What White points to as problematic in the philosophers Mumford and Emerson reminded me what I like about Deleuze. That, and perhaps White's physics-oriented metaphors for the ways in which the labor of humans, the labor of the river, and the labors of the salmon interweave--which reminded me of much of Deleuze's fluxes and strata. Early on in the text, White says that "Environmentalists" (or at least the ones that he knows of) "tend to distance humans from [nature...] stress[ing] the eye over the hand, the contemplative over the active, the supposedly undisturbed over the connected." In Deleuze's Anti-Oedipus (I'm paraphrasing wildly because I do not have the text with me) he stresses that there need no longer be a distinction between man, machine and nature. Perhaps the "Cheap, Fast and Out of Control" video also was trying to make a similar point--the idea being that these three dimensions of the river are continuous; and the problems resulting from man's "disturbance" are probably more in how the perceived disjuncture between them in an ideology like that of Emerson create the hydroelectric dam that doesn't agree with the copulation of salmon, reshapes the river in unforeseen ways and, as White hints several times, will ultimately be rejected by the river.
Emersonian dominance over nature might suggest that the various properties of the river - its course, its volume, its wildlife, its distribution of nutrients - are discrete and can be commodified and exploited.
White's crititique rightly identifies that these properties are emergent - that they are physically connected in an organic whole.
Philosophically, this is tricky territory, and White sets up a peculiar diametric: he doesn't seem to include the intent of man the animal (or man's artifice) in the organic whole of the Columbia River. He says the physical interconnection of the river's emergent properties requires that we identify a conceptual connection between them (the organic whole); at the same time he points to human (capitalist, specifically) interaction as intervention with an otherwise natural system - so how does the physical interaction of man with river not justify conceptual wholeness in the same way that nature's interaction with itself does? (With apologies for the HORRIBLE syntax there).
White's answer might be that man's intent, artifice, and interventions are separate ... this doesn't satisfy.
Richard White portrays the Columbia River as a machine, demanding more energy from humans in relation to the energy it produces. It is this intertwining of energy and work that bring humans and nature together. Fishing shaped the social space of the land, dominated by settlers from the north who claimed it their own. Throughout time, new technological tools were developed in order to obtain resources more easily from the river. Although we have disrupted the natural flow of the river and its production, one has to remember that humans don’t have the power to destroy or create it, it was already there for us to find.
Humans' historical relationship with nature is, White argues, largely based on the exchange of energy and labor - an exchange that was complicated as humans developed new methods of working against nature. Up until the industrial revolution the exchange was based on humans' ability to work alongside nature, not so much against the river but rather in accordance with its strength. These physical ties to nature were presumably more tangible and concrete than today's: the laborer was necessarily made to work with the river, rather than against it, in his sheer spatial closeness to it, and through the exertion of personal energy in accordance with the river's.
The laborer also was forced, if he wanted to survive the journey, to gain knowledge and adaptation with his experience. Knowledge was used as a way to work alongside nature, to understand its workings so as to more effectively reap its benefits. It was not a battle for control, but an exchange of power (physical and mental) that would mostly result in a general equilibrium and coexistence.
The rise of industrialization made way for a new form of knowledge, however. Knowledge was no longer attained for the purpose of effectively working alongside a natural force; it was used to conquer and exploit. Again, the relationship of human knowledge with nature can be related to European imperialism in India and Africa in the eighteenth and nineteenth century: knowledge of a working system (in one case, the natural system of the river; in the other, the cultural systems of foreign cultures - yet in both cases, it is a foreign and supposedly 'primitive' force of the Other) is used again and again by a dominant industrial power to compromise, control, and ultimately exploit that system. As much as knowledge can be used as a method of understanding and cooperation, it can also be used as an agent of coercion. Of course, perhaps even the initial attainment of knowledge, even with the best intentions - Lewis and Clark's expeditions, for example - perhaps even these were destined to become structures for coercive authority over a familiar landscape.
In the book “The Organic Machine” the author discusses the relationship between man and nature, specifically between man and the Columbia River. He gives a history of the river’s use beginning with the early 19th century American settlers and the native populations to the modern Americans who “industrialized” the river. The river has always been a source of energy for the people who exploited it. The native Americans fished salmon from the river, which provided them with energy in the form of food. Modern Americans also fished the river , but they built hydroelectric damns to extract even more energy from the river. Nature becomes unimportant or unnoticed when modern man utilizes the river to his advantage.
