It works Zak! Congrats!
So I really liked the first part and the last part of the reading, but I was a little lost in the middle, so maybe I missed the whole what we hope to learn from wilderness part. But people's views on the definition of wilderness have changed a lot over times. Wilderness changed from “Satan home to God’s own temple” (281). But one thing that is constantly being mentioned is whether wilderness is absolute nonhuman or human is actually part of wilderness (or nature). On this point I totally agree with Bill that nature and human are part of each other, and it is impossible to leave wilderness untouched. “If we allow ourselves to believe that nature, to be true, must also be wild, then our very presence in nature represents its fall. The place where we are is the place where nature is not” (285); “if nature dies because we enter it, then the only way to save nature is to kill ourselves” (286). So it is in vain to try to separate human from nature, because the second we become human, we start affecting nature in our ways, both good and bad.
Bill also mentioned how different classes view wilderness, and how wilderness is a created by human, both and definition and reality. It’s interesting how upper-class people tend to go visit the “wilderness” when farmers don’t. Although there’s a financial factor, the crucial difference between upper and lower class on this is that farmers work with nature everyday when businessmen don't. So the wilderness to upper-class is an undisturbed, zero-pollution area, while to farmers it might just look like their fields, except that they don't grow crops there.
My question: Why as the time passed by, people’s views of nature/wilderness changed so dramatically?
I really loved tonight's reading, it clearly stated distinctions between wilderness and nature, and also highlighted the complex history of the term "wilderness", and how it can be conveniently inconvenient for us to use when we are trying to avoid the trouble at hand in our own backyards. We can learn by the first-world common perception of wilderness (this land that offers authenticity that escapes us in our daily civilized lives, something that is rare, exotic and should be protected at all costs) that it does not always consider all perspectives. Such as, in attempt to preserve the rainforest, and reduce visible impact of humanity on that pristine wilderness, we would need to demolish one of the natural aspects of that space, which are the indigenous/low class residents who have existed there "for millennia". This highlights our continued oversight of human existence in nature, and that perhaps "The preservation of wildness and native diversity is [i]the[/i] most important issue. Issues directly facing humans only pale in comparison." (287) is not the most important issue, because issues directly facing humans are simultaneously issues directly facing nature.
The ingenious implication of "home" is crucial to this essay, and the next step of our thinking with preservation/conservation of nature, because it eradicates the fairy-tale like idea of wilderness and the "grass is always greener on the other side" myth, while reminding us to take ownership and care over nature right here, (not way off in the mountains or the depths of the deepest rainforest) in the same way that we would take care of our homes. When I think of my family, (best case scenario) I picture a group of people that work together to take care of what we own in a sustainable way that avoids waste as much as possible, because our resources are limited and come out of our own pocket. If we were to view water, or wood, or earth in general this way, without a boundary between our homes and the natural world, we might think twice before using more than we need.
Question: Do you agree with Cronon's ideology behind wilderness? Why or why not? Did you find (like me) that the description of the classical wilderness is exactly what you picture (or used to before reading this) when that word comes to mind?
I think we shape wilderness to accommodate our current needs, but it's always sort of an "escape route" from the problems at hand, when we can spend time daydreaming of a far off land that is perfectly pristine without our dirty human hands modernizing it. For Fred Jackson Turner, wilderness represented the "dying frontier", as an era came to a close that he was particularly fond and wistful of. In other times, wilderness was just a stretch of land that we felt particularly responsible for, and the current inhabitants(such as Native Americans) of that land did not fit into our picturesque vision of what wilderness appears to be, which justified our plans to eliminate their presence.
I'm definitely beginning to like Cronon's writing more. I took a main point from the reading that I can also relate to and agree with (to answer Naya's question) - To Cronon, wilderness is a man made concept representing a magical part of our world where humans can find true peace. Cronon mentions that wilderness has represented the territory of God, Christ and even Satan throughout history, making up the magical aspect, which I can understand. Wilderness is a power that humans cannot ultimately control, which to me is magical in itself. Cronon also says "...wilderness offers us the illusion that we can escape the cares and troubles of the world in which our past has ensnared us." (p. 285) To go back to Naya's question, I completely agree with this point he makes. When I have experienced being in wilderness at times in my life, I feel the most peaceful, away from the social world, and connected with the earth....... so yes, I agree with Cronon's ideology behind wilderness.
