Defining Wilderness
Throughout this class we have explored readings discussing mankind’s interaction with planet earth. Growing up in New York, I made regular visits to New York City, and after seeing that, I know that’s clearly not wilderness. Nor is the land left uninhabited and unconstructed in the heart of New York City: Central Park. Before this class, I envisioned wilderness as larger chunks of land preserved by our government. For example, as a Boy Scout growing up, we went on monthly campouts to parks such as Ward Pound Ridge Reservation and Mountain Lakes Camp. The principles we were taught in scouting, such as learning to live in cooperation with our land, have reemerged in this class. In The Trouble with Wilderness by William Cronon and The American Indian Wilderness by Louis Owens, both authors discuss what wilderness really is and if it even exists. Both authors believe that wilderness is what we as humans make of it, and that we need to live in cooperation with the land in order for us as animals and wilderness to survive.
William Cronon discusses, in The Trouble with Wilderness, what true nature really is. He says that, “for many Americans, wilderness stands as the last remaining place where civilization, that all too human disease, has not fully infected the earth” (Cronon, 11). We see Yellowstone National Park and the Grand Canyon as wilderness because they are uninhabited and preserved for observation. However, Cronon disagrees with the people that only see wilderness in this way. He believes that our definition of wilderness is ever evolving – it’s whatever we make of it during our existence. For example, nowadays we think of wilderness as the “island in the polluted sea of urban-industrial modernity” (Cronon, 11). Back before Europeans came to North America, the Native Americans saw wilderness as a part of them and saw themselves as a part of wilderness. They were brothers and sisters of animals that inhabited this planet and took only what they needed to survive. Included in their cooperation with the land, they also tried to live under the ideals I came to learn in scouting; leave no trace. This is a much different point of view than the “Western pattern of thought that sees humanity and wilderness as mutually exclusive” because our footprint on the land we live on has destroyed true wilderness (Owens, 69).
Meanwhile, Louis Owens backs up Cronon’s beliefs in The American Indian Wilderness. He talks about how our interpretation of nature has evolved over the years. Our names for landmarks in this country are different than the names that past inhabitants gave to the same landmarks. This backs up Cronon’s hypothesis that nature is what people make of it during their time of existence. For example, what we now know as Glacier Peak in Washington State used to be called Dakobed, or the Great Mother, by the Native Americans before the 16th century (Owens). Today, Dakobed is now called Glacier Peak. Owens believes that “wilderness is an absurdity, nothing more than a figment of the European imagination (Owens, 70). He says that there is no wilderness, because we depend on nature to survive. Therefore, humans and nature cannot be independent; we must learn to get along with each other. Even “before the European invasion,” when we imagine wilderness at its climax, “there was not wilderness in North America; there was only the fertile continent where people lived in a hard-learned balance with the natural world” (Owens, 70). In the past, “our Native ancestors… lived within a complex web of relations with the natural world, and in doing so they assumed a responsibility for their world that contemporary Americans cannot even imagine” (Owens, 71). Owens believes that instead of continuing to set aside land to keep independent of mankind, we should focus on working with the land to use it sustainably for our needs while also leaving it behind for future generations to use. We set land aside because we’ve ruined the land that we inhabit. If we could live in cooperation with the land we live on, we won’t need to set any land aside for preservation.
Overall, both essays discuss most American’s interpretation of wilderness as the chunks of land set aside from human touch for preservation. However, even these lands cannot remain independent of humans as they’re managed and embellished daily by humans. Trails are dug into the land and structures are built so that other humans can come to visit them. Both authors would argue that there may be no problem with this. We need to understand that with human life, there is no wilderness. There’s land and materials that come with this earth which humans depend on to survive. We just need to realize that we need to be respectful of the land and how much of it we consume so that we don’t entirely wipe it out. For if we run out of nature’s materials, we may not be able to survive.
Both essays are written in a way, which make it easy for the reader to relate to. When we begin reading both pieces, we find ourselves agreeing with what the authors believe is our point of view of true nature. Cronon informs us that the definition of nature is what we make of it at that time. On the other hand, Owens believes there is and never has been true nature. We consume nature, but we should do it in a more respectful and sustainable manner in order to survive. Cronon might argue that this could be human’s current view of what nature is. As we read on, both authors provide insightful information on what nature actually is, and how we should keep it alive. These essays are especially important today because of our consumerist lifestyle. While we also need consumerism to survive, we need to figure out a way in which we can consume and rebuild nature at the same time.
The film we watched in class, A Forest Returns, showed the cycle we might have to endure. The film showed the local Wayne National Forest – an area characterized by what we imagine as true nature. However, just last century, that land was completely bare of the thousands of trees that currently reside there. The trees were cut down for human consumption, which was necessary for humans at that time to survive the rough economic times. The important piece to learn from the Wayne National Forest is that the trees were replanted, making that section of our earth whole again. It is vital that we incorporate processes like this into our daily consumption patterns.
In conclusion, after reading the essays by Cronon and Owens, I’ve learned to take on a new perspective of true nature, different from that of most Americans. I now see that while there are thousands of acres of land set aside for preservation, there is no true nature. As rational thinkers, we must comprehend this and gain an understanding of our ecological footprint during our residence on this planet. If we can do this, we can leave a more resourceful planet earth for our future generations.
No comments:
Post a Comment