DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
US Environmental History Class at CSW
HTML https://cswenvirohistclass.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Mod 5, 2019
*****************************************************
#Post#: 392--------------------------------------------------
#11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and the
National Parks," from Desert Solitaire: A
By: TeacherRachel Date: March 1, 2019, 10:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and the National
Parks," from Desert Solitaire: A Season in the Wilderness (pp.
273-278)
"In Maine, a Public Park in Search of Public Support," New York
Times (pp. 260-263)
Stuff to chew on while you read:
You might approach tonight's reading (and the piece on
Yellowstone) by exploring the place our national parks occupy in
your imagination. Have you visited any? What was your experience
like? What stands out in your memory? What about the impression
the park made might have been affected in some way by the work
of people?
If you've never been to a national park in this country, you can
still play: when you think of them, what comes to mind? When
people describe them, what do they emphasize? Why do you think
people visit them (to the tune of nearly 300 million visitors
per year)?
P.S. - Edward Abbey (1927-89). An avid proponent of desert
preservation through books and essays, Edward Abbey served as a
National Park Service ranger and firefighter in the Southwest.
His book Desert Solitaire (1968) opposed "industrial tourism" by
automobiles and excessive development in the national parks as
being both destructive to the parks and to those who visit them.
The Monkey Wrench Game (1975) and Hayduke Lives! (1990) made the
case that the West was being destroyed by dams, irrigation
systems, bulldozers, and logging trucks. His work inspired the
movement Earth First! to advocate "monkeywrenching," or the
practice of sabotaging the machines that were destroying the
land by strip-mining, clear-cutting, and damming wild rivers.
(Source: Carolyn Merchant, The Columbia Guide to American
Environmental History, 2002)
Like last night, please post a question and answer the question
that came before you. Please, make yourselves weep with your
excellence.
#Post#: 393--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
By: jbass Date: March 2, 2019, 5:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As I was reading this it was clear to me that the government was
very involved in the creation of and sustainment of the parks.
It got me to thinking why does the government care so much about
the national parks and monuments. What is so important about
these specific places that makes them so worth the governments
funds, time, and attention? There are some clear answers such
as it shows a certain amount of political respect to the nation
which can help politically. But how much focus really does the
government pay now to these places and if it’s a lot why so
much?
#Post#: 394--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
By: asantello Date: March 3, 2019, 11:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In terms of Josh’s question I don’t have an answer to how much
attention the government pays the parks, but I can speculate
about why they care about them. I think a lot of it comes from a
pride that we as a nation feel for these parks. They are thought
of as beautiful and the treasures of nature. From the
perspective of Edward Abbey, he seems to think that the more
tourists that visit them the worse off the parks are, and that
they are being destroyed. What he says is that the parks, “Are
giving the public what it wants, that their primary duty is to
serve the public, not preserve the wilds” (261). The more people
enjoying the parks, the better the government feels, because
people are outside in nature and taking advantage of the natural
wonders. While Abbey doesn’t think that this is the case, due to
the way they approach their time at the parks, but it makes
sense why the government would want more people there. (Also as
Abbey mentioned, money!!!). I personally have not spent much
time at national parks, I think the only one I’ve been to is the
Redwood national park. I honestly would like to visit more, but
this reading definitely made me more conscious of how I go about
it, whether it will actually change my actions or not. My
question is, what is more important to value, the people having
easy access and being able to enjoy the parks, or the
preservation of land, or is there a way to compromise?
#Post#: 395--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
By: smartins2019 Date: March 3, 2019, 12:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Misc:
“The Park Service, like any other big organization, includes
factions and factions.” 274
What does this mean? There are a lot of troubles within the
organization?
I honestly have never put that much thought into National Parks.
I have been to Niagara falls (I’m not sure if that really
counts) and did not really enjoy it, to tell the truth. I have
never really been a fan of being in nature (whatever that
means).
