{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03197925669835782, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.126984126984127, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
“Have You Been There?” Some Thoughts on (Not) Visiting Antarctica

“HAVE YOU BEEN THERE?” This is the question that almost invariably follows when I say that I study the environmental history of Antarctica. The answer, at the moment, is “no,” although I am very keen to go. At the most basic level, the question suggests a widespread interest in Antarctica, and in extreme environments more generally. A little more deeply, the question reveals the importance that historians themselves—especially environmental historians—attach to visiting the places they write about. The Australian historian W. K. Hancock stated the case frankly: “good historians need strong boots.” In our eagerness to heed his advice it is easy to forget our privileged position as historians, and easy to take for granted our rights and obligations to visit the places we study. Precisely because they are difficult places to visit, extreme environments such as Antarctica offer ideal locations to think about the assumptions beneath the “have you been there?” question. These assumptions are of interest to all environmental historians, however extreme the environments they study.