It seems that White's approach towards telling the tale of the columbia river tries to emphasize the clashes that occur when human power/energy mix with animal & "natural" power and energy. It is a river afterall, and rivers are made up of water where everything seems to rush together. I like the way that White plays with the idea of power, because it's fascinating that something as so seemingly benign as a river could be such a driving force for it. There is power in the force of the river's flow, hydroelectricity, the (successful) attempts of capitalist exploits in controlling and profiting from the river, and energy in its fish. He also laments upon the clash between different types of human energies, particularly between those of European settlers and native people.
I also liked how the way he wrote really emphasized the "machine" like aspect of the Columbia. There are many parts that seem to work independently from one and other that actually are interdependent when you take a closer look at them. This philosophy of nature is a fairly common one, but when you put it in the scope of an actual natural body you seem to look at it differently.
The Organic Machine by Richard White made me think of the way humans have evolved with nature differently. People are constantly discussing the fact that humans used nature for their own benefit, but this book and the example of the Columbia shows that sometimes there is a relationship with nature and humans. The river and humans use each other’s energy to get what they both want. I have always looked at the ocean, rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water as living breathing things and it’s interesting to think about the fact that a mutual exchange of energy happens every time I enter a body of water.
In the book White discusses the fact that the river still cannot be controlled even though humans have spent so much money trying to do so. But does there every come a time when humans actually conquer nature or will nature keep overcoming our efforts?
i really like the idea of a river doing work, and the imagery of a petty group of humans pitting their work against that of the mighty river.--White's book is well written, with adequate explanations for what could seem like heavy handed scientific information. The points made from the human perspective are proportionate to those made with nature as the reference. * I like that he points to the inharmonious qualities of nature making natural "disasters" the rule, rather than the exception. He also focuses on dams as humans blending their labour with that of the river: as a harnessing but also as a way of manipulation. *--I did find it strange that he called the book "organic machine" that he refered to the river as an organic machine, because i thikn his argument would be better placed if he called it simply, "machine."
Richard White presents us with a succinct history of the Colombian River, including the important social and cultural implications one might not commonly associate with a river at first thought. The raw power of this river as illustrated by the accounts of perilous voyages and its extreme threat of flooding should perhaps clarify to who or what is on top of this power structure. It is with labor, working with the earth, which creates equality. The merge between the human and the natural, and the mechanic and the organic is a mighty alliance of things of existence, both living and not, that blurs the differences among machine, man, and nature.
The history of the Columbia River reminds me of a children's book entitled The Giving Tree, which is a parable about man's exploitation of natural resources. It relates the story of a young boy's relationship with an apple tree, which begins as a mutually enjoyable relationship. The boy collects apples from the tree, swings and climbs on the tree, all of which the tree enjoys for he appreciates the boy and his company. As the child grows however, he begins asking (and taking) more and more from the tree, until it is eventually reduced to a sad stump. While the Columbia River is still one of the nation's grandest and most majestic rivers, it is not what it once was. Native Americans took advantage of the large runs of King salmon every year, but they knew that in order to insure an abundance of food for generations to come that they must only take enough to sustain themselves. The took energy from the river in terms of food calories, but they inhabited a healthy role in the ecosystem. now, the salmon runs on the columbia river are at all time lows. King Salmon are going extinct in the columbia river and elsewhere, for a multitude of reasons, one of the most significant is habitat destruction. The hydroelectric dams are a great contributor to habitat loss as they prevent salmon from returning to shallow and calm waters to spawn. At one time, humans had a healthy relationship with the river, but we have asked too much of it, and now must pay the consequences. How does 40 bucks for a pound of king salmon sound?
