It is interesting that for so long the ocean has been considered a place where change does not take place even though it’s literally a place that is constantly undergoing movement. This week’s reading show that to believe the ocean to be ahistorical and un-dynamic says more about the way we as humans have shaped our beliefs and how the very language we create reinforces this “offshore” way of thinking. I am interested in comparing and contrasting our western relationship with the ocean with the relationship that other coastal cultures have with the ocean. It would be particularly interesting to analyze how language differs based on the geographical proximity to the ocean. Based on the readings we have been assigned these past couple of weeks it’s clear that in the environmental humanities it is crucial to listen and learn from people of all backgrounds, who have differing relationships with the natural world. It is a collective labor that will help re-examine ever sifting relationship with the environment. The Deterritorializing preface excerpt further examines how our language shapes the reality in which we live in. The examination of these aquatic terms helped me understand how more terrestrial terms can often limit our thinking. For example, the term current as opposed to field; It is clear that the usage of field connotes an understanding of safety in the reliable but it does not prepare us for when the reliable fails the way that the word current does. In such a rapidly changing world and one in which humans are in constant movement, I’m thinking particularly of immigration, is it not easier to accept change and difference with a word like current? It allows us to view the world as one of constant ebbs and flows and therefore something that we can all move in rhythm to rather than resistance. It seems like now more than ever, we can benefit from moving from terrestrial thinking, into a more “liquid” manner of thinking. I am getting a better understanding of the blue humanities and what it seeks to explore. After all, I believe it was last week’s readings that mention that the solution to our environmental crisis does not rely on technological innovation but rather in reshaping how we relate and think of the environment and that includes even the language we use.