Note: This in the introduction to a new series with a focus on Canadian environmental history scholarship from the early modern period.
The idea for a series featuring scholarship from the early modern period – and querying the larger temporal character of the field of environmental history – came out of this year’s American Society for Environmental History conference in Riverside, California. At a roundtable of historians teaching in environmental studies programs, Edward Melillo of Amherst College commented that one criticism of environmental history (even among environmental historians) was its tendency toward presentism. But Melillo said he didn’t consider the charge of presentism a serious one. It may be that others don’t, either; after all, many of us went into this field in order to explain the roots of contemporary problems, many of which anchor in the Anthropocene. So presentism could be considered necessary, and even more than that, a mark of effectiveness. On the other hand, with most of us clustering in the late nineteenth through twentieth centuries, it may also mean that many other histories go understudied, and that we are missing important antecedents and origin stories. (Melillo also admitted his current work was taking him further back into the nineteenth century.)
When I started teaching at Bucknell, and they didn’t know what to do with a Canadian/ist, they asked me to teach a class on the French and Indian War. With my interest in Washington extending only to Christopher Jackson’s portrayal of the guy, I deflected that into a course on environmental history in the eighteenth century … and, unexpectedly, fell in love with the period as environmental history. As the course matured through questions of territory, energy, climate, land tenure, urban design, and so on, I have been repeatedly struck by how relevant the period is to understanding the world around me. (Of course, even that is presentist.) Scratch the surface of Halifax, or rural Pennsylvania, and it’s right there. So why don’t more environmental historians move back from the industrial age? How do our early modern colleagues feel about the state of affairs and the state of nature?
Over the next few months, we’ll hear from scholars whose work ranges across the Atlantic world and the North American continent, and across several centuries:
- Jack Bouchard, Folger Shakespeare Library
- Anya Zilberstein, Concordia University
- George Colpitts, University of Calgary
- Kirsten Greer, Nipissing University
- Gregory Kennedy, Université de Moncton
Each contributor was asked to consider the value of the early modern period to environmental history; presentism in the field; and the conversations that early modernists and modernists might be having with each other. We hope you’ll join us. And we’re delighted to be partnering with Borealia on this, as we did two years ago.
Latest posts by Claire Campbell (see all)
- Northeast & Atlantic Region Environmental History (NEAR-EH) 2018: Ottawa - June 13, 2018
- Taking the Longer View: Environmental History as Early Modern History - June 1, 2018
- Six Thoughts in Search of an Epilogue (Soundings) - April 18, 2018
- CFP: Northeast & Atlantic Region Environmental History Forum, June 2018, Ottawa - January 5, 2018
- I’ll Stay in Canada? Frameworks for Teaching Environmental History - November 6, 2017
- CFP: “Pure Michigan” Environmental Histories of the Great Lakes State, Michigan Historical Review - September 21, 2017
- The personal is political: Should we require environmental study? - September 12, 2017
- Northern Frontier, Northern Homeland: The Berger Report at 40 and An Experiment, Part II - May 3, 2017
- North-East and Atlantic Region Environmental History (NEAR, EH?) Forum: Connecticut, May 2017 - April 12, 2017
- Due South: ASEH and the Question of Borders - April 5, 2017