Applied History

I’d like to begin this post by saying that Thomas King’s sarcastic, sassy, and real writing style made all of my writing dreams come true.

Money is more important than protecting sacred spaces, and bureaucratic nightmares have been put in place to keep us from gaining the upper hand over corporations and investors – who knew? The argument that one man’s significant historical site is another man’s waste of space is something that I’ve tended to side with throughout most of these readings, but this book struck me in a different direction. The earth, our natural environment, our cultural heritage spaces, belong to all of us. Everyone should care about preserving and protecting them. But “should” is perhaps the most unrealistic and unattainable word in the dictionary, because there are far more important things in this world than emotional ties and historic appreciation.

I liked Mischa’s point that people are not as naive as King seems to make them seem, and will work to protect the environment and our heritage from the corruption that seeks to destroy it. But then I think of Standing Rock and the DAPL, and how hard people fought to protect that land. In the end, money and the government still won. We’ve been talking a lot in my UF class about the best ways to create change in the modern era, and my students have come to the conclusion that perhaps the only way to maybe make these changes is to throw yourself into the eye of the storm – run for office, work your way up, and fight corruption and ignorance from the inside out. I don’t think people can solve this on their own, and King brings this up in his last chapter. Political leadership might give you a leg up in bringing about reform within committees and in legislation.

I appreciate King’s small optimism at the end, because mine was long gone by the time I reached the final chapter. Even if political involvement is the way to go, how do we make people care about these places when there is so much money invested in their destruction? His suggestions are nice, but they still don’t seem all that realistic to me, especially under the current administration. Rep. Jackson’s bill, emphasizing the human rights component instead of environmental protection, is a hopeful idea, but would totally be laughed off of the floor today.

I like to imagine Mr. King’s reworking of this piece for the next political generation with so many more expletives.

So, you want to build a railroad through land covered in Native American tradition and culture? Just hire someone that will say that it will not actually “hurt anything”. If that doesn’t work, all one needs to do is put more money in to debunk any significance, take a few pictures of it and say, “we saved it.” If that is all too much for you, simply declare that there is no reason to even look at all of that in the first place. One way or another you can buy your way out of objectivity too and today only for the low, low price of $2995.

As a absolute representation of what consumerist culture is, strives to be, and what it does, Thomas King shows a million and one ways to overlook any kind of culture, history, and environmental concerns about what you want to build in the name of….(wait for it)….”progress”. That is right. I said it. Need a railroad built but don’t think you should have to deal with pesky laws? Put the burden of better ideas on the other side, completely avoiding any and all responsibility.  “It’s really pretty simple. When a specialist is hired by a project proponent, no matter how skilled, professional, and even honorable that specialist may be, he or she can’t help but be influenced by the client’s interest in moving his or her project forward quickly and at least cost.” (43)

Think the idea of that is wrong. No problem. let’s bring in an unbiased third party. But wait, there’s more. Is the unbiased party unbiased? Even when the BLM brings in a third party, “The proponent pays, but the agency calls the shots. Sometimes, however— as we’ll see in Chapter Seven— the ostensibly independent “third party” contractor for the agency turns out to be the very firm that is also under contract with the proponent.”(43)

Better yet, just bury everyone in a bunch of jargon that you choose to not bother defining gumming up the entire works for anyone even attempting to figure out what you are doing.(74-77) You may even get lucky and have no one to show up to speak out against your project, as long as you make sure that it is a public hearing and that you create paperwork that you can later ignore.(114)

If none of those work to get you to the place you need to be, just wait. Over the next four years it is likely that we will see such a cutback in the systems in place to protect these places, you may be able to just do whatever you want and there will be no one there to even stop you. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/budget-epa-state-department-cuts.html)

With these steps, you too can destroy the Earth, other cultures, and resources in five easy steps… assuming you have the money and where you want to build is in an area of regularly marginalized people.

