DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 5, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 381--------------------------------------------------
#10: First Wilderness
By: ngood Date: February 28, 2019, 3:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
(Copied from MyCSW)
Please read Mark David Spence, from Dispossessing the
Wilderness: Indian Removal and the Making of the National Parks
(pp.264-272).
In your post, please write one thoughtful question about the
reading and answer the thoughtful question posed by the post
that preceeds yours.
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?
#Post#: 382--------------------------------------------------
Re: #10: First Wilderness
By: ngood Date: February 28, 2019, 3:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The West can be primarily seen as a place/geography and a myth.
The West is defined by its aridity and often noted for its wide
expanses of space (an effect of said aridity). The West
represents a myth of promised success and bounty, which has led
to destructive land practices. I think the West is primarily a
reflection of American hubris and the desire to control nature
and live wherever you want, despite the obstacles and long-term
consequences.
For the next person, what are the merits and drawbacks of
national parks? OR How should the origins of America’s National
Parks be addressed today (by the public and by the National Park
Service)?
#Post#: 383--------------------------------------------------
Re: #10: First Wilderness
By: samfarley Date: February 28, 2019, 3:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
To answer Natalie’s question, what are merits and drawbacks of
national parks: I would say that national parks have come to
serve great value in our society, and are very representative of
our country and what we deem as important: protecting our most
important landmarks. If these locations were privately owned (a
commodity instead of a common!), then some people might have
more access to them than others, and I think it is great that
one of our values as Americans when it comes to these spaces is
that they should be shared and seen by all. But as for the
drawbacks, here are my questions that relate to this: Is it a
problem that we define national parks, these sacred American
sites, as our ‘right’ to see in our lifetimes? It feels a bit
strange to have taken land and spaces, captured them in a way,
and then said that we are doing this to keep them the same. As
for some more questions, what is the determining factor for a
space or location to be, in a sense, canonized? By this I mean
thought of as uniquely and specially American, like Yellowstone
is thought of. Should other locations be protected to the same
degree, even if they are not as visually stunning? Why are these
visually stunning locations the only spots that deserve to be
protected?
#Post#: 384--------------------------------------------------
Re: #10: First Wilderness
By: TeacherRachel Date: February 28, 2019, 6:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Natalie- thanks for getting things started!! Eager to see what
you all have to say :)
#Post#: 385--------------------------------------------------
Re: #10: First Wilderness
By: asantello Date: February 28, 2019, 6:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The question Sam posed about Americans thinking it is a right to
be able to see national parks, and for many having the goal to,
it brought me back to the part of the reading, where it is
described that early visitors “had a complete lack of interest
in Yellowstone’s native history.” It is baffling that so many
people travel here and are able to purely enjoy the beauty
without thinking of the history. I haven’t done any research on
it, but I’m wondering about how/ if at all the park talks about
it’s gruesome past. I assume it would be a bad look, but maybe
it’s too famous for it to matter. As for the original question I
agree that it is weird, to think of it in this way, but I
question whether there is a better way to use it. I think there
is approximately 0% chance of it being given back to Natives in
any sort of way, so I guess keeping it as it is makes better
sense than anything else. I would be interested in hearing what
other people think about how the passage of time changes
people’s thoughts on what land it is ok to use or take advantage
of without dwelling on the history and when the use of land
with such a history needs to be rethought. I don’t know if that
makes complete sense, but something like that.
#Post#: 386--------------------------------------------------
Re: #10: First Wilderness
By: amacdonald Date: February 28, 2019, 7:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I will attempt to answer Addie's Question. I think that there is
no doubt that time makes it easy to forget what is important,
especially if you are so disconnected from the situation as
tourists who visited Yellowstone were. With things like a
"heavily fortified blockhouse" (57) disguised as a park
headquarters that had the "best defensive point against Indians"
(57) on top of a hill, it is obvious that park rangers who were
extremely involved in the situation also lost sight of what they
were actually doing. The situation between tourists and Natives
was not helped by the facts that the Natives started to actively
choose to avoid crowded tourist areas within the park in 1880.
This created a further disconnect and gave off the appearance
that the Natives had completely disappeared from the park
grounds. With the Natives gone, the arrogant claims made by park
staff and tourists were only reaffirmed. The thing that
originally caught my eye in this passage was the U.S army's
conflict with different groups of Natives. Was this justified,
and should the army have made efforts to negotiate with the
Natives more peacefully, if at all?
#Post#: 387--------------------------------------------------
Re: #10: First Wilderness
By: afreitag Date: February 28, 2019, 7:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
pass on tonight!
#Post#: 388--------------------------------------------------
Re: #10: First Wilderness
By: smartins2019 Date: February 28, 2019, 8:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
(Super informal writing ahead but I couldn’t seem to articulate
myself AT ALL)
The west is a sort of unknown fantasy. To me, when I think of
the west, I think about places like California and Washington
where people go to gain a sense of freedom. Kind of like what
our reading discussed a few nights ago (I don’t really remember
when) when it talked about how when teenagers run away from
home, they go to California in hopes of finding freedom and a
new life and all that stuff. It’s weird though, if you think
about it. That idea goes waaaaaay back. Like ALL the way back to
the 1800s and the idea of Westward Expansion. It’s funny how the
same sense of hope has stayed in Americans minds for centuries.
Cause now that I think about it, I’m wondering what do you
REALLY get out of moving to a direction in hopes of restarting?
This response is all over the place and I am so sorry about
that. My question is why do ideas like this reccour through
history? What makes people stick to one idea for so many
centuries? I have no idea if that makes any sense.
#Post#: 389--------------------------------------------------
Re: #10: First Wilderness
By: Annaliese Date: February 28, 2019, 8:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think the west is seen as a geographic place but also as a
goal or a dream. I think the west is supposed to represent
freedom because it has a lot of land, regardless of it's aridity
and therefore lacking resources. In some ways it is the
"american dream" of making the west the ideal place to live and
controlling aspects of nature and therefore the land does not
necessarily get preserved.
I think it is interesting how the park was created to be a
commons or "a public park or pleasuring-ground for the benefit
and enjoyment of the people" yet in order to create it, the land
was taken away from the native people who lived there. Those two
things seem contradictory.
#Post#: 390--------------------------------------------------
Re: #10: First Wilderness
By: yzhu2020 Date: February 28, 2019, 10:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Before the readings the west was either California or cowboys. I
know it's a pretty bad understanding of the west but that's kind
of the idea that I grew up with. After readings, though, it
seems the west appearance-wise is defined by its aridness and
idea-wise defined by endless possibilities and freedom (from the
usual daily routine).
Reply Sof's question (My question is why do ideas like this
reccour through history? What makes people stick to one idea for
so many centuries? I have no idea if that makes any sense.):
Since the idea of the west being a mythical place is rooted in
the minds of the people back then and combined with people's
natural instinct to make their life better, people would head
south. Though I don't see this pattern nowadays, I do believe it
make be a trend back then. Since the mind and thought is such an
abstract thing, we cannot just change it in the snap of one's
fingers, which is why so many people stuck with the idea of
heading west.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page