I must begin by saying that I was expecting a different focus for this talk by Nathan. Action After Nature: Climate Crisis & the Force of Literature seemed like a pretty exciting title but I was expecting a typical ES driven talk that looked at anthropogenic effects on climate and our Earth then an outline of how and what we can do to ameliorate this issue. However, to my surprise, Mr. Hensley approached the topic of climate by pairing studies on climate change with literature. I was quite happy with this turnout because I had just taken a ES literature course over Jan Plan and felt like I was perfectly in tune with this pairing.

One of my favorite parallel that Nathan made was with the popular novel “Alice in Wonderland”. He used Alice’s story to identify a similar story going on on Earth. Alice became lost in this whimsical world where she didn’t understand where she was and how things worked…..this is becoming more and more similar to our planet and how we view it. Through the vast amount of land-mass change and resource use that we as a species have caused, we are starting to realize that our surrounding are becoming to look more unfamiliar and the dynamic that we all grew to know so well is changing at a faster and more unpredictable way. This parallel to me was a great way to connect an audience with something that we all know and draw parallels through that mode.

After listening to this talk I realized that literature is an ingenious way to cater to a larger audience, one that may not be as keen on environmentally related issues. Literature provides context and ideology of different times depending on when they are set and published. In this same way, we are able to look at literature from the past and take our knowledge of the ideology at that time to understand the perspective and ideas that were prominent during that era. This is especially important for environmental literature because we are at a point in time where the environment is being disrupted and changed at an alarming rate. This is then causing a cascading effect that has innumerable consequence, some of which we know and some of which we don’t. In order to move forward with effective policy and ideology, we need to look into the past to understand and analyze mistakes so that we do not become worse off than we were in the past. In Wonderland, Alice was confused and disoriented and continued to try to apply the rules that she knew to this new world…it did not work out. This is eerily similar to the situation that we live in. We are past the point where we need to start “raising awareness” on climate change. We are even past the stage of making action. We need to have made substantial action years ago but instead we are stuck making the same mistakes again, trying to fully understand every issue going on before we can act and taking our self interests above the global collective.  We now live in a new world than our parents and grandparents. We will probably see this world change time and time again, even if we decide to change our environmental trajectory. Change is just a byproduct of time, but adapting to that change is what is most important to understanding and maintaining life as we know it.

Nichole Mcgee
Presence of the Past
4 March 2018
The World’s Response to Danger

The talk Monday evening was a grim glance into our reality with pollution.The speaker brought up a lot of good points. However, the one point of the discussion that I would like to further evaluate is how we respond to pollution. Some of those responses were deliberate like the London Plane Tree. While other responses were just the effects of pollution taking its toll on society such as the asthma levels in Fresno, California. The trend between these two situations is how society attempts to make everything else adapt to the harm of pollution.

The speaker started with his years at Vassar College. He brought to our attention one of the famous trees that is centered in the college. The London Plane tree was developed in order to be adapted to climate change. With the toxic air slowly taking over, the government looked for ways to sustain nature while still sustaining the level of pollution. I thought it was also interesting to make this the center of the college. In a way, it is attempting to glorify how the world can modernize to deal with disaster. The tree can also symbolize an acceptance of the past history of Vassar as it was funded by big breweries that produced a lot of pollution.Although the concept of the tree is very interesting, but it comes to a certain point where we will no longer be able to make everything else around us learn to adapt but instead we will have to adapt our behavior.

Another situation is the toxic air levels effect on people. Fresno, California has the worst level of pollution. And to add to that, they also hold the top rank for amount of people with asthma. Do you think that has stopped big business from polluting so much? Do you think that they have slowed down intake at all? However, I can guarantee that instead they are expecting humans to adapt and prescribing varying types of medicine to combat the asthma. People even go so far as to wearing mask when they go out because the air is too bad. You should not be punished with lung problems from breathing the air from the world you live in. And you should not be expected to find a solution to deal with the problems that come with pollution, but the government should do more to protect us from the harsh toxins that surround us by cutting back on big production.

While it is great that the world is so advanced, it is also a scary downside to the power of technology. Soon, we will not know when enough is enough. We can not change our surroundings to constantly adapt to our destruction. One of the questions after the lecture was what can we do to help make a change. Although it start with making a small part with ourselves such as not littering and not participating in anything that may endanger animals, it is also starts with those in higher positions realizes that this world is not invincible and that you cannot always come back from our actions.