I also was intrigued by the idea that Cronon brought up about human affect on nature - as people venture further into wilderness, we kill it, and ultimately, it will be impossible for humans to coexist with wilderness. Although Cronon sees wilderness as all powerful, it becomes slowly ruined by the human race at the same time. People affect nature (for the worse) so greatly and directly, yet it is impossible to understand wilderness and what it truly means. I don't really have a complete understanding of what I just mentioned in this paragraph, but I think it's pretty interesting from what I read tonight. If anyone else has any thoughts on this aspect of the reading, I'd like to hear them...
Question: In your opinion, do humans have a strong connection with wilderness, or does it represent an unknown and all-powerful being?
I’ve thought a lot about your question Christian throughout this mod and after doing each night’s reading, my ideas of what wilderness are and how humans view it changes. But, I believe people have a false sense of what wilderness is. This idea of “the mythic frontier individualist”(pg. 284) is often how we think of wilderness. This idea of wilderness is also reinforced by television commercials and such about the idea that a “real man” who is supposed to be rugged and have an intrinsic connection and need to be in the rough wild. I found it interesting how in this mythic frontier individualist mentality, comes an added concept of civilization being feminine due to civilization’s implied meaning of being organized and not “rough and wild.”
This reading helped me have a deeper understanding of the false American dream that many others and I as an American hold. The “wilderness” is supposed to be like how our ancestors saw it. As said on page 283, “seen in this way, wild country became a place not just of religious redemption but of national renewal, the quintessential location for experiencing what it meant to be an America.” Similar to the Dust Bowl in the Midwest in the 1930’s with the loss of the rugged land as we knew it, came a loss of identity and a deep connection to the American Dream.
As I was reading, I had a question: Is wilderness an experience or a place? I hope this makes sense. It does in my head so if you have any questions, I will try to check the forum a little later or we can talk about it in class.
Joined: 18 Feb 2011 Posts: 27 Location: United States of America
Posted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:25 pm Post subject:
I personally have a little bit hard time to finish the reading because the repetition of text, but I found Cronon’s point really interesting and fascinating. Like Naya, I fond the connection between wilderness and home the most intriging part of the whole reading. It makes me think of wilderness in the totally different way. To answer Naya’s question, I did think of wilderness in the classical way before reading this essay. However, after I finished the reading, I thought of wilderness in a different way.
Before I talk about how has my view on wilderness changed, I think it is necessary to talk about the dualism of wilderness that Cronon mentioned in the text. The classical wilderness that we know is the defenition from those wealthy people who wants to preserve the nature to escape the urban life. For them, wilderness is a place that has any human existence. Ironically, the way wilderness is formed usually follow some conflicts, like the Inidian wars. Contrary to the wealthy people, the lower class does not have time and leisure to think of preserving nature. One of the lower class is farmers who work with land all the time, but for those upper class people, they are damaging the nature. This dualism of wilderness makes me think wheather there is wilderness at all. And, I think that is the most important part to make me believe in Cronon’s argument.
For Cronon, wilderness is “in our own backyards, of the nature that is all around us if only we have eyes to see it” (p.288). This quote links back to the idea of home is wilderness as well. For Cronon, home is a bridge to connect human and nature and form a sustainible environment, which we can find the middle ground within the wilderness dualism. If we can recognize that everything can be wilderness, “then it will become part of the solution to our environmental dilemmas rather than part of the problem” (p.289).
My question: Do you agree with the following quote: “‘ The onlt thing we have to preserve nature with,’ he writes, ‘is culture; the only thing we have to preserve wilderness with is domesticity’” (p.289)? What do you think that mean?
To answer Christian’s question, I believe Cronon presents humans having a strong connection with the wilderness in a physical sense and a spiritual sense. For instance, it mentions a poem in which Woodworth analyzes the spiritual affect a landscape has on him. The reading also refers to land as a sacred place where one must usually risk something by entering it. I was mostly interested in how the definition of wilderness has changed overtime and whether or not people still believe in those definitions. From a religious standpoint, the wilderness was seen as a place for uncivilized people, a place where sin lied. However, the wilderness has now taken on a sacred meaning where people drive cars and do whatever it takes to see “sublime” landscapes.
