, 154). He explains very well how efforts to conserve the elk, deer or bison can just lead to a bigger issue later. This, of course, does not mean that trying to save the bison from being killed any more than they were was wrong; this is not what he is saying. It is that killing or stopping the predators of these such as coyotes and wolves just led to a bigger sacrifice and imbalance in nature than does good. It is nature for every animal to have a predator. What his work eventually came to led the Secretary of Interior, Franklin Lane to mention how “The national parks must be maintained in absolutely unimpaired form for the use of future generations” (Steinberg, 155). That statement makes it clear how people have learned for experience how interference with nature’s cycles leads to an unbalanced environment and possibly extinction if it goes too far. Without Pinchot’s work in understandi.

1. 5 July 2015 Matt Ariniello
5 July 2015 Matt Ariniello
Article Review Essay Assignment
HST 481 (e-campus)
Oregon State University
Down to Earth: Nature’s Role in American History
Ted Steinberg
Main Point (thesis):
Conservation and preservation. Steinberg’s article in chapter
nine of Down to Earth encompasses a discussion on how
conservation and preservation of nature in the U.S. has evolved
over the time. It began with its initial theories of good
intentions, but nature had its way of proving the necessity of
every living creature and plant around for all else to survive.
Discuss ways in which author develops the ideas:
Steinberg developed the story on a sort of timeline as things
happened. Such as when Yellowstone National Park was
created, when the military was brought in to protect the wildlife
inside and when the U.S. Forest Service began and took over
operations. Each event had a story of why and what Roosevelt
and Pinchot were thinking and theorizing about conservation.
Then how they would make the change to help conserve the
wildlife and a sort of evaluation of that of what went well and
what may need to be done differently.
For example, Pinchot learned that, “Forestry is handling trees so
that one crop follows another” (Steinberg, 142). Because before
he was involved, entire forests were cut down for wood and
there was nothing left for the future wildlife or even humanity.
Soon enough, the animals would be affected and that would lead
to their predators’ death. For instance, the moths in the Oregon
Blue Mountains fed on the pine needles of trees and were wiped

2. out causing the death of birds, wasps, spiders and flies who fed
on the moths (Steinberg, 143).
Why/why not persuasive?
Steinberg was very persuasive in my opinion. He had good,
effective evidence from stories of the importance of everything
happening in nature; from rain and sun to fires and predators. A
key quote Steinberg brings forth gave the purpose of
conservation the level of importance everyone needed to know,
“We have here conservation of the few at the expense of many”
(Steinberg, 154). He explains very well how efforts to conserve
the elk, deer or bison can just lead to a bigger issue later. This,
of course, does not mean that trying to save the bison from
being killed any more than they were was wrong; this is not
what he is saying. It is that killing or stopping the predators of
these such as coyotes and wolves just led to a bigger sacrifice
and imbalance in nature than does good. It is nature for every
animal to have a predator.
What his work eventually came to led the Secretary of Interior,
Franklin Lane to mention how “The national parks must be
maintained in absolutely unimpaired form for the use of future
generations” (Steinberg, 155). That statement makes it clear
how people have learned for experience how interference with
nature’s cycles leads to an unbalanced environment and possibly
extinction if it goes too far. Without Pinchot’s work in
understanding this, I can understand how unique and great of an
experience it is to see the big bison of Wyoming today.
Sarah Meadows
HST 481
Summer 2015
7/2/2015
Article Review #1:
The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting Back to the Wrong
Nature