I thoroughly enjoyed Dr. Hensley’s talk. One of the aspects of the talk that I found particularly interesting was his section on the frequency of storms as reported by news outlets. He showed article headlines that claimed that the Hurricane Harvey was a storm that would occur only once in 100 years, 500 years, or even, as some headlines stated, 1000 years. However, it is clear that storms as strong or stronger than Harvey are happening even more frequently, some within a few years of each other or even in the same year.

Why does this matter? It shows, through literature, that we have to change the way we think from time to time. In the past, Hurricane Harvey was truly a once in however many centuries storm. Now, this is no longer our reality. Storms like this, because of climate change, have unfortunately become a part of our life as creatures of the Earth. We must not only become accustomed to enduring them on a more regular basis, but we must regard them in a way in which we have never regarded them before.

Dr. Hensley refers to this change in thinking as a “regime change.” In other words, our minds have become so use to something being presented to us in a certain way for such a long period of time, that we can only present it literarily in that way. Now that the nature of this thing is changing, it is our job to convey to other that this is the new reality, and we must act accordingly in dealing with such an issue.

As I edit this entry, looking back on my experience in this class, it is truly remarkable how much we can learn about today by looking at yesterday.  From topics pertaining to sexuality, to underwater ecosystems, and even understanding the creation of our galaxy, the past is sometimes one of the greatest tools we have in understanding almost anything.  However, I think the most pressing issue that we discussed in this course is exactly what Dr. Hensley talked about in his speech, climate change.  While there is so much still left to learn, we won’t be able to learn those things if we don’t change our thinking about climate change.  The crux of Dr. Hensley’s talk was that what we are experiencing today in regards to climate change is unprecedented.  Yes, the climate is and always has been a constantly changing and evolving entity, but it is time to throw out what we know about our climate from the past and start looking to the future.  We can no longer rely on our prior perception of climate phenomenons like “hundred year” and “five hundred year” storms.  it is time for us to understand that there really is no prior literature on what we are experiencing, and must channel all of our energy in the study of our climate and environments into fixing what we’ve broken.  We may not return our environment to its past state, but at the least we can give our species and others more time on this planet.

Sonja Thomas and her talk on Missionary Priests from India was both insightful and compelling. My previous knowledge on missionary priests was confined to my catholic upbringing which largely focused on the bible and messages/principles conveyed through it. Before the talk had started, I read the title of her presentation: Indians on the Reservation: Missionary Priests from India and Catholic Settler Colonialism. I thought about what this presentation would focus on, either colonialism through the perspective of Indian priests or Native American Indians, taken from the use of the word reservation, and their relationship with missionary priests. I figured that this talk was going to highlight some mistreatment of Native American missionary priests, given our past history with Native American relations and reparations. I was wrong. The biggest takeaway for me was the ambiguity surrounding the true purpose of Indian priests migrating to the states to preach their religion. The fact that this was in question was ironic in my eyes. Aren’t priests of all religions supposed to uphold all of the highest principles and morals? And here we were talking about Indian Missionaries scamming the system to make money and live a better life than their previous lives back in India. Ms. Thomas focused on this topic among others and presented with a lighthearted discourse which engaged the audience and helped me to feel more interested in the topic at hand.

One of the topics that Sonja focused on was the Catholic Settler Colonialism. This topic has been extensively reviewed both in past and present settings and all point towards a unanimous understanding: it was horrible. Whether you received this history disguised through euphemisms (as I did when I was in primary school) or were taught through more accurate accounts, the resounding conclusion is that settler colonialism was ironically plagued with some of the most immoral and unethical principles in our entire history. We came to live in the US through our forefathers who killed off populations of people who were the rightful owner to the land. The inception of providing the truth about colonialism is starting to gain more prevalence in academic literature and academic curriculums which I think is an enormous step forward. Without proper context and history, it is harder to appreciate and understand where we are and how we got here. Keeping in mind that we have committed our fair share of atrocities as a nation, this allows us to move forward and apply our new perspectives to current issues of discrimination and inequality. I really enjoyed hearing Sonja speak and her topic was especially compelling. It provided a background in history that can be applied to present time. This is important when presenting because it allows the audience members, some of which could be less inclined to find this specific topic interesting, to draw parallels to contemporary time and apply the same perspective to their own social-political interests.

