Travis Kelley

In her book, Wasteland: A History, Victoria di Palma describes how the term “wasteland” came to be. One anecdote that she relays describes the mid-17th century struggles of Gerrard Winstanley as he argued that all men had the right to work the land, and advocated for the unused lands on the outskirts of communities to be utilized by commoners. Desperation stemming from Cromwell’s civil war led destitute individuals and families to work land that had been previously seen as unfit for cultivation, whether because it was too wet, rocky, steep, or far away from towns. Though Winstanley’s heyday was short-lived, this radical idea that unused land should be held in common for public use was an enduring one.

Throughout the first chapter, di Palma traces the biblical and philosophical history of how these concepts developed in support of the paradigm of “progress.” Through her etymological exploration, we see how “wasteland” began to carry a connotation of being mismanaged or having undergone some form of devastation. This was further accentuated by the King James Version of the Bible, which used the term not only to describe empty, forlorn places, but also places that had undergone destruction that was usually tied to a moral failing and an act of God that “laid waste” to the land in an act of retribution.  This connection to morality also allowed the opportunity for redemption, thereby the taming of wasteland could be framed as a moral imperative. Texts such as Pilgrim’s Progress also contributed to these narratives.

As time went on, the wastelands were seen not only as land outside of the norm for cultivation, but as possibilities that could be shaped by labor and technological innovation. These social and economic opportunities were developed as the idea of the commons formed, allocating different types of use to the land, and creating systems for these uses to be carried out. These ideas were further considered by John Locke, who framed untamed nature as useless, and argued for a political and moral obligation to develop land. Land that was not developed and enclosed, he believed, could not be owned. These ideas formed the basis for the moral imperative to develop the “wilderness” that was North America prior to colonization.

The development of thought around the Great Salt Cove in Providence was influenced by these ideas in that the cove was often seen as needing improvement; it was a problem to be fixed. It was an unimproved place in which natural systems held sway, an untamed area in the heart of the city. It was not enclosed and had become a place where anyone could dump sewage. The value of the space was too great for them to allow it to stay as water and mud flats, though today we know the ecological value that would have provided. Though the city undertook the creation of many plans and considerable debate about what should be done with it, ultimately, the ideals of progress won out. Some had wanted to create a park, and in fact there was a park around the cove for a time, but the railroad lobbyists were too powerful, and the public perception too negative to create the political momentum to hold the space for public use. 

Question for the class: How would Providence function differently today if the cove had been allowed to stay a tidal estuary and salt marsh?