Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2011 3:45 pm Post subject: America's Wonderland
Hello!, I have done just under half of the reading, but I feel like posting and then coming back later once I have finished everything. I will also answer the question in my second post later!
National parkd are supposed to be the natural, unharmed environment, right? Then how does chasing out the Natives that live there promote that exactly?
I suppose this can expand into what the definotion of 'natural' really is. Looking at a juice carton, it often says 'natural and artificial flavors'. What makes something artificial vs. natural? Whatever the ingredients are, they had to come from earth or else they would not be there in the first place. Looking at it this way, is anything really unnatural?
In response to kinaides question of "is anything really unnatural?" i'd have to say by the premise she's laid out, (Whatever the ingredients are, they had to come from earth or else they would not be there in the first) then yes, nothing is truly unnatural.
But as much as we like to discuss/acknowledge gray areas, so too are degrees of natural. I think natural is the original state as we know it. Like, although it might have taken X tree millions of years to evolve and adapt to its present form, it is this present form that is natural to us because its the form we know it in originally and any alteration/modification to it would be unnatural OR, just less natural than it is known to be now. I think the terms NATURAL and ORIGINAL are often confused, and sometimes I do believe they can be mutually exclusive.
yet its clear in this reading that, despite the land of yellowstone to always be known to the white man to have been inhabited by, for all intents and purposes, environmentally ambiguous natives, the image of nature desired is devoid of these peoples. Therefore their removal/modification of an attribute of the land (because people ARE a part of it) makes the park unnatural and artificial. the parksmand and supporting politicians were evidently in favor of a marketable, pristine and CONTROLLED environment to call their national park.
In this respect, one understanding of the west (to address Rachel's question) WAS the creation and maintenece of a myth. I don't think this is categorically true, but certainly holds in reference to the creation and treatment of yellowstone national park.
my question would then be, besides racial and social prejudices, did the parksman and politicians have any other evidence to support that surrounding natives' actions were actually destructive of the land?
To the Q: “besides racial and social prejudices, did the parksman and politicians have any other evidence to support that surrounding natives' actions were actually destructive of the land?”
I get the feeling that many people will have this same question at least originally. That is because there really is no rational reason for the Indians to have been blamed and thrown out of the national parks. The facts that the Indians were killing (in the Americans view “all”) of the buffalo, and they were burning much of the woods is the prime reason for Americans to push them away. They are mostly trying to get rid of the Indians, except for the guy who was trying to put them on display.
As was said in class, we as humans what to poses and control. So my question is what is human nature? And what parts come into play with restricting Indians access to the parks.
Rachel, I like how you answered my question! Thanks, it helps me understand what I am thinking better. I agree that the term 'unnatural' is misused for things out of the ordinary.
Now in response to the question from Rachel (teacher rachel)
I agree with the student rachel that the west has a mythical sense to it (maybe because I have never been there) but my perfect image of the west would probably be more accurate if 1t was 1910 rather than 2011.
In realation to the readingf tonight, Yellowstone does seem like a wonderland with beautiful landscapes and wild animals 'untouched' by humans-as if it were in a dome protected from time. Also, isn't there a massive magma chamber in the ground under Yellowstone? Again, not something I know much about, but I've heard ranges of stories from all of the northwest of North america caving the day it erupts to the sky being darkened with ash for 3 years. The ominous presence of this volcanoe definately adds to the mythical, wonderland aspect of Yellowstone, as if it could disapear any day.
So my question is what is human nature? And what parts come into play with restricting Indians access to the parks.
Instead of going all meta and trying to be all big picture with this question, which is way out of my ability anyway, I'm going to try and keep it Environmental History/land/reading based. I'd say human nature has to do with uncontrollable instincts and needs. Hunting bison and clearing forests for villages might be human nature for one culture, while drawing invisible lines in a pre-occupied forest is necessary for others. And yes, I am going to unconfidently say that some people need to draw those lines. Being territorial, and even feeling that we're entitled to land or property is an instinct for us. (Us being people/maybe Americans) This gut reaction comes into play with restricting access to National Parks when the Americans thought they were protecting their land. Sure, it wasnt their land, and yeah, they could have gone about it in a MUCH better way, but that doesn't take away from the reaction to protect something one feels they are entitled to. The defenses Americans put up show their concern, as well as the effort put into court cases and protecting the imaginary borders.