I think in general, we as US citizens who live and enjoy the freedoms and liberties that come with our citizenship, should be more in tune with our history and actions in the past. The point the Sonja made about the assimilation of Native American peoples is only something I know about because of a Native American history class that I took my sophomore year. Some of the things that went on during this time help to contextualize the US’s history in terms of minorities and cultures that are different from their own. It is always important to believe in your own morals and principles but this should be done with perspective and understanding of other morals and principles that may not align with your own.

It’s a narrative that we see time and time again. A constant feud and distrust between natives and other non-native inhabitants and in general people of color.What’s seemingly alarming about this outrage is that it comes from people who have less entitlement to the country than those they are attempting to remove. The topic of the speech with its inclusion of “The MAGA Teen” and the treatment of Indian priests in Montana is a constant reminder of the disrespectful coexistence between natives and people of color with non-natives.
A few slides into the presentation we were introduced to “The MAGA Teen”. While the native tribe leader who is also a veteran beat his drums towards the crowd of mocking teens, this one particular teen, Nick Salmon,was captured smirking in his face. He later stated that the smirk was to let the tribe leader know that he was being peaceful. However, I believe many would agree that the smirk was done and a joking way and was taking light of the situation at hand. If he wanted to diffuse the situation and make the tribe leader feel at peace, then I believe he would have turned around and corrected his classmates that were causing the tension to begin with. Even though this moment was hard to stomach, life on the reservation showed an even more toxic coexistence.
The speaker was very fond of her childhood memories and was most proud of her relationship with many priest in the area. She also mentioned that there were White priest who resided in the town and the Indian and White priest had a somewhat good relationship. Yet, she recalled how the inhabitants of the towns would often want the White priest to perform certain task and would refuse Indian priest. Not only is the prejudice from the non natives ironic it’s also ironic that the prejudice was coming from people who were suppose to be Christians, but yet they were turning down another Christian because of their ethnicity. What is even more alarming is the implications of this tension on a larger scale.
During the first slide, the speaker showed us a picture that had the caption “Every American should vote”. However, in order to vote you had to have a street address which Indians who lived on the reservation did not have. Therefore, they could not participate in this right. It’s as if America is attempting to isolate people on the reservation into their own world and disassociate them from the democracy that everyone who lives here should be entitled to. In addition, it is extremely ironic that Native people are being left out of executive exercises on their own land.
The talk “Indians on the Reservation: Missionary Priests from India” was very informing. It made me create connections and one of them I saw was an extreme level of disrespect for Indians on the reservation. There is a clear divide and a living situation that could be best describe as a coexist. We need not to isolate the reservation as its own being. We should work hard to attempt to unite the reservations with the rest of the surrounding areas by at least letting them be able to vote. Once we can stop this progressive isolation that has involved from the way before the speaker’s childhood memories to now, I believe that there would be less disrespect and prejudice.

The talk from Ms. Yoder’s presentation on Angela Merkel provided some unique insights on how Merkel uses rhetoric to convey what is known as memory politics. This very rhetoric is what separates Merkel from past German leaders in how the topic of WW2 is remembered and spoken about. I thoroughly enjoyed this talk as I do not know much about the German political sphere or about Angela Merkel and her beliefs. As the Chancellor of Germany, I understand that Merkel has the great responsibility of governing Germany but she also plays are large role in shaping the discussion surrounding WW2 and the memories, policies, and political ties that are inextricably tied to this event.  

