After Cronin's essay, I found myself walking between classes asking what is true nature? Is it the trees scattered throughout campus between brick buildings and sidewalks? Is it the hills I look up at watching over the rest of the town? Or is it something I can't see on a daily basis?
Many people imagine nature as a land untouched by humans... like the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone National Park. However, Cronin argues that humans are a part of nature. Our interpretation of nature at our time of existence defines what nature really is. In today's 'go green' environment, nature is any place where humans haven't cut down the trees or industrialized the land. Extensive forests, deserted islands, and mountains may describe the nature of today. It's a beautiful, prestine nature, much different from the Native American's interpretation of nature as a useful tool to survive. They saw nature as the oak tree next to their teepee that they could cut down to use for a canoe. It was a part of life that we could touch and esssentially destroy, unlike today, where nature is meant to be observed and left alone.
Overall, Cronin argues that the definition of nature is everchanging. Depending on when you've lived on earth, you may see nature differently.
Your Indian using the tree is interesting. One point about that is to remember that Indians did not just view the tree as a resource to be used; they used them to live, not to make money. They saw themselves in a different relationship with the trees than we do. An individual, e.g., could not own a tree.
ReplyDeleteI also find myself trying to define nature after reading Cronin's essay. I do think that we are a part of nature just like the bears, deer, etc... The difference between us and the other animals is that we are able to decide what items we consume from nature. Like the Indians, I use the trees to survive. When I cut firewood I only cut what is already dead. I wonder if the Indian used a live tree to make his canoe?
ReplyDeleteI find it best not to attempt to define any ambiguous terms such as nature or wilderness. They have too many components that are not meant to be overlooked. I like the fact that you put nature in an ever changing category. It definitely is how we see it now, and it was what Native Americans saw when they were inhabiting the land. It was socially constructed, and so it will also change in the future.
ReplyDeleteI also liked your comment on Natives using the tree because it led me to think about the Native Americans using their natural surroundings to sustain life, and human beings are supposed to be leaving nature alone as to not disturb it.
Interesting thoughts, all. It is hard for us to determine what is "sustainable use." Non-use is not an option, right? I think Indians definitely cut down tree and still do. But they would never have just cut down thousands of acres of trees, which Anglo-Europeans did (and still do). Tyloer notes that Indians are often thought of as perfect environmentalists. They have become idealized. Certainly modern Indians are not any more environmentalist than most Americans.
ReplyDelete