I liked this reading. I found the person writing quite humorous,
and I was engaged. I know I definitely also never thought about
how commercialized these businesses are. I’m not sure if
commercialized is really the right word, but I can’t think of
another at the moment. Often times the author mentioned how,
essentially, people are lazy. National Parks are not viewed by
people on foot, bike, or horse. They are seen from inside of a
motor vehicle. Towards the end of the reading, he is talking
about how if he were to get the business back in shape, he would
chnage the system completely. One quote that really stuck out to
me: “No more cars in national parks… We have agreed not to drive
our automobiles into cathedrals, concert balls… and the other
sanctum of our culture; we should treat out national parks with
the same difference, for they, too, are holy places…” 276
My question:
What does getting rid of motor vehicles in these parks really
mean? Would rangers and other officials have access to them? How
would they maintain the upkeep without use? And emergency
situations?
#Post#: 396--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
By: amacdonald Date: March 3, 2019, 4:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In response to Sof:
By banning motor vehicles in National Parks, I think that that
Abbey is more focused on getting people outside of their
vehicles to experience nature in a more pure way. He thinks that
"a man on foot... will see more, feel more, enjoy more in one
mile than the motorized tourist can in a hundred miles" (276).
Getting rid of vehicles in this way would preserve the natural
beauty of the park while slowing the degradation of the
environment. I also think that rangers and other officials would
have continued access to their vehicles. At the bottom of page
276, Abbey talks about how already-paved roads would be reserved
for "essential in-park services, such as shuttle buses, the
trucking of camping gear..." (276) etc.
In the second passage, I thought that it was really interesting
how Maine residents viewed Roxanne Quimby's goal of buying land
to preserve as a threat to their local economy. My question: if
a place is a dependant on nature to stay financially supported,
is it okay to then exploit the land?
#Post#: 397--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
By: afreitag Date: March 3, 2019, 5:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
answering "My question: if a place is a dependent on nature to
stay financially supported, is it okay to then exploit the
land?"
Questions of morality like this are subjective. Recently this
class has been faced with a lot of subjective questions like
those of commons vs commodity and ideas of ownership. The
complicated part to these questions is the answer entirely
depends on who the person is who's answering. This also
contributes to all the opposition faced when questions like this
come up in real life, like with Ms. Quimby's park in Maine. Some
locals think that the logging business is more important than
preserving the forest because they value money more than
wildlife preservation. Some people think that snowmobiling and
other sport activities that can be environmentally destructive
are more important than the forest. Some people think that
hunting is more important. Ms. Quimby said something interesting
about the people of Maine: "They are very self-sufficient,
including in the way they think about things." - insinuating
that they're self-centered. She probably thinks that's the
reason they have different values than she does, and that's
what's creating all the opposition to a seemingly innocent and
objectively good national park. However, it's not objective and
there will always be people to value other things higher than
the environment.
An interesting bit - "had to be open to 'traditional' uses like
hunting and snowmobiling" - from Maine article, p 3
How did the idea of "traditional" uses of a forest turn into
snowmobiling and hunting?
Who are the people that think snowmobiling and hunting are more
important than conservation?
How did the forest turn into a place to be used instead of a
place to spend time in (not necessarily doing anything
destructive)?
The forest had to have been used by people long ago when they
relied on it for food and shelter, but why do people still feel
like that's necessary?
#Post#: 398--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
By: ngood Date: March 3, 2019, 6:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In response to two of Alice's questions:
-How did the idea of "traditional" uses of a forest turn into
snowmobiling and hunting?
-Who are the people that think snowmobiling and hunting are more
important than conservation?
At the risk of sounding too crunchy and/or Marxist, here are
some thoughts:
The influence of capitalism is important here—it’s harder to
monetize walking in the wilderness than it is to market
snowmobiling and hunting equipment/lessons/etc. Within a
capitalist culture, walking in the wilderness is useless because
you’re 1) not making money 2) no one can make money off of you
3) it’s not an “interesting” (read: marketable) activity—it
can’t be turned into a reality TV show and can’t be included in
the Olympics.