All that leads to my question:
Why do we feel so entitled to land, and why is power over it so important?
I agree with a lot of what Rachel said and Ellie’s answer but I’m gonna add some more. Part of my surprise was due to the way the author was describing the settlers view to the native Americans as “pests” and something they just had to get rid of and once they did, everything would be fine. It was as if this was an issue that was a mere annoyance to the park rangers and politicians and they obviously cared little about the actual people they were kicking out.
So in a way to answer Rachel’s question is that yes, there was another reason for removing the natives from Yellowstone besides their personal racism and prejudice and it was purely convenience. They saw the Indians as a blemish on this seemingly beautiful tourist attraction and if they got rid of the blemish/flaws it would return to being suitable for the whites. On page 268 when Spence was talking about the whites justification for driving out the native tribes he said, “…led advocates of preservation to view Indians as inherently incapable of appreciating the natural world…native peoples instead represented the one great flaw in the western landscape.”
This brings me to my question of, 1. Do we still think of native Americans as an inconvenience (either to our natural world or just in general) ? And are there any other groups we currently view now, the way the majority of Americans viewed native Americans in the 1800s?
well, there were no questions unclaimed, so I'll give another answer to rachel's
Quote:
my question would then be, besides racial and social prejudices, did the parksman and politicians have any other evidence to support that surrounding natives' actions were actually destructive of the land?
well, first off, like ellie… my answer is pretty much no. I mean, not that we've seen in this reading.
The land was totally used here. I mean "used" in the way you would "use" another person or something for personal gain. The land was integral to this issue, and if you took land out of this reading its literally just racism. But the weird thing is, "preservation of land" was some alleged noble cause that had NOTHING to do with the acts of prejudice that were happening. absolutely nothing. If America was our holy land, then what the park rangers/govt did in this reading if semi-equivalent to saying "God hates [insert group of people]" to justify cruelties against them.
These park rangers took something holy, the land, to justify their prejudice. And you can't really argue with holiness.
augh.
so my question would be: 1) What would it mean if someone decided the place you lived and worked in was a park? How would your behavior change, and how would your environment change because of it?
2) here's another one, kind of stolen from the reading: What were the park's borders originally there to protect? For that matter, what are any park's borders intended to protect it from?
Last edited by oliviabunty on Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
This reading really gave a new perspective on American Culture. The previous and better-known culture was to control everything and make profit off of something; our country is a power hungry country, and in a lot of cases still is. But with this passage of the beginning of this first national park, Americans thought of a different approach, that of not for profit but for pleasure. Then private businesses came in with other ideas: Railroad companies and the potential for a “monopoly of tourism.” One thing that stayed the same, however, was Americans belief that they should own this land, and the Indians should come with it. They wanted tourist to be able to come and witness the everlasting beauty of this Wonderful Land, with out the fear or even thought of Native Americans.
To answer Dylans question, i think we feel we are entitled to everything in life. The true answer to your question, Dylan, is human nature which u just explained, "has to do with uncontrollable instincts and needs." This uncontrollable need for power is seen through out every single species. Dominance is a HUGE part of Human Nature and almost shapes it completely. So this dominance definitely comes in to play when "drawing invisible lines in a pre-occupied forest." An Obvious example of this is obtaining and controlling our first national park, Yellowstone. Again i bring up Didions quote, "controlling the uncontrollable"
What were some ways that the Americans could have better handled the removing OR integration of Indians from/into the touristy culture of Yellowstone Park?
