Tag Archives: Week 10

Week 10: When is the ocean’s birthday?

Posted on by
2

Helen M. Rodzakowski’s Vast Oceans made me think and rethink my perception of so much more than the ocean. It also made me rethink the things considered just as timeless as the ocean–for example, Barbie. Barbie dolls and Barbie movies were a personal childhood staple. There wasn’t a day that went by in the first six or seven years of my life that I didn’t watch Barbie’s “Rapunzel” or sing the songs from Barbie’s “The Princess and the Pauper” or happily receive a new Barbie doll from my aunt. Barbie’s presence in my life was a constant, so it didn’t occur until later in life that Barbie wasn’t always a constant in every kid’s life. We can trace Barbie’s beginnings back to the 50s, down to the name of her creator and why she was named Barbie in the first place. Barbie has history, but in the eyes of time, Barbie is barely a twinkle in it.

One of the quotes that stood out to me in Rodzakowski’s Vast Oceans is: ““…the connections between people and oceans, though ancient, have tightened over time and multiplied with industrialization and globalization. Although we think of it as being starkly different, in this sense the ocean resembles the land. This trajectory runs counter to wide-spread cultural assumptions of the ocean as a place remote from and immune to human activity.” (9) The ocean has seen all of human history, existing long before humans even became humans. If the ocean were a person, it would know more of our history than we know of it. Even though our knowledge of the ocean’s history is limited, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

The Ocean Reader

Posted on by
2

The opening paragraph of this reading caught my attention. Because it’s impossible to cut trees or mine the surface of the ocean, it seems “impervious to the onslaught of the harvesters.” I had never before considered terracentrism.

I’m not sure how relevant this is to the reading, but I can somewhat relate on a personal level to the concept of terracentrism. A few years ago, I watched a documentary called Cowspiracy. As a result of that film and Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma, I became a pescetarian. For 2 years, I didn’t even consider the ocean or the beings affected by my consumption of fish. It wasn’t until I learned more about overfishing and the exploitation of dolphin populations in places like Japan that I even considered cutting out fish from my diet. Although I don’t believe it is up to the individual to change the environmental destruction on a large scale, I somewhat disregarded the ocean as a productive ecosystem.

The concept of the Ocean being one interconnected system without boundaries fascinates me. By naming different parts of the ocean as their own ocean, we have artificially separated a singular connected ecosystem into different parts. By doing so, we forget that species like birds and whales travel across these permeable “borders” for their migrating patterns. We also forget that there are countries that are disproportionately affected by the overconsumption of goods in wealthy countries. For example, the trash that the US sends to China and subsequently the Philippines affects the populations of people and animals all over the Pacific. A plastic bottle I throw into the Pacific won’t magically stop at the edge of the next ocean over.

Week 10: A Continuance of Attempting to Link Human and Ocean

Posted on by
1

I felt as though that the readings this week was another spoonful of humans trying to redefine the ocean to the humans who crafted its definitions and boundaries prior. Each text attempts to combine oceanic history with human history; supposing that there should be no distinction between the two. In my pessimistic view on this situation remains the same: to solve the problem of humans intrinsically destroying our own environment, we must convince people that they should care. In order for this to happen any producer of literature should aim to romanticize the ocean or anthropomorphize it. Many people care about things other than themselves like animals, but the world isn’t 100% vegetarian, though some are, and that niche population helps more than not. The only way people will do anything is if it immediately, or in a short amount of time, gives them a reward in return. The world faces so many environmental issues created by humans, but the average person living their daily life will not concern themselves with what happens to the planet when they drive their car to work, what happens to the trash when they throw it in the bin, what happens to the single use plastics they use after going out for a bite to eat, because why would they? If the effects of these decisions seem harmless then why bother to make sure? In my opinion there is one introduction that I felt missed the mark in terms of successfully pulling in the reader to ultimately make them care about the ocean.

The intro for The Ocean Reader had a strong first page as it directly spoke to the reader and dramatically challenged preconceived notions. One being that, “—the Ocean [has] also seemed unchangeable, inexhaustible, and impervious to the onslaught of the harvesters. But such is not the case.” (Duke UP, 1). I feel as though many people, including myself, have seen the ocean to be this huge, mighty force, that couldn’t possibly be affected by tiny little humans. Therefore, by debunking this perception of the ocean, the author shifts the perception to the idea that we are hurting, for lack of better words, the ocean by the things we do in our daily lives ie: pollution, CO2 admissions, overfishing, etc. This take is very effective in my opinion, but where he lost me as a reader, and in effectiveness, is when he goes on a spiel of numbers on the depths and reach the ocean has. As a reader, I cannot even fathom such numbers and if I can’t imagine it, then it’s not real, in tern not having an effect on me. Therefore, the direct approach to make me rethink my own ideas or to make me see the ocean in a new light is much more effective in terms of making me want to get up and save the ocean.

