Tracing Germany’s changing landscape from the 1750s until after the unification of East and West Germany in the late 20th Century, David Blackbourn tells a story about state-making, the domination of both the environment and people, while untangling the web of connections between the two in his book The Conquest of Nature. He argues that human interactions with nature cast nature as an entity that is to be conquered and used for the benefit of the human species. Moreover, through this relationship of conquest with nature, human beings reveal internal relationships of domination and oppression when different groups are set against each other in contests over nature. The various imaginings and reimaginings of nature in Germany also aid the process of imprinting state interests on the people while constructing a particular national identity. While nature as Blackbourn argues was never a static entity, after 1750 the scale of transformations increased rapidly and at each stage, the symbolic, as well as the physical transformations of nature, reshaped both the idea of Germany and the people within it. In the book, Blackbourn explores why these transformations occurred, who decided them as well as their consequences. He argues that even those who opposed the transformation of nature in Germany at various stages such as poets and naturalists, also chose to do so for the benefit of the human species, whether it was for the sake of aesthetic value or to prevent further consequences. Irrespective of the type of interaction with nature, Blackbourn argues that the idea of nature as an entity that is to be conquered is a link that connected each of the transformations in the making of modern Germany. The following essay examines the various contests over nature in Blackbourn’s book and how they played a role in the construction of the nation of Germany. It asks the question of whether the relationship of domination of nature is a byproduct of state making rather than the driver of state construction. The essay also explores whether it is possible to recast the relationship between nature and humans in a relationship that veers towards coexistence rather than conquest.

Blackbourn while showing various events in which nature was dominated by humans reveals the reasons that drove this conquest in different instances. The state’s interest at each stage emerged in the transformations of the landscape. Frederick the Great’s project of draining the Oderbruch Marshes in 1750 to acquire more land to be commanded was a significant human-driven reshaping of the land. Frederick argued that the reclamation of land for the sake of agricultural use was a peaceful form of war that acquired territory without bloodshed. However, Blackbourn asserts that while it isn’t a war in the traditional sense, it is a form of conquest and subjugation both of nature and some sections of people. Frederick’s need to tame the unruly, wild, uncontrollable marshland, would be a form of an establishment of order in that area. The 1750s were a time in which society was in flux. Many changes in industry, politics, society were occurring simultaneously. The restructuring of the Oderbruck Marshlands would not only be an assertion of state power by Frederick but would also be a symbol of the order that he wanted to establish in the area under his control. Inviting German-speaking colonists to settle and cultivate in the reclaimed land was a drive to create a coalition amongst the German-speaking people in Europe. Blackbourn argues that underlying this major transformation is the idea that nature should be controlled for the benefit of the people. Even restructuring the Rhine river, removes from the river a quality of being sacred, free, and powerful. Instead, when Tulla, restructured the Rhine to protect land and property from flooding, the river became a creature to be shackled for the benefit of the human race. People reveled in this domination by giving it the name of progress. This need to dominate nature was an assertion of power that reminds us of schoolyard bullies, only at a larger scale. The restructuring of the Rhine led to the loss of major fish populations, a decrease in the size of the wetland corridor, the riparian forest of oak along with characteristic vegetation of the area. The restructuring of the Rhine was coupled with a mobilization of the state in defining borders, as well as emerging diplomacy in decision making in the hydrological project while leading to bureaucratic centralization to ensure the success of the project. The entire state was mobilized for the sake of restructuring the Rhine. The domination of nature, in this case, led to the definition of various state structures.

However, the conquest over nature was also a contest among people. Blackbourn states that “the human domination of nature has a lot to tell us about the nature of human domination,” (Blackbourn, 7). The construction of multiple dam projects, as well as the plans to reclaim the Pripet Marshes during Nazi Germany, are plans to transform and control nature that pitted different groups of people against each other resulting in the victory of the dominant groups. In the case of the Dam construction, it was who the dams were being built for that led to the conflict while the reclamation of the Marshes was argued based on who was the better custodian for the land. The construction of dams and canals was a source of awe for the people of Germany. They had many purposes such as providing electricity, water for irrigation, to maintain minimum water levels during summer to ensure shipping, etc. Conflict emerged due to the rivaling claims made by the agricultural and the industrial sector with the industrial sector emerging as a victor. The Eder emerged as the symbol for this triumph over nature and along with the Mitteland Canal a sign for Germany’s move towards an industrial future over an agricultural past.

