After reading the history of how people view this country and the wilderness within it, I haven't really changed my idea of wilderness drastically. I have always had my own opinion on nature and wilderness; I live in a pretty dense area of forest in my town so I think of nature as a place that I live not some fairy tail place or a savage land. I also spend a good deal traveling to areas that contain lots of forest but I do how ever vacation to theses areas as the reading said and I do see how people, including me, use the wilderness as a place of peace or a place to go visit. Although it does say people go to visit and don't live there but I do live in a form of wilderness, not too wild but more so than most areas that people live in.
Most of this reading was things had I have already studied in environmental classes that I have taken or it related to what I have already learned. Like how the book says people feel that wilderness is thought to be separated from where people live today. Which is not true at all but even if you think you can draw a line between where "civilization" is and the "wilderness" is, these two places have such an impact on each other that the line is soon erased. The obvious connection is the dependency humans have on the natural world around us for things like oil, medicine, food, air and more. But what people may not see is the influence we have on areas that are thought to be untouched. Even in reserves or national parks in America there is pollution in theses “pristine” places from not just from, America but the winds from Asia bring over pollution as well. The wilderness is getting smaller and more affected by man to the point where there isn't such a line between what people think is wilderness and "civilization". Plus there is the facts there even in the wilderness where no man has gone, there really has been men who have gone there and lived there in one time or another.
One parts in the resent reading that really got my attentions and I wanted to make a quick comment on was the idea that beauty of nature, like fog and mountains was only thought beautiful until someone pointed it out with art, this was on page 62. I am not sure how I feel about the truth of that but it still intrigues me.
I posted this on your post on the main blog, but since you moved the post I thought I should move the comment. :)
ReplyDeleteI think you make a good point that even if there are places where people haven't ever been, our actions can still affect those places. So in a way there really aren't any places that haven't been affected by humans in some way, despite what we might want to believe. Cronon sort of touches on that but he focuses more on the idea that people have been around a long time and have actually utilized "wilderness" directly. I didn't really think about how people could still impact that "wilderness" without ever setting foot there, but it makes sense.
I also thought your point about how for you there really isn't a distinction between civilization and wilderness was interesting. To me, that is kind of similar to what Cronon was getting at but I think your idea takes that further in that (I think) you're saying that civilization and wilderness are one and the same, that we've used and affected the land so much that there shouldn't be a distinction at all. But we label them as separate things based only on whether we think the land is as you say "pristine." That's an intriguing concept.
I really enjoyed your post because it is similar to my point of view. I grew up in an area where there was no shortage of wilderness. Most people today have lost touch with the connection we have with the earth. People take for granted the simple things like a walk in the woods. There are many people who I'm sure haven't even set foot into a forest in their lifetime, and take blows my mind.
ReplyDeleteBeing out in nature is a beautiful thing that I feel is ofter overlooked. We couldn't be where we are today without nature and all it has given us.
I like that you wrote that your view on nature did not change at all after the reading. I think the reading was meant for us to just re-evaluate our thoughts, not redefine them.
ReplyDeleteAnother point you made about the dependence humans have on nature is very true. Our need for oil, medicine, food, etc. does pretty much erase that line between humanity and nature or wilderness.
Also, you are correct about other people/countries contributing to the emissions of harmful substances to our country...which may not be so important in our understanding of Cronon's writing, but it is still something we should all know. Everything we do is not contained to where we live. Our actions affect other places, and other people's actions on the opposite side of the earth affect ours.
Halie was actually the student I wrote my first essay about. I learned a great deal about her, including how she was raised immersed in a forest. Halie's childhood seemed so interesting to me. She had no TV, but she learned to grow in other ways. I think it benefitted her extremely. She had the chance to experience the wilderness in ways many of us have not been able to. Not only that, I feel she developed a respect for the world around her that many of us could learn from. After getting to know Halie, It's easy to see why she chose the course of study she did--photojournalism.
ReplyDelete