Deterritorializing Preface

Posted on by
3

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.

Week 10: Thoughts on Vast Expanses

Posted on by
1

I found the discussion of ocean history extremely interesting in this week’s readings. In the Introduction of Vast Expanses, Rodzadowski mentions that we must pay attention “to questions of how, by whom and why knowledge about the ocean was created and used” (Rodzadowski, p. 9). When discussing ocean history, there is a need to understand what information came from which culture because that plays large in role in understanding the relationship to the ocean at the time. As we have discussed in class, some cultures view the ocean as something to work with and others view it as an object to use. Additionally, this quote makes me question the knowledge that we have of the ocean. When I think of how we gain knowledge, I think of books, and while I know that information can also be passed orally, what information was published about the ocean, and what cultures’ knowledge was included? That shapes and influences our views of the ocean’s history and our history with the ocean. 

Since technology has evolved and humans have expanded their impact on the environment, it’s interesting to read about the different stages of human relationships with the ocean. I was fascinated with the idea of the modern relationship with the ocean. Rodzadowski describes how in the 1970s there was “concern for the great whales and about the dangers posed by major oil spills..but [this concern] did not translate into worry about the ocean itself, only its coasts and a handful of its more charismatic inhabitants” (p.11). Using sea animals that appeal to the masses to protest certain actions or policies is something that we still do today. 50 years ago people used their concern for the whales to protest oil spills and four years ago people used turtles to bring awareness to the amount of plastic being dumped in the ocean. This idea of concern for certain animals rather than the ocean as a whole is so fascinating because the state of the ocean directly impacts these animals but we had not acknowledged that until recently. I wonder how our relationship with the ocean will change in the coming years and if there will be any major changes culturally that will shift our outlook on the ocean. 

Earth’s Second World and The Right to Understand

Posted on by
1

Good evening Class,

Did anybody else get goosebumps reading the introduction to The Ocean Reader? Because those measurements made a shiver run down my spine.

It wasn’t until very recently that I’ve been able to better accurately visualize distances and lengths mentally – because of this newfound ability, I had to do double take after double take when reading the introduction to The Ocean Reader. I do all of my mental measurements in yards because its easy for me to visualize the length of a football field in my head than a kilometer. So if one kilometer is 1,093, and some change, yards long – or a little less than 11 football fields – then that means the Mariana Trench is about 27,887 football fields deep… please, somebody tell me I’m not the only one freaked out by that idea.

To think that a majority of the Earth’s crust is underwater is baffling. This means a majority of OUR planet is not easily accessible by any means. I’m personally conflicted by this. I see myself as a part of Earth – I believe that just because I can ask questions about how the world operates and what life means doesn’t necessarily mean I’m entitled an explanation. I do not want to meddle with the natural order of the planet just to scratch any philosophical itch I may conjure up. I WAS content with living in a world full of mystery and I DO enjoy looking at the sky and day dreaming about the universe and its plethora of mysteries. But seeing just how much of the world is underwater (and really being able to visualize it) has made me a little more curious than I was before. The ocean is truly another world existing within our own, and this realization is becoming more and more apparent to me the more we read in this course.

EDIT: I think I might have gotten my calculations wrong. My bad, everyone.

The Ocean as an Unconquerable Place

Posted on by
1

In this weeks readings, one of the things we read was the introduction chapter of the book “The Ocean Reader” by Eric Paul Roorda. This introductory chapter aimed to introduce people to the idea that despite the ocean being something people may consider an obstacle people must cross to reach new lands, the ocean is still a place with a lot of personality and history. I found this reading to be extremely interesting because, while it may be shameful to admit, I don’t know a lot about the ocean at all. As I follow this class, I think about how society acts towards the ocean and its qualities, but I am realizing that I am part of the problem simply by not thinking about or researching the ocean. While people may not drive to the ocean to dump their trash, a lot of people are not conscious about how even littering can pollute the ocean. The ocean takes up around 70% of the world, and polluting and ruining it will undoubtedly affect the rest of the world. By keeping people uninformed, we are letting ourselves not only disrespect the ocean and its history, but we are allowing the ocean to be polluted.

Roorda makes his point clear that although we have named several different oceans, ultimately, “There is one ocean… they all connect into one ocean” (2). Naming different oceans as if they are countries is the most humanity is willing to do in order to navigate the oceans better, but when it comes to treatment and care, humanity refuses to do anything because different countries feel they have no gain. While it is important to look out for yourself, looking out for the environment directly correlates to looking out for not only yourself, but your species. One thing I want to comment on that might not be directly relevant is how fascinating it is that I am now wondering why people are so ignorant about this, but until I took this class, I was mostly ignorant about this.