A lot is said in this book about the relationship between man and nature. It was mostly talked about in terms of “knowing nature through labor” which I find a really interesting topic. I found that through reading about the Columbia river the relationship between the work of man and the energy of the river really worked together and almost represented one another. “Once the energy of the Columbia river was felt in human bones and sinews; human beings knew the river through the work the river demanded of them” (White 4). The force of the bodies working on the river worked as an advantage to both humans and nature, the energy was mimicked by humans and it seemed to balance out nature and humans. This also said a lot about the history of the river and why it is so impossible to separate it from world history itself. “Rivers constantly adjust; they compensate for events that effect them. They are, in this sense, historical: products of their own past history” (White 12). It is the one time we see nature and man working together. Another point where this connection appears is through the salmon fishing. This is a much sadder and devastating connection. “Their nets and their methods of using them embodied a working knowledge of nature” (White 41). Although this is a coming together of nature and man, it is essentially a manipulation of nature done by man. It almost confuses me that there doesn’t exist another way for man and nature to come together where one isn’t being taken advantage of. Although there was a point in this book where nature was portrayed in a very pitiful light. “Nature did not object to such manipulation. It happily consented. Nature is thoroughly mediate. It is made to serve. It receives the dominion of man as meekly as the ass on which Saviour rode” (White 34). I do agree with this statement but even though nature is so giving I do still believe it is very powerful, and does, at times, have much power over humans. Taking a step back to think, all of this human history, trading, eating, living etc. took place because of this river. Nature provided history for humans and it just goes to show how impossible it is to separate nature from history. They are, at their cores, yin and yang.
[Disclaimer: I have a fever. Sorry!] White's history of the Columbia River forces us to rethink the relationship between humans, machines, and nature. Politically, it is not simply the domination of man over nature. For example, while machines were developed to use the river’s energy to reduce human labor, they simultaneously subordinated (and racialized) other humans by creating more opportunities for physical labor- jobs that were more physical and less recognized. The relationship is also spatially complex. There are different ways of knowing the river with different degrees of intimacy. Some humans “mix their labor with the earth” in physical confrontations, creating a sort of embodied environmental knowledge. Others, like in the case of nuclear research, relate to the river via informational abstractions. Humans once died pitting their energy against its currents, and now the unintentional side effect is some nebulous unmeasurable unpredictable residue (if I understand radiation correctly). White argues that our approach to the river in interest-specific either-or destinies fails us, and we should think of it more as a totality of its multiple potentials.
White begins his historical account of the Columbia River by describing the undulating relationship between nature and work. He takes a rather Rousseauian point of view by asserting that it was through human labor that communities began to consider the river an integral part of their cultural and manufactural histories. White also frequently refers to poet/philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson to better emphasize the important shift in the very understanding of nature that was occurring in congruence with the Industrial Revolution. White points out that while at one time (namely the late 1800's), the river was seen as a powerful force that called for massive amounts of human labor in order to receive substantial or monetary rewards, the steady increase in technological advancement transformed the Columbia into a site of great exploitation and pillaging. The reader is left with the question of whether or not the Columbia, considering its many industrial sub-parts, can or should still be considered a part of nature. Is the presence of machinery alone enough to deem something 'unnatural,' or rather should the realities of today's Modern Age be considered when grappling with the gifts (either inherent or manufactured) that the natural world has to offer?
White discusses the weakened link between humans and nature, the early European/Western deviation from ecological balance and harmony, and the utilization of natural forces for energy. Rivers have quietly both constructed and, at times, devastated American progress. He states that “we no longer understand the world through nature” and that our values of the land have changed drastically over time. I particularly liked the description of the Native Americans relationship to the river, their use of a single log to build beautiful canoes, and their surprising ease with the turbulent waters. In a way this seems to demonstrate their symbiotic relationship with the land—rather than wastefully manipulating nature for their own benefit, they learned to work with it. I also found the idea of the awesome power of nature corrupting our labor intriguing, as it further illuminates our constant struggle with it: a single flood or earthquake can erode entire communities, destroy sacred monuments and eradicate significant artwork in minutes. (Interesting also is our view of those monuments and artworks, such as Stone Henge, that have withstood the test of time and the perils of nature). I enjoyed White’s discussion of the Western measurement of rivers, first in the damage they caused, and later in the energy they produced, and the idea that a rivers energy can be seen as a single entity, “represented in ways beyond the immediacy of actual experience” much like the sun. In a way the dams created represent man’s attempt to work with nature, but in actuality I believe that it is, once again, an attempt to control it and use it for unnatural purposes, such as the creation of petroleum for Nagasaki during WWII. The mistake of attempting to dominate the natural forces beyond us always comes with high consequences, for example the Columbia’s unnatural and unexpected flooding in 1948, a disaster which killed 30 people and destroyed $103 million worth of property.