To answer Stovall's question I don't believe humans have a strong connection with wilderness. Nature and the environment of plants and animals exists whether humans label it or not. That said, wilderness clearly means more than plants and animals. As we discussed in class these past few days wilderness is a human made concept that signifies nature with fear or danger. As a result humans tend to classy wilderness as places that humans have no protection or power, a place without human influence. In fact, the human concept of wilderness more resembles an idea of “un-human” since wilderness places can only be places humans not only lack control, but can only visit, never truly existing inside. In our text Cronon suggests that such a concept existed since the dawn of our country. On page 279 Cronon writes “To be wilderness then was to be 'deserted,' 'savage,' 'desolate,' 'barren.'” All the words Cronon mentions are synonyms for “devoid of humans.” Deserted, savage, desolate, and barren all mean without human life or morality. Coming full circle to Christian's question, I believe that wilderness defined by humans as “devoid of humans” has little to no connection with human beings.
The second part of Stovall's question stumps me much more. I greatly disliked the biblical and theistic view Cronon took in his writing. I find it narrows the scope of audiences that can understand his point. I say this because as a secular person I have great difficulty understanding the case he tries to make. I would love to be able to discuss this in class tomorrow.
Why is it that Cronon believes the “wilderness” and nature is so tied to religion? Aside from the feeling of majesty Cronon describes when in the presence of wilderness is there any implications that the human experience with wilderness is religious?
Though I have not finished reading tonight's readings, I felt that Cronin's beliefs of Wilderness are most inline with the way I have viewed Wilderness the pass couple of days. Also, sorry for posting a bit late... I'll be the first person to post tomorrow (I promise).
Eli my man! Is wilderness an experience or a place... Well, I feel that according to both Cronon and I, in essence, it is a tangible construct, but at the same time an experience because, as Cronon said, " is a product of civilization, and could hardly be contaminated by the very stuff of which it is made." Additionally, when humans have control over wilderness, the fear of what may or may not happen in (what used to be considered wilderness in according to many biblical stories) no longer exists. Nature was being tamed, and become more and more accesible.
My question is this, without a religious context in nature, does a wilderness still exist? Also, expect me to come back and repost peeps.
So, unfortunately, i only did the optional reading..cause i didn't see the highlighted part of the homework, so i would try to post about "Touch the magic"
the reading talked about how the Sea parks brought nature closer to Americans and educate the americans through their commercials and parks, the draw connection between human and animals, and tend to make the animals look like human. and through building a nice image of the parks,they try to make people think the concepts in the parks are the right concepts to adopt. the Sea parks are very different from the traditional zoos in terms of space created for the animals, sea parks have a environment more like the real nature...
I just think, although these companies are making profits, they are doing what they should be doing as humans, minimize the marginalization between the human and nature....
What do we hope to know/learn about ourselves by knowing wilderness? Does that learning still have a place in our world today? Did it ever? What relationship does the concept of "wilderness" have with the concept of "history"? Can they exist together in the same space and time?
i don't think the answer to these questions are in this specific reading. so i come up the answers on my own.
i think what we want to learn about ourselves is how much connection we have with the wilderness, to know how closely we are
the concept of wilderness is
sorry i answering these question without doing the other reading is impossible...i will go finish the other reading!! wait for me!!!
TAT...QAQ...
Perhaps because of my lack of understanding, wilderness somehow seems more conceptual. As Mingwei mentioned, the thoughts upon the wilderness developed from “antithesis of all that was orderly and good,” (281) to something sacred through reflecting “deepest core values of the culture that created and idealized it.” (281) Magnificence of geography is revered as God-like, and worshipped in a form of national park. (Note pg281, how unnatural to say nature is supernatural) Because of the tendency of considering nature as the very opposite of civilization, wilderness is thought to be “freer, truer” and untouched by civilization. Revered as “outside of time,” and under desire of (mostly of wealthy citizens’) avoiding modern civilization, the wilderness is an “illusion that we can escape the cares and troubles of the world” (285) like Eden. Wilderness can be considered as a place for getaway, but also a “place where we actually live.” Cronon added, our trials for sustaining, protecting and utilizing the wilderness makes it as “home.”
Thus I’d like to say wilderness doesn’t exist, or everywhere is wilderness, based on the combination of Pollan’s idea that human influence is too vast that they “have left their stamp on virtually every corner of the Earh” with Cronon’s idea that utilization of wilderness automatically names wilderness as home.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
