(Note: This is a guest post by Jessica DeWitt discussing Armstrong and Nelle's book Wilderness and Waterpower.)
In
preparation for Wednesday's discussion I have organized a list of the
points and arguments that struck me as most
important in relation to Armstrong and Nelles' new book. To facilitate
discussion I have attached most of these points to a possible question. I
look forward to hearing other peoples' takes on the book.
1.
Armstrong and Nelles open the book with a claim that hydroelectric
power had as much of a effect on the development of Banff National Park
as the CPR.
After reading the book, do you think that they illustrated this claim effectively or is it an overstatement?
2. Two main questions that Armstrong and Nelles are seeking to answer:
a. "Why did Banff National Park have to be significantly altered to accommodate hydroelectric storage?" (vii)
b.
"More broadly, how did the production and consumption of electricity in
sourthern Alberta shape Canada's premier national park?" (vii)
3. The story is one that is supposed to illustrate the battle between "path-dependent technology" and public policy.
-"The phrase
path dependence," they write, "describes a familiar predicament:
early choices in system design virtually determine downstream
incremental change." (viii)
Can
we think of other examples of path dependence in environmental history?
Is this a useful analytical concept for other studies?
4.
Armstrong and Nelles emphasize that this is not a story of
pre-determinism and that the results were the outcome of various
decisions made by different factions.
5.
They state that "there is no necessary incompatibility between power
generation and a national park." Our conception of what a park is has
evolved over time,
what is deemed unsavory development today was considered a legitimate
development at the turn-of-the-century.
Do Nelles and Armstrong effectively demonstrate this evolution? They use the term "Doctrine of Usefulness" to explain why Calgary Power was able to dig its claws into Banff.
Does their use of the "Doctrine of Usefulness" agree with Robert Craig
Brown's original definition or are they trying to apply it in a broader
manner? Does the doctrine work in this instance?
6.
Armstrong and Nelles state that a increased demand in power was a
result of a kind of social gospel status surrounding electrification.
Is this factor given enough attention in the book? Or does it get lost behind a story of decades of political manoeuvring?
7.
They mention that much of this situation can be attributed to Canadians
ambivalence towards the natural world in which they live.
Since I'm not Canadian, I would love to hear some Canadian opinions on
this assertion, which I have run into in numerous Canadian environmental
histories.
8.
What do you think of the definition of wilderness that Armstrong and Nelles choose to work with?
"The
problem of wilderness is that creating an imaginary separation between
humanity and nature masks the essential humanness of its construction."
(xiii) <-I
like this quote.
9.
They mention that waterpower exists in a cultural context. Not every
waterfall, they say, is dammed. Society makes culturally informed
decisions about what
happens to each waterfall and how it will meet its energy requirements.
10.
They emphasize that the reengineering of the Bow was necessary if it
were to be used for waterpower because of the unreliability of its flow
(heavy during
Spring thaw, low at other times of year).
11. I saw a lot of parallels between their treatment of hydroelectric power development on the Bow and Nelles'
The Politics of Development, particularly in regards to discussions of possible provincial and private cooperation.
Have the rest of you read
The Politics of Development and if so do did you notice the similarities?
Also, perhaps we could discuss the connection of this book to their earlier work,
The River Returns.
12. Nelles and Armstrong state that they are using the concept of
second nature.
How effectively did they apply this concept to their narrative? Could they have given this idea more attention?
(I say, yes)
13. I found it interesting how the hydroelectric developments and other development were deemed acceptable if they were hidden.
Although there is an assertion that resistance to such development in
parks has developed since the mid-twentieth century. Is it true that the
out of sight, out of mind attitude is still alive and well in our parks
and protected areas?
14.
I especially enjoyed the portion of the book that dealt with the Spray
Lakes. Concluding this portion of the story, they write, "the argument
that hydroelectric
development should not take place within national parks, a point of
view that seemed to gain wide public acceptance, when forced through the
sausage machine of federal politics in the late 1920s, led to the
remarkable conclusion that such places should not
be within national parks in the first place." (115)
I
looked at a current map of the region in order to gain a better
understanding of where the Spray Lakes were and the positioning of the
four national parks that
were made out of Rocky Mountains National Park in order to cut out
those pieces of land that were natural resource rich. What I found most
interesting is that the Spray Lakes which were cut of Banff are now
surrounded by 4-5 provincial parks. This relates
directly to my research on provincial parks.
What does this tell us about the values/expectations we place on national vs. provincial parks?
15.
This book also fed my growing fascination with Canadian and American's
acceptance of dams. So many parks, particularly at the provincial and
state level are
designed around an artificial lake, treating the lake as a natural
landmark. What does this say about our understanding of nature and the relationship between
recreation and the natural world?
16.
In their conclusion, Armstrong and Nelles talk once again about the way
in which people reconstructed their conception of nature in order to
accept the presence
of hydroelectric technology in their parks. They also reassert that
humans are a part of nature and that the Bow was not "natural" before
the hydroelectric development. This development, they state, was
"relative rather than absolute change"
As
I finished the book I found myself wishing they had put more emphasis
on these two themes instead of going into the minutiae of the political
and economic events
surrounding the hydroelectric development.
Did anyone else come to the same or similar conclusion?
-Well, I could go on--and on--but I'll wait until Wednesday.