14 comments:
What White points to as problematic in the philosophers Mumford and Emerson reminded me what I like about Deleuze. That, and perhaps White's physics-oriented metaphors for the ways in which the labor of humans, the labor of the river, and the labors of the salmon interweave--which reminded me of much of Deleuze's fluxes and strata. Early on in the text, White says that "Environmentalists" (or at least the ones that he knows of) "tend to distance humans from [nature...] stress[ing] the eye over the hand, the contemplative over the active, the supposedly undisturbed over the connected." In Deleuze's Anti-Oedipus (I'm paraphrasing wildly because I do not have the text with me) he stresses that there need no longer be a distinction between man, machine and nature. Perhaps the "Cheap, Fast and Out of Control" video also was trying to make a similar point--the idea being that these three dimensions of the river are continuous; and the problems resulting from man's "disturbance" are probably more in how the perceived disjuncture between them in an ideology like that of Emerson create the hydroelectric dam that doesn't agree with the copulation of salmon, reshapes the river in unforeseen ways and, as White hints several times, will ultimately be rejected by the river.
Emersonian dominance over nature might suggest that the various properties of the river - its course, its volume, its wildlife, its distribution of nutrients - are discrete and can be commodified and exploited.
White's crititique rightly identifies that these properties are emergent - that they are physically connected in an organic whole.
Philosophically, this is tricky territory, and White sets up a peculiar diametric: he doesn't seem to include the intent of man the animal (or man's artifice) in the organic whole of the Columbia River. He says the physical interconnection of the river's emergent properties requires that we identify a conceptual connection between them (the organic whole); at the same time he points to human (capitalist, specifically) interaction as intervention with an otherwise natural system - so how does the physical interaction of man with river not justify conceptual wholeness in the same way that nature's interaction with itself does? (With apologies for the HORRIBLE syntax there).
White's answer might be that man's intent, artifice, and interventions are separate ... this doesn't satisfy.
Richard White portrays the Columbia River as a machine, demanding more energy from humans in relation to the energy it produces. It is this intertwining of energy and work that bring humans and nature together. Fishing shaped the social space of the land, dominated by settlers from the north who claimed it their own. Throughout time, new technological tools were developed in order to obtain resources more easily from the river. Although we have disrupted the natural flow of the river and its production, one has to remember that humans don’t have the power to destroy or create it, it was already there for us to find.
Humans' historical relationship with nature is, White argues, largely based on the exchange of energy and labor - an exchange that was complicated as humans developed new methods of working against nature. Up until the industrial revolution the exchange was based on humans' ability to work alongside nature, not so much against the river but rather in accordance with its strength. These physical ties to nature were presumably more tangible and concrete than today's: the laborer was necessarily made to work with the river, rather than against it, in his sheer spatial closeness to it, and through the exertion of personal energy in accordance with the river's.
The laborer also was forced, if he wanted to survive the journey, to gain knowledge and adaptation with his experience. Knowledge was used as a way to work alongside nature, to understand its workings so as to more effectively reap its benefits. It was not a battle for control, but an exchange of power (physical and mental) that would mostly result in a general equilibrium and coexistence.
The rise of industrialization made way for a new form of knowledge, however. Knowledge was no longer attained for the purpose of effectively working alongside a natural force; it was used to conquer and exploit. Again, the relationship of human knowledge with nature can be related to European imperialism in India and Africa in the eighteenth and nineteenth century: knowledge of a working system (in one case, the natural system of the river; in the other, the cultural systems of foreign cultures - yet in both cases, it is a foreign and supposedly 'primitive' force of the Other) is used again and again by a dominant industrial power to compromise, control, and ultimately exploit that system. As much as knowledge can be used as a method of understanding and cooperation, it can also be used as an agent of coercion. Of course, perhaps even the initial attainment of knowledge, even with the best intentions - Lewis and Clark's expeditions, for example - perhaps even these were destined to become structures for coercive authority over a familiar landscape.
In the book “The Organic Machine” the author discusses the relationship between man and nature, specifically between man and the Columbia River. He gives a history of the river’s use beginning with the early 19th century American settlers and the native populations to the modern Americans who “industrialized” the river. The river has always been a source of energy for the people who exploited it. The native Americans fished salmon from the river, which provided them with energy in the form of food. Modern Americans also fished the river , but they built hydroelectric damns to extract even more energy from the river. Nature becomes unimportant or unnoticed when modern man utilizes the river to his advantage.
