This week’s reading I decided to focus on Helen M. Rodzadowski, Vast Expanses: A History of the Oceans (Reaktion Books, 2018), “Introduction: People and Oceans” as it was an interesting reading but also played like a wakeup call in my head. A part that really stood out to me was, “Even events that took place at sea are often narrated as though the ocean is a flat, land-like place without its underlying depths, having two dimensions instead of three.” (Rozwadowski, 7), and in this I thought was important as the ocean is constantly portrayed as something so small and tamable that humans forget the reality of the ocean as something so deep and untamable that has played a role in human history for so long. This part of the story took me to another reading for this week, which is Steve Mentz, Ocean (Bloomsbury, 2020): “Deterriotarializing Preface” as it is giving seven words that change our view and understanding of the ocean. The one word that caused this parallel thinking between both readings was the word “Distortion” as Mentz states, “Water’s tri-dimensionality sometimes orients us on the buoyant top and at other times closer to the irresistible bottom.” (Mentz, xvii). Both citations contain the word “dimension” which sparks something in my head as viewing the ocean as layers, and why do we still view the ocean as something flat? Why can’t we see the ocean as what it truly is? Why can’t we accept that we cannot tame the ocean? It is a place of nature that continues to make up majority of the Earth and provide for living creatures. If we were able to grasp the concept of the ocean as three dimensional, I believe there will be more of a further understanding between the ocean and maybe ocean world along with human history.

Another point of the text that resonated with me was, “People have exploited the ocean for many reasons, starting with food and transportation, but also as the focus of myth and culture.” (Rozwadowski, 7). This put in perspective how much we rely on the ocean as much as we do land, the ocean is able to provide many of the things we seek for and depend on for constant living just as land does. I also thought it was interesting to add in “myth and culture” as many do not acknowledge this but there is a significant number of stories about mythical beings that come from water, but also many cultures who view themselves as one with the ocean. Going back to Mentz’s reading makes me see the different words this small passage is able to go along with most if not all the words he defines, but the one word that specifically stuck with my thinking was “Flow” as he states, “Thinking in terms of cyclical flows rather than linear progress makes historical narratives messier, more confusing, and less familiar. These are good things.” (Mentz, xvi). I thought the way flow was defined fit with my citation of Rozwadowski as it takes enough to acknowledge ocean as a part of our history, but more so if we realize our history isn’t something that is going to be constant, but it is changing as much as the ocean does and there isn’t a correct starting and ending point.

Both of these readings really struck me as makes me reflect on the class and how we are able to go from the history of mermaids, then to the environment, and back to the ocean. There is a constant change between all topics but there somehow always a shown connectedness between all three, almost as if it was a cycle. I think it is important not just in this class, but to the Earth as a whole to acknowledge the points being made in which we understand our history has always involved the ocean and that it is always changing, but to also see the ocean as a place that has been depended on for so long not just by humans but by all living creatures.