I found the book Our Unprotected Heritage, written by Thomas F. King, to be quite informative and enjoyable. The first chapter of the book mentions the “Bright Green Laws,” (King, 11) or environmental laws that tells how any sort of impact on the environment, no matter how little, can create a pollutive mess. The laws include the “Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)” (11) from 1976 and the Clean Air Act. These laws provide the Environmental Protection Agency the means with which to prosecute violators or polluters.  For example, the “Superfund Law,” or the “Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)” which became law in 1980 really gave the EPA the authority and ability to fine companies or individuals who violated environmental standards and they were able to collect hefty fines or serve jail time. The author focuses on what he refers to as “Light Green Laws,” which are primarily directed at federal agencies, and are “self-enforcing,” and rarely include fines or prison sentences. (12).  Two of the most notable of the light green laws is the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) or, as he refers to them, the “heritage laws.” (13) I find the NHPA one of the most impactful laws in regard to historic preservation with Section 106 requiring “agencies to think and consult about their impacts on historic places . . .” (20).  Section 106 has also been useful in addressing environmental impact concerns, such as the case of Abo’ Pass near Albuquerque, New Mexico and helping the Buckland Preservation Society from urban sprawl.  The author criticizes the Bush Administration’s “scorn for environmental protection.” (21) If the current administration’s budget defunding the EPA goes through, our environment is in for a big hit.

Some interesting details in Chapters 3 and 4, I found the descriptions of their contents to be enlightening in understanding impacts on heritage. “In trying to preserve the village of Buckland and the Buckland Mills Battlefield, the Buckland Preservation Society (BPS) involves itself in NHPA and NEPA review mostly through two federal agencies.” (49) The Federal Highway Administration and the Corps of Engineers were two agencies that assisted in both of these significant projects in improving traffic and exercising the Clean Water Act in regards to wetlands.  Chapter 8 summarizes five criticisms from the author and I share his criticism.  The first being that firms are more than likely biased because they are part of the “planning team.” Secondly, instead of looking at it as a process, many firms just want to obtain “clearance.” (141)  The third criticism deals with the fact that the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Advisory Council on Historical Preservation (ACHP) are lacking in power and any degree of enforcement.  The fourth issue deals with the complete lack of “transparency in the review systems,” and a questionable use of influence. (142) Last, but not least, is the unfortunate result of acceptance of the status quo and the inability to promote change for the betterment of EIA and CRM.  In King’s condemnation about the ineffectiveness of agencies whose primary purpose is for environmental protection and historic preservation, he cites “ignorance and unexamined assumptions,” as the reasons for “agency bias in favor of development . . .” (69) He cites government agencies which try to approach projects, listed on the National Register, that would require EIA and CRM with the same timelines and ease as if they were buying paper towels.

Our Unprotected Heritage book argues the point that the government in the public view acts that it is protecting our heritage and lands from being destroyed by industry. Thomas King is trying to wake Americans up to the fact that money is what makes the world go around. If the government needs to run pipelines or railways through a cultural or heritage site in the United States the government would allow it. If it will allow for the government to get more money than areas that are protected can be used if needed. Since this book was written during the administration of George W. Bush when they were talking about drilling in Alaska in the reserve for oil instead of relying on OPEC. Thomas King shows how the American people think that these National Parks and heritage places are protected by laws but that we don’t necessary read the whole law with its different stipulations on how or when the government can use the land if needed. “The failure of the heritage laws has several aspects, several parts, that interact with and reinforce one another. These are: The analyst as proponent: The people analyzing a project’s impact on the natural and cultural environment act as agents for the project’s sponsors. Agencies and project planners are disinclined ever to rethink their plans in response to public objections, and are inclined, as a result, to find ways to reject and bury such concerns, even if it requires twisting or ignoring facts.”[1] I tend to think that Thomas King is correct in one sense that the government is not protecting out national parks or heritage sites, but on the other hand feel that people will not allow the government to destroy or take away our most prized heritage places. I don’t think people are as naïve as this author thinks. I have worked for the government and yes, they put loop holes to help themselves out later in case they need to put something on the land.  On the other hand, people elect these people into office and people can get them to change their views hence why we have lobbyists. This book had some interesting viewpoints but they were few and far between making it tedious to read.

[1] Thomas F King. Our unprotected heritage: Whitewashing the destruction of our cultural and natural environment. Left Coast Press, 2012. Pg. 27.