Merkel has received both praise and push-back from her use of memory politics. The remembrance of the past is something that Merkel strongly believes in and continues to reference in her many talks, globally. The importance of this is to keep the events of WW2 in perspective as Germany continues to create policies and attempts to repair the damage that was caused during the Nazi regime. This attempt is well founded in the idea that in order to continue to move forward in history, we must never forget the atrocities of the past so that we will not and cannot make the same mistakes. But this idea does not end there, Merkel feels a sense of responsibility to keep referencing and apologizing for what happened in order to “pay her dues” to what is known as one of the worst, if not the worst, events in human history. It was quite clear that Yoder holds Merkel in high regards, based off of her praise for Merkel and her political career. It was great to hear such a Merkel enthusiast explain the tactics that the German Chancellor uses in her speeches because I feel like that enthusiasm allowed us, the audience, to understand all of the progressive ideas that Germany, a historically conservative country, was pushing to the forefront of their ideology. Yoder’s point about making Germans feel more accountable for the actions of WW2 was perfectly supported with Yoder’s analysis of Merkel’s speeches. In around 2/3rds of Merkel’s speeches, she alluded to the German history and the need to continue to remember this event. Although this may seem like quite a retrospective idea, I agree with Merkel in that this event should not “dealt with” then simply forgotten like other historical events. Raising awareness to this issue and holding the German people and government accountable to this will help progress the country towards stronger relationships with allied nations and continue to keep this thought in the forefront of our minds. I think that constantly recounting the event is a good way for people to understand relationships both domestically and internationally. If we could all understand what happened during the nazi regime, I feel that it would only bring us closer as a human race and help us realize that we are all from the same species and should work to find peace among all people instead of racism, hate and division.

Furthermore, I enjoyed some of the questions that were posed at the end of the talk. One of the questions that was asked, touched on the image that Merkel had created for herself during her Chancellorship. I think that this use of “memory politics” and the idea of holding people accountable, will definitely be tied to Merkel and her overall ideology. Although I do not know what the general German public thinks about Merkel other than the fact that she brought her conventionally republic party towards the center of the political spectrum, I think that this aspect of her leadership role should be accepted by both sides of the political discourse. Merkel’s political discourse was not explicitly mentioned in this talk but I think that this agenda that Merkel is pursuing is one that can be purveyed by the German political system/public as a whole.

Emotion is definitely a tool that is used in politics when a politician is trying to pursue an agenda. In this case, I think that Merkel did a good job of tackling a seemingly unfinished job in terms of giving justice to what happened during the second World War. It was mentioned that the past German leaders did not do the best job of acknowledging the atrocious German history, and I think that Merkel did some justice by reintroducing this topic and constantly reminding people of what happened and how we must never fall for a regime or ideology like this ever again. Merkel with unquestionably go down in history as a leader and a visionary who spoke about Germany’s past in a way that conveyed condolence, empathy, inaction and renumeration.

The talk that Jennifer Yoder gave on Monday has given me a lot to think about. First off it, showed how little I actually know about Germany: its culture, government, and problems. The talk starts out setting the stage for the rise of Chancellor Merkel as well as talking about the various ways the politicians before Merkel have dealt with the ugly truth of the way Germany acted during both World Wars. I knew about what they did during both world wars since that was taught to most American students during their time in school, but the way the German politicians handled it was a different story. This lead to my second big area of questioning: How did/does my own country deal with our dark past?

Merkel argues that the best way to deal with a dark past, is to not shy away. Rather, talk about it and try and make amends . This in my opinion is one of the toughest tasks a politician can undertake. There must be an immense amount of thought put into how to go about doing it. I believe that Chancellor Merkel did a great job in talking about the past by having a reason behind her talks. She does not just call people out without a “but .” The “but” is the second part of a sermon where the preacher says that their is hope from hell. You are a sinner, “but” you can still go to heaven. Angela gives everyone the “but” in her greater call of moving forward through dealing with the past. This is where my first thought goes into my second thought.

 

A student in the class asked if this could possibly lose her support if the GDR called her out for being anti-German. This one question is in my opinion the reason that I believe that we haven’t gotten over our deep evil of slavery. The politics that I have been seeing has not been a politics of welcoming. It has been a long series of mud throwing even after the parties entirely switched their platform. The greater call for a welcoming, remembering country is not one that would fall on many listening ears. Many politicians have in the past tried to welcome talks about the evils of slavery as well as tried to fix it. Many highly motivated high schoolers were beat over the head with the idea that we are evil people through our AP US history class. All of those things being in place will not really change too much though. The way to change in a country like ours is through wide spread grass roots movement. Change is slow. Politicians are too worried about getting re-elected and helping lobbyist that helped them.

I don’t believe that the way to a more welcoming country is through laws or funds for memorials. Both of those are helpful and wonderful things on their own, however the only way to change is through the goodness of people. Money is not a good payment for the death of millions, and the argument that “It wasn’t me” is not good enough. We as a country need to realize that it takes actions and heart felt love to change problems. Not money, or laws, or even speeches. I believe that this is the one reason that Chancellor Merkel has turned Germany into the indispensable power in Europe: her call for action and love.