Most recent books about Appalachia speak to its capitalist transformation, whether that series of events is set during the rule of the British Empire or after the Civil War. Appalachia offers a case unlike that of New England or New York City. But, as soon as we make this distinction, we enter the realm of models and ideas. Since organizing work in order to produce capital follows patterns that extend across space and time, there is always tension between generalized characteristics and specific cases. There are plenty of models and ideas to choose from. Eastern capitalists regarded the southern mountains as a (pick one) crucial periphery, resource frontier, or internal colony; its history illustrates creative destruction, the production of space, spatial fixes, the world system, or underdevelopment in the writings of Immanuel Wallerstein, Andre Gunder Frank, Henri Lefebvre, David Harvey, or Neil Smith. We might be reading political ecologists or economic anthropologists, like Marshall Sahlins, David Graeber, or Stephen Gudeman. These authors describe how capital seized environments and ensnared people to form new divisions of labor, continually remaking space in its image.11

中文翻译：

---

山脉理论化

无论是在大英帝国统治期间还是在内战之后发生的一系列事件，有关阿巴拉契亚的最新书籍都谈到了资本主义的转型。阿巴拉契亚州提供的案件与新英格兰或纽约市不同。但是，一旦我们做出了区分，就进入了模型和思想领域。由于组织生产资本的工作遵循跨越时空的模式，因此在普遍特征和特定案例之间始终存在紧张关系。有很多模型和想法可供选择。东方资本家认为南部山区是（至关重要的）外围，资源边界或内部殖民地。它的历史说明了伊曼纽尔·沃勒斯坦（Immanuel Wallerstein）的作品中的创造性破坏，空间生产，空间定位，世界体系或欠发达，安德烈·甘德·弗兰克（Andre Gunder Frank），亨利·勒费弗（Henri Lefebvre），大卫·哈维（David Harvey）或尼尔·史密斯（Neil Smith）。我们可能正在阅读政治生态学家或经济人类学家，例如Marshall Sahlins，David Graeber或Stephen Gudeman。这些作者描述了资本如何抓住环境并诱使人们形成新的劳动分工，并不断重塑其形象中的空间。11