If the Dams were a source of economic conflict the Pripet Marshes were the source for a racial conflict. The marshes were home to the Slavs, Poles, and Jews. The Nazi’s to establish their racial superiority declared the Marshes as an area that was being misused and needed better custodianship to acquire land for agriculture and living space. It was a drive to regulate and reorder both the area and the people. The domination and transformation of nature argues Blackbourn was also a means to establish control and oppress certain groups of people. This emerges clearly during Nazi Germany when the superiority of the German people was linked to the superiority of the German land and soil. To further the creation of a particular nation, nature was used as a tool to symbolize those interests. While the transformation of the marshes wasn’t successful, the argument was propagated widely. The reoccupation and restructuring of the east was an idea that was extremely popular during Nazi Germany. In the contests over nature, whether it is the fishing guilds residing in the Oderbruch Marshes, the villages drowned due to the construction of dams, the agricultural decline and the racial targeting of people, it is always a means to assert new forms of dominations to go along with changing times. The transformations of nature worked along with the transformations in the state and the emergence of new dominant groups who controlled nature.

To create a nation pegged on its geography, people rely on trying to establish a static form of its nature to put forth the dominant idea of the nation. The success of the nation derives its legitimacy from the vibrant and uniqueness of its environment. The idea of a nation’s nature also aims to tie its people to a particular area, encouraging a sense of patriotism that emerges from the connection to the soil. Whether, it was the Nazi’s who derived their identity from the idea of a particular homeland that was being furthered by their dominance over groups who didn’t belong, or after the war when Germans mourned the loss of an idealized landscape that established their longing for material security, they all rested on the concept of a nature that was unchanging which belonged to Germany. However, Blackbourn shows through the course of the book that there really was no such literal German nature. The German landscape was constantly changing, driven by natural as well as human interventions. Yet at each stage, the idea of the pristine past nature emerges, tied to the idea of the state and the nation. This nature is sometimes placed on a pedestal and sometimes looked down upon for being unused by humans. This contradictory claims over nature give rise to questions over the relationship of conquest with nature. Blackbourn establishes at various stages that the idea of nature being fixed and German played an important role in the creation of the German. Even if the identity is placed on a false assumption, it stills instills a need to protect that nature. Simultaneously, political power and domination also gain legitimacy through controlling and shackling nature that will lead to its inevitable transformation which contradicts the need to create a German nature. This contradiction seems to suggest that both reverence and derision for nature can exist at the same time complicating the relationship of conquest that Blackbourn establishes through the course of the book. This suggests that while nature sought to be controlled, other relationships can exist with nature. Or does the need to establish a German nature for the sake of the nation another form of control over the landscape, one of forceful preservation.

The need to conquer and control nature and people establishes relationships of unchecked exploitation. The need to conquer nature seems to emerge from a need to assert one’s own power, to prove the superiority of the group of people that are authorizing its transformation whether its state actors or industrial interests. Blackbourn’s book, The Conquest of Nature casts the relationship between humans and nature only through the relationship of conquest. He also draws attention to the recent changes in the German environmental movement that

recognizes the vast damages that occurred due to this relationship of dominance. It seems to suggest that there needs to be a reimagining of our relationship with nature to ensure the sustainability of both the environment for its own sake as well as for the longevity of the human race. This can neither be a relationship that is unchecked exploitation or controlled paradise. Instead, a relationship of coexistence without hubris seems necessary. Transforming nature to satisfy humans' needs seems inevitable, but treating resources and landscapes with reverence and respect for their mortality might bring about different kinds of transformations. This might also bring about differences between relations between different groups within humans. While relationships of dominance seems to have existed for many years, the book depicts the need to now rework these relationships.

.    .    .

Bibliography:

• David Blackbourn.
• The Conquest of Nature: Water, Landscapes and the Making of Modern Germany
• Published by Norton and Company
• New York-2006
• ISBN 978-0-393-32999-5 pbk.