To respond to the question Rachel (Hirsch) posted on MyCsw,
“For the first post, here's the question that you must answer (and don't forget to also ask your own question for the next person): Based on the readings in this class, what was the "the West" - a place, a goal, a dream, the future, a geography, a myth... or none of these? Why?”
I think that the west was all of those things. It represented untapped profit and business for people, and it delivered in that area in some ways so it was a goal, a dream, and the future. It also represented a new land to explore, conquer and protect, so it was a geography/place. The West was/is also heavily romanticized. In this reading it is described as “monumental” and a “wonderland”. These grand, wonderful qualities that are given to it are then used to describe it to people who have never been there, even though part of it is just barren desert, so I think that qualifies it as a myth. Maybe?
I’m gonna answer Olivia’s question which was “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?”
I would feel outraged, pissed, defeated, whatever you want to call it. I would want to do something and try to stop it but I know that I would most certainly lose in a fight with the United States government. I don’t think I would have the same respect for or gratitude towards the place, because it wouldn’t be mine anymore. Although I am assuming that I would be kicked off this place, which might not necessarily be true.
My question is: Is there any benefit to having/protecting land that cannot be profited from? While Yellowstone was created to protect “the innumerable unique and marvelous wonders of the Yellowstone…” and protect against “the wanton destruction of the fish and game” tourism and hunting were a big part of it as well.
It’s funny how Gigi talked about how nothing good comes out of violence, and how it’s the go-to solution for any disagreement or problem just days after MLK day, when we talk about (among other things) how he decided NOT to use violence.
It’s definitely human nature to be violent; I really don’t think there’s anything denying that. Olivia (buntaine) was completely correct in saying that the entire argument of “reservation of land” was absolutely separate from the prejudiced acts going on. I found myself frequently thinking back to when I first learned about Manifest Destiny, and the concept of the settlers pushing the Indians, and essentially using God as their excuse. It’s still a mystery to me why violence is the answer that we repeatedly turn to, even with all the historical evidence that says violence and force are absolutely not the best option. If there’s no…..how can I say this…..tangible evidence that the native Americans were destructive to Yellowstone, then why couldn't the park rangers just, i don't know, talk with the native americans and hear their side of things? Maybe if the park rangers got to know these native americans a little better, they wouldn't be so inherently bothered by them. But no, if you really want to push a group of people out of a space of land, the solution is simple; make up the evidence yourself! Oh no don't worry, we're kicking these people out because they were being destructive to the land! We're preserving the land! But it all leads back to an initial question. Why did these park rangers feel particularly irked by the native Americans? Is it because of what Dylan and Zach were talking about, that humans have an uncontrollable appetite for dominance? Did the park rangers feel entitled to the land?
I’m really glad that I don’t think about things like this 24/7, I’d go absolutely insane.
In the late 1800's efforts were made to keep Native Americans out of national parks, and this had an effect on the environment. This relates to what we were talking about in class, is human involvement in nature unnatural? Can humans only harm the environment?
Answering Gigi's Question: Is is human nature to be violent?
Reminds me of "Lord of the Flies", where this is the central theme of the book. I can't conclusively argue one or the other, but a lot of historical events and human actions could suggest this. But according to Riane Eisler, violence has only evolved/become common in the last 10,000 years, early humans were much more peaceful than current humans. A lot of violence/tendencies towards violence are caused by social, psychological, and environmental factors, not by an innate tendency towards violence.
Violence isn't unique to humans though. Although humans kill one another more than other species, in the animal kingdom inter-species violence occurs. Male lions will kill other lions (as well as their cubs) for dominance of the pack, and Beta fish commonly kill smaller, weaker fish. This part is my personal opinion: I wouldn't say that it is human nature to be violent, but having the capacity for violence is.
Obviously this is a complex topic, so I'd love to hear others input on it.
My question: How can human beings be a part of nature/natural cycles? At what point are they interfering/causing damage?
I remember reading about how Indians used to be referred to (perhaps condescendingly) as much a part of wilderness ecosystems as buffalo and prairie grass. Now, we hear that Indian removal follows directly on “Lamar’s belief that wilderness preservation must become the dominant idea behind the development and protection of the park”. Huh? Morton, in that other reading Potential of the New English Canaan (45) couldn’t praise highly enough the Native American idea of managing forest succession with firestarting. Now we hear that “the lighting of purposeful fires and hunting within the park contravened all that Yellowstone stood for”.
My question is- what changed the American view of American Indian ecological roles?
(of course, we could say it was convenient and played into the American agenda, which is probably true- but were there any OTHER reasons?)
THE BIT THAT MIGHT BE GOOD TO READ BUT COULD BE SKIPPED OVER IF YOU’RE IN A RUSH
Becker’s question grabbed me but I’m not exactly qualified to answer. I think that to some extent, there was something fundamentally frustrating about the idea of an “original people”- in this case American Indians- for Anglo policymakers. Before whites even had an idea what to do with newly claimed land, they knew that they would have to do SOMETHING about the people already living there. I speculate that on a moral level, there was some anxiety that Native Americans had a sort of birthright to the land they lived on. But I don’t think there is a group today with a position equivalent to the American Indians of the 1800s. Look at the nature of ethnic oppression in other countries: there are pretty consistent patters in how governments deal with ethnic minorities that occupied land before the current system. There seem to be fewer similarities between the US’ treatment of indigenous people and our treatment of subjugated groups that came over recently- African-Americans, immigrants, etc- than between the US’ treatment of indigenous people and that of any post-colonial South American country. And I think that’s evidence that there is something unique about the conqueror/conquered power dynamic.
I wanna speak briefly to what Zach and others have been saying about mankind’s “uncontrollable need for power”, expansion, and domination- more with regard to resource use than anything else. A lot of mammals go through population cycles where they exceed the carrying capacity of the land (eat to much food, whatever). Their population crashes- tragic, if you’re a lemming- and then with so few of them left they start breeding like crazy. Five years later, they’re back where they started, with no food, and most of them die.
Are humans destined for this awful lemmingy fate? Will we figure out how to curb resource use or population growth before we have no resources and billions of people that need them? Or is our case so different that we don’t even have to worry about dying like lemmings? (as I think Zach and Blum suggested)
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
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
