Week 2: NATURE

For the week two field trip, we visited the Round Right farm and the Cranesville Swamp. Both of these places are embedded in nature, but in two entirely different ways. Nature is a hotly debated concept in geography, and has three distinct meanings, as defined in the 'Key Concepts in Geography' text:

1. Intrinsic nature: the essential charactersitics of a thing (e.g. the nature of social exclusion
2. External nature: the external, unmediated material world (e.g. the natural environment).
3. Universal nature: the all-encompassing force controlling things in the world (e.g. 'natural laws' or 'Mother Nature'). (Clifford 2009)

The Cranesville swamp was a very interesting place to visit, and we got somewhat of a "VIP" tour from an expert of the nature and geography of the area. He pointed out some very interesting and unique features of the swamp, and how it has been affected by human presence and interference. There was one area of the swamp that was densely covered with pine trees, for example. It looks nothing like a forest one would expect to find in Appalachia, but rather one that you would find in the Pacific Northwest area of the United States. An unsuspecting visitor would notice the sudden change in environment and tree species (it is rather hard to miss), but may not question whether it is what we would consider "natural." We tend to divide the world into things that are "natural" and "cultural." (Gregory 2009)

The truth is that by most definitions, it is not natural. Our guide pointed out that the whole of Appalachia at one time was clear-cut for the timber industry, and that there are very few forests that have been mostly unaltered by man. When this particular area was clear-cut, these non-native pine trees were planted in neat rows and columns for later harvesting, but were never actually harvested. An effort to replant native species has been started, but the dominant force is still the evergreens. He also pointed out that before the clear-cuts happened, the ground was covered in a thick, unpassable muck full of decaying flora and fauna that had been crafted over thousands or millions of years, but now the bare earth is visible, because this muck had been cleared away with the timbering industry. Rather than letting things regrow 'naturally' from the underbrush, it was all stripped and burned away.

Right before we got to the pine area, however, our guide pointed out that the area looked a lot different than it did a short three or four years ago, because Hurricane Sandy did much damage to the relatively young trees in the area. He said "it's not bad, it's not ugly, it just looks different now." He was referring to the fact that because Sandy was a natural phenomenon, it was not a bad thing that those trees had been downed. Likewise, I have heard of similar things happening in protected wilderness areas that have been seen as natural rather than destructive. When natural wildfires occur in protected forests and the flames are not controlled, or when a beaver colony cuts down hundreds of trees to dam up a creek and create a massive lake. These things are considered natural phenomena and should be left alone. If the beavers want to build a dam, cut down a forest and flood an entire habitat area, or if mother nature decides to cast down her destructive force with heat and fire, these are perfectly acceptable parts of our "natural world." However, when humans cut trees to build houses or dam a river to create a water reservoir, it is seen as 'unnatural' and is condemned. But aren't we humans just mammals who have evolved and learned how to use our earth to our benefit? These are just the two sides of the story. I am not announcing my viewpoint or condemning others, but rather sparking an interesting question of why humans are not considered "natural."

 Holloway, Sarah L. Key Concepts in Geography. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications, 2009. Print. 

 Gregory, Derek. The Dictionary of Human Geography. 5th ed. Malden: Blackwell, 2009. Print.