It seems that White's approach towards telling the tale of the columbia river tries to emphasize the clashes that occur when human power/energy mix with animal & "natural" power and energy. It is a river afterall, and rivers are made up of water where everything seems to rush together. I like the way that White plays with the idea of power, because it's fascinating that something as so seemingly benign as a river could be such a driving force for it. There is power in the force of the river's flow, hydroelectricity, the (successful) attempts of capitalist exploits in controlling and profiting from the river, and energy in its fish. He also laments upon the clash between different types of human energies, particularly between those of European settlers and native people.
I also liked how the way he wrote really emphasized the "machine" like aspect of the Columbia. There are many parts that seem to work independently from one and other that actually are interdependent when you take a closer look at them. This philosophy of nature is a fairly common one, but when you put it in the scope of an actual natural body you seem to look at it differently.
The Organic Machine by Richard White made me think of the way humans have evolved with nature differently. People are constantly discussing the fact that humans used nature for their own benefit, but this book and the example of the Columbia shows that sometimes there is a relationship with nature and humans. The river and humans use each other’s energy to get what they both want. I have always looked at the ocean, rivers, lakes, and other bodies of water as living breathing things and it’s interesting to think about the fact that a mutual exchange of energy happens every time I enter a body of water.
In the book White discusses the fact that the river still cannot be controlled even though humans have spent so much money trying to do so. But does there every come a time when humans actually conquer nature or will nature keep overcoming our efforts?
i really like the idea of a river doing work, and the imagery of a petty group of humans pitting their work against that of the mighty river.--White's book is well written, with adequate explanations for what could seem like heavy handed scientific information. The points made from the human perspective are proportionate to those made with nature as the reference. * I like that he points to the inharmonious qualities of nature making natural "disasters" the rule, rather than the exception. He also focuses on dams as humans blending their labour with that of the river: as a harnessing but also as a way of manipulation. *--I did find it strange that he called the book "organic machine" that he refered to the river as an organic machine, because i thikn his argument would be better placed if he called it simply, "machine."
Richard White presents us with a succinct history of the Colombian River, including the important social and cultural implications one might not commonly associate with a river at first thought. The raw power of this river as illustrated by the accounts of perilous voyages and its extreme threat of flooding should perhaps clarify to who or what is on top of this power structure. It is with labor, working with the earth, which creates equality. The merge between the human and the natural, and the mechanic and the organic is a mighty alliance of things of existence, both living and not, that blurs the differences among machine, man, and nature.
Matt said:
The history of the Columbia River reminds me of a children's book entitled The Giving Tree, which is a parable about man's exploitation of natural resources. It relates the story of a young boy's relationship with an apple tree, which begins as a mutually enjoyable relationship. The boy collects apples from the tree, swings and climbs on the tree, all of which the tree enjoys for he appreciates the boy and his company. As the child grows however, he begins asking (and taking) more and more from the tree, until it is eventually reduced to a sad stump. While the Columbia River is still one of the nation's grandest and most majestic rivers, it is not what it once was. Native Americans took advantage of the large runs of King salmon every year, but they knew that in order to insure an abundance of food for generations to come that they must only take enough to sustain themselves. The took energy from the river in terms of food calories, but they inhabited a healthy role in the ecosystem. now, the salmon runs on the columbia river are at all time lows. King Salmon are going extinct in the columbia river and elsewhere, for a multitude of reasons, one of the most significant is habitat destruction. The hydroelectric dams are a great contributor to habitat loss as they prevent salmon from returning to shallow and calm waters to spawn. At one time, humans had a healthy relationship with the river, but we have asked too much of it, and now must pay the consequences. How does 40 bucks for a pound of king salmon sound?