Week 10 Blog — Stepping Away from Terracentrism

Posted on by
1

This week I found both readings to be pretty interesting because I feel like I have taken classes on a variety of the oceanic topics pertaining to the currents, winds, the amount of energy each possess, and how together they can impact food chains, coastlines, and much more. The main points of these papers are to shift away from our land-oriented/terracentric perspective of history to be inclusive of (if not centered around) our oceans. I personally like this idea and mindset because when thinking of the past it prompts consideration for the future. As stated in the reading, this perspective shift has already started to reinforce and make way for trends promoting responsibility towards our oceans and impacts on climate. What was both reinforcing of this concept and personally empowering was when the author says, “[t]o capitalize Ocean is to challenge the conventional wisdom that the seas can be taken for granted. They cannot.” (Roorda, page 4).  When we take a step back and consider everything that has been happening with the history of our oceans we can see some incredible correlations relating to climate change. The ocean holds a vast amount of the carbon we emit and is supposed to to an extent, but when it captures too much it starts impacting the shells of many animals and creatures at the bottom of the food chain. This can then throw off what balance there is in the food chain and is all rather visible through studying oceanic patterns/trends. If we can encourage and pass on this perspective change to future generations, we can start proactively making amends to our lifestyles that are not conducive of a sustainable future which is what I believe the author might have been trying to prompt in the readers. One way or the other, I am on board and support this view!

The Ocean Reader

Posted on by
Reply
When completing this week’s reading, I really liked the descriptions used in The Ocean Reader Theory. Not only did it outline the separation between Humans and the Ocean, but how the Ocean is seen as deep, dark, and scary to most people. The separation between the ocean and the land, for humans, is solely because the ocean is harder to “conquer” or develop than land is. It explains this aspect in the text when it says “It has always been difficult for humans to think of the ocean as a place. Those who have considered the watery majority of the planet on its own terms have often seen it as a changeless space, one without a history. Because the ocean can’t be plowed , paved, or shaped in ways the eye is able to discern, it has seemed to be a constant, while the land changed drastically over centuries.” (page 1) I liked how this paper outlined the separation between the ocean and the land, because of how humans view it as not having a history. Although the fish and marine population have history in the ocean, and the ocean is just as changeable as the land even if us humans cannot see it. I thought this was a very interesting description of how the ocean and the land are different and the same all at once. Now that I am thinking about it I have never really thought much about the history of the oceans, we are taught about Geology, earthquakes, land change, etc in school but I have never learned much about the history of the oceans. There are more opportunities and options now to learn about the Ocean, but it is just not as important to humans as land history is. Just because we are not living in the Ocean doesn’t mean its protection and history isn’t just as important as the lands. This makes me think about how not only do we claim to have explored the Ocean (only about 5 percent), but also how humans disregarded the importance of other things if it does not affect them. We see this with social justice issues, gender, race, and etc all the time. If you do not fall into a category it isn’t important.” I thought it was interesting how this idea applies to the ocean, land, humans, and more. Moving to other parts of The Ocean Reader, I thought the term “Terracentratism ” was quite interesting, a term that is referring to people’s tendency of considering the world’s activity only taking place on land, excluding the Ocean. This is the whole theme of this paper, which I find to be super interesting to read about. Overall, I focused on this paper out of the readings because of how I feel it strongly applies to today, and how we are terrestrial focused and how the Oceans history is commonly bypassed.

The Ocean Reader History

Posted on by
1

There is so much to the ocean that is undiscovered. We only know life on land, but there is an entire ecosystem that is undiscovered in the ocean. Eric Roorda makes this apparent in his “The Ocean Reader…”, by pointing out that 71% of the world is water, meaning, that there is more life in the water than on earth. The discoveries that we have made on land— on 29% of this world, have been phenomenal. Roorda highlights how little us humans know compared to the world as a whole. The Ocean has been a feared concept because as humans we fear the unknown. We don’t know if the unknown exists to hurt us or benefit us. Reading Roorda’s introduction made me think of the Bermuda Triangle because yes there are many things for us to learn, but when you think of the risks that accompany discovery it makes you question whether or not it is worth it. We don’t know much about the Bermud, but we know airplanes and ships have disappeared. Our curiosity is peaked, but would we risk flying or sailing across the Bermuda Triangle to learn? I’m not agreeing or disagreeing, it’s just something that Roorda had me questioning especially when he noted that the pacific is the largest (64 million miles) and deepest body of ocean. I can’t even fathom the depth of that.