Since there are not any unclaimed questions I will talk about a section of the reading that really stood out for me. The section of the reading that stood out to me talked about the “war” between the U.S. Army and the Nez Perce. “The war pitted 2,000 troops against 750 men, women and children and old people on an 1,100-mile odyssey through present day Idaho, Wyoming and Montana.” (265) and then a little bit later “during their ten-week flight, the Nez Perce spent thirteen days in Yellowstone, where they pastured their horses, raided and accosted a few tourist parties, and searched for a safe passage across the mountains to seek refuge or gain alliance with the crow.” (265) The Native Americans before had left the tourists alone in Yellowstone park and in fact earlier in the reading it says they tried to stay as far apart from white people as possible and seemed to not be harming anyone. The problem for white people at this point seemed to be solely their presence. Instead of trying to understand why the Native Americans were there they went after them with the United States Army. Instead of solving the problem it made the problem worse. Before the NA’s left the tourists alone but now because an army was chasing them they “accosted a few tourist parties.” They probably did this out of anger, frustration and to give a warning that they would not only stay on their reservations without a fight. The idea of using brute force completely backfired on the white people, particularly the park rangers and managers because “widespread accounts of these events also did much to advertise the new national park, but not in a manner that would bring comfort to those who planned to make Yellowstone into a popular destination.” This whole “war” did more harm to not only the Native Americans but also to the tourist industry.
It has been repeated again and again throughout history that when there is a disagreement or problem people go to force and violence instead of talking and trying to understand the other side. Why do you believe violence seems to be the number one chose even though many times it makes things worse and does not work? Is it human nature to be violent?
Zach's question was: What were some ways that the Americans could have better handled the removing OR integration of Indians from/into the touristy culture of Yellowstone Park?
I am not sure the Native Americans wanted anything to do with the tourist industry/culture of Yellowstone. But assuming they did the Americans could have taken some time and talked to the Native Americans about why they were using the land and if they wanted a part in the tourist industry. Basically getting to know them better. I think talking in general like I said in my post would have helped the whole situation in general instead of resorting to violence first.
"has been repeated again and again throughout history that when there is a disagreement or problem people go to force and violence instead of talking and trying to understand the other side. Why do you believe violence seems to be the number one chose even though many times it makes things worse and does not work? Is it human nature to be violent?"
That's a huge question and one that's really difficult to answer, and I'm gonna try to keep it as grounded as possible, so sorry in advance if it's not all entirely answering the specific question.
Spence makes the point that Native Americans in their roles as hunters were a natural part of the greater yellowstone ecosystem and their removal from it was actually a significant alteration of nature, not preservation (although thinking a group of people as a "natural part of the landscape" when we so clearly don't think of ourselves that way gets really close to a sort of dehumanization thing). So in the sense that he says that hunting is a natural behavior, at least part of the human predilection towards violence is a natural one, i.e. human nature. The violence between the white americans and the Native Americans wasn't predatory (or at least not overtly predatory) in nature that might not really apply. But it seems to me that the driving force behind it was for their own gain more than the ideal of nature because driving the Native Americans out of yellowstone would increase tourism and profits. And I can't make any sort of grounded argument about whether that's human nature or not so I won't try. I will say though that I've always thought, "well, the colonists just suck" is a pretty easy fallback and not always a very compelling argument, but from almost everything I've ever read/learned about it, it really does seem like Native Americans weren't as prone to the self-motivated taking-from-others mindset. The one exception to that I can think of was that one reading we read early on that seemed to say that because of demographics the Native Americans just weren't as adept at exploitation as the colonists so it wasn't as apparent. Don't really have anywhere to go with that. Just a thought.
So my question is: given all the time we've come upon situations where people pretend or believe that they're trying to preserve the natural environment but they're really trying to preserve it [i]as it's best for them[/i], would there be value in setting aside land in which humans literally could not go? So there would just be a big swath out there where nature could run its course and undergo it's natural changes and we wouldn't know about it or see it, but it would be there? Also, does this exist anywhere?
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