Melina said:
A lot is said in this book about the relationship between man and nature. It was mostly talked about in terms of “knowing nature through labor” which I find a really interesting topic. I found that through reading about the Columbia river the relationship between the work of man and the energy of the river really worked together and almost represented one another. “Once the energy of the Columbia river was felt in human bones and sinews; human beings knew the river through the work the river demanded of them” (White 4). The force of the bodies working on the river worked as an advantage to both humans and nature, the energy was mimicked by humans and it seemed to balance out nature and humans. This also said a lot about the history of the river and why it is so impossible to separate it from world history itself. “Rivers constantly adjust; they compensate for events that effect them. They are, in this sense, historical: products of their own past history” (White 12). It is the one time we see nature and man working together. Another point where this connection appears is through the salmon fishing. This is a much sadder and devastating connection. “Their nets and their methods of using them embodied a working knowledge of nature” (White 41). Although this is a coming together of nature and man, it is essentially a manipulation of nature done by man. It almost confuses me that there doesn’t exist another way for man and nature to come together where one isn’t being taken advantage of. Although there was a point in this book where nature was portrayed in a very pitiful light. “Nature did not object to such manipulation. It happily consented. Nature is thoroughly mediate. It is made to serve. It receives the dominion of man as meekly as the ass on which Saviour rode” (White 34). I do agree with this statement but even though nature is so giving I do still believe it is very powerful, and does, at times, have much power over humans. Taking a step back to think, all of this human history, trading, eating, living etc. took place because of this river. Nature provided history for humans and it just goes to show how impossible it is to separate nature from history. They are, at their cores, yin and yang.
[Disclaimer: I have a fever. Sorry!] White's history of the Columbia River forces us to rethink the relationship between humans, machines, and nature. Politically, it is not simply the domination of man over nature. For example, while machines were developed to use the river’s energy to reduce human labor, they simultaneously subordinated (and racialized) other humans by creating more opportunities for physical labor- jobs that were more physical and less recognized. The relationship is also spatially complex. There are different ways of knowing the river with different degrees of intimacy. Some humans “mix their labor with the earth” in physical confrontations, creating a sort of embodied environmental knowledge. Others, like in the case of nuclear research, relate to the river via informational abstractions. Humans once died pitting their energy against its currents, and now the unintentional side effect is some nebulous unmeasurable unpredictable residue (if I understand radiation correctly). White argues that our approach to the river in interest-specific either-or destinies fails us, and we should think of it more as a totality of its multiple potentials.
White begins his historical account of the Columbia River by describing the undulating relationship between nature and work. He takes a rather Rousseauian point of view by asserting that it was through human labor that communities began to consider the river an integral part of their cultural and manufactural histories. White also frequently refers to poet/philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson to better emphasize the important shift in the very understanding of nature that was occurring in congruence with the Industrial Revolution. White points out that while at one time (namely the late 1800's), the river was seen as a powerful force that called for massive amounts of human labor in order to receive substantial or monetary rewards, the steady increase in technological advancement transformed the Columbia into a site of great exploitation and pillaging. The reader is left with the question of whether or not the Columbia, considering its many industrial sub-parts, can or should still be considered a part of nature. Is the presence of machinery alone enough to deem something 'unnatural,' or rather should the realities of today's Modern Age be considered when grappling with the gifts (either inherent or manufactured) that the natural world has to offer?
White discusses the weakened link between humans and nature, the early European/Western deviation from ecological balance and harmony, and the utilization of natural forces for energy. Rivers have quietly both constructed and, at times, devastated American progress. He states that “we no longer understand the world through nature” and that our values of the land have changed drastically over time. I particularly liked the description of the Native Americans relationship to the river, their use of a single log to build beautiful canoes, and their surprising ease with the turbulent waters. In a way this seems to demonstrate their symbiotic relationship with the land—rather than wastefully manipulating nature for their own benefit, they learned to work with it.
I also found the idea of the awesome power of nature corrupting our labor intriguing, as it further illuminates our constant struggle with it: a single flood or earthquake can erode entire communities, destroy sacred monuments and eradicate significant artwork in minutes. (Interesting also is our view of those monuments and artworks, such as Stone Henge, that have withstood the test of time and the perils of nature). I enjoyed White’s discussion of the Western measurement of rivers, first in the damage they caused, and later in the energy they produced, and the idea that a rivers energy can be seen as a single entity, “represented in ways beyond the immediacy of actual experience” much like the sun. In a way the dams created represent man’s attempt to work with nature, but in actuality I believe that it is, once again, an attempt to control it and use it for unnatural purposes, such as the creation of petroleum for Nagasaki during WWII. The mistake of attempting to dominate the natural forces beyond us always comes with high consequences, for example the Columbia’s unnatural and unexpected flooding in 1948, a disaster which killed 30 people and destroyed $103 million worth of property.
Post a Comment