3. By William Cronon
In his article The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting
Back to the Wrong Nature, William Cronon argues that the
desire to experience wilderness untouched by humans and the
perspective that wilderness is a refuge from the negative effects
humans have had on the earth is a desire completely contrived
by humans. He explains that human culture and history have
created this idea of wilderness yet wilderness is the very thing
humans seek out to remove themselves from being human.
Cronon claims that our nature is very unnatural because of its
invented origins. However, in the conclusion of his article,
Cronon describes his idea of human’s place and role in the
natural world despite the traditions of human-centered thinking.
William Cronon begins support of his thesis by explaining
the transient view of wilderness held by Americans and
Europeans living 250 years ago. He describes the negative
connotation wilderness conjured birthed by religious beliefs
steeped in moral condemnations. Moreover, prevalent ideas of
wilderness were that of dangerous barren wastelands where the
unrighteous were banished to wander. For those with less
religious fervor, their opinions of wilderness are articulated
well by Roderick Nash in his book Wilderness and the American
Mind. Nash writes that to early Europeans wilderness was “an
insecure and uncomfortable environment against which
civilization had waged an unceasing struggle” (Nash, 8). But,
these undoubtedly antagonistic assessments would not remain
the popular attitude. As European Americans expanded
westward, their view of wilderness would change dramatically
and ultimately result in what Cronon refers to as the contrived
wilderness.
Two terms sublime and primitivism are identified and
discussed by Cronon as the prevailing philosophy of the early
European Americans. National Parks and Forests were

4. established as a direct result of those who searched out the most
magnificent and awe-inspiring landscapes in the United States.
These landscapes were thought to be sublime, or possess
supernatural qualities that could bring one closer to God. The
other view, primitivism, was the idea that to counteract the
disease of humanity one needed to return to a more primitive
way of life devoid of the amenities of western civilized society.
Those who subscribed to primitivism had a disdain for modern
life and civilization. They longed for a time when nature was
untouched by humans and used the wilderness as an escape from
modernity.
It was, however, this modernity that Cronon argues created
the wilderness they were trying to escape to. The recreational
attitude toward wilderness adopted by the wealthy and acted
upon by the organization of big game sporting events, the
construction of servant-inhabited estates in “wild” country, and
the erection of luxury resorts by railroad companies tempting
wealthy patrons to scenic landscapes were the very catalysts of
this unnatural wilderness view. Cronon argues that those who
actually worked the land and labored to harvest its yield knew
too much of the land to place it on such a divine pedestal and
the wealthy “projected their leisure-time frontier fantasies onto
the American landscape and so created wilderness in their own
image” (Cronon, 15).
Ted Steinberg, author of Down to Earth: Nature’s Role in
American History, concurs with Cronon’s appraisal of an
invented wilderness. In reference to the establishment of
National Parks, the forcible removal of native Indian tribes onto
reservations from these lands, and then subsequent draft of
Native Americans and bison to help lure wealthy Americans to
these preserved lands, he asks, “Could anything be more
paradoxical than using contrived groups of animals and people,
annihilated in the so-called winning of the West, to lure tourists
to supposedly “untouched” wilderness?” (Steinberg, 154). Part
of his point which Cronon also espouses in his article is that
these lands cannot rightfully be labeled “untouched” as Native

5. Americans have been living off the land and with the land for
centuries. Here, Cronon supports his argument with historical
facts that bring credence to the idea that this longing for escape
to a wilderness free of human influence and civilized
responsibilities is a farce.
Cronon’s argument reaches a climax when he points out
that we as humans seek to remove the human from the
wilderness. He says we want to pretend that our city life and our
humanness is a vacation from our real state of being which is
primitive and wild; that we desire to “wipe the slate clean” and
return to a time before humans imprinted the world (Cronon,
16). But, that to do so would be the eradication of humans
which is preposterous. His final exclamation is the need to live
harmoniously with nature and be thoughtful about our
interaction with wilderness. Cronon’s conclusion is sound;
humans are nature and therefore should be included in any ideal
of the natural world minus the abuse so well detailed in human
history.
Nash, Roderick. Wilderness and the American Mind: Fifth
Edition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014. Print.
Steinberg, Ted. Down to Earth: Nature’s Role in American
History. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print.
The Trouble with Wilderness: Or, Getting Back to the Wrong
Nature. William Cronon. Environmental History, Vol. 1, No. 1
(Jan., 1996), pp. 7-28. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3985059