My questions (you can pick any one you want):
-How does one’s perception of time change based on their
environment? (ex: sitting on a porch waiting for the moon to
rise vs. waiting in traffic)
-How should Abbey’s piece be considered along with accessibility
concerns (specifically for people with mobility issues)?
-Do Abbey’s concerns from 1968 about tourists wanting
convenience (seeing a national park from the comfort of their
cars) hold up now when pictures/movies/TV shows of nature are
accessible online? Would the type of people who like convenience
go to a national park (still wanting said convenience) when they
could stay home and watch a documentary?
-What are some arguments for snowmobiling as a positive way of
engaging with nature?
#Post#: 399--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
By: samfarley Date: March 3, 2019, 6:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Lots of interesting points here. I like Addie’s point about the
two reasons for making national parks- to preserve the actual
land, and for people to see and ‘use’ them. It seems like it’s
often a battle between these two, it seems like it is
challenging to form a compromise between the two. People using
and seeing the land ruins the total conservation efforts some
would argue, but just conservation doesn’t quite work in the
capitalist environment we’ve got set up here, as Natalie pointed
out. It seems like Americans like the idea of national parks,
but not just as entities that exist, they have to interact with
them to be satisfied. I’m reminded of a comment someone made in
class last week, that they had visited a national park when they
were little but only remembered because of all the pictures that
were taken of them there. It’s like we are only visiting these
places to say that we did, to get the photographic proof that we
were in fact there. That seems to be the most basic of
interactions, besides that people take it to the next level by
going hiking or ATVing or snowmobiling, so they can say that
they did that. No one is just going to go to a national park and
not walk around, do something there, or take a picture. It seems
like there’s two types of people at national parks: ones who
take pictures to prove to others that they were there, and ones
who don’t do that but go and hike around or snowmobile or
whatever to prove to themselves that they were really there.
#Post#: 400--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
By: nanaafiaba Date: March 3, 2019, 8:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Edward Abbey's essay is one that proposes a controversial point.
Abbey argues for the eradication of automobiles and new roads in
national parks. He speaks about industrial tourists in a
judgmental matter. "The indolent millions born on wheels and
suckled on gasoline, who expect and demand paved highways to
lead them in comfort, ease and safety into every nook and corner
of national parks" (275). It is remarkably clear how much Abbey
looks down on tourists such as these. Abbey argues that the only
way to truly experience a national park - to take in the scenery
of the wilderness, is to travel on foot, bicycle, or animal. His
voice in the essay is almost narcissistic and entails a
male-oriented view. For example, he states park rangers should
be leading "dudes" around the park; and that we should "live
like men," which in this cases means to travel through national
parks devoid of automobiles. Abbey's writing style distracts me
at times from the real point he tries to make that national
parks will collapse into ruin unless the law bans vehicles and
new roads and park rangers are put to use.
Moreover, when I think of national parks, a serene image comes
to mind. I think of the "wild," which I define as land that has
not been directly intervened by humans. I imagine beautiful
flowers and vast mountains. To answer Natalie, I do believe that
one's perception of time can change based on their environment.
For example, in traffic (a place not generally liked) time goes
by incredibly slowly. However, if you are spending time with
your friends at the beach time may move surprisingly rapidly.
For these reasons, I conclude that one's perception of time
directly correlates with their state of mind.
My question for you all: How does Abbey's voice influence your
takeaways from the piece?
#Post#: 401--------------------------------------------------
Re: #11: Edward Abbey, "Polemic: Industrialism Tourism and
the National Parks," from Desert Solitair
By: Annaliese Date: March 3, 2019, 8:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've never visited a national park, but when I think of them I
usually think of people mostly hiking and walking around. I'd
imagine the areas of the park that you can walk around in
require more maintenance than the places that are left alone
with no trails or anything. People usually emphasize how
beautiful the parks are, and I think people visit them partly
for the view and partly to say they've been there because
they're fairly well known locations.
From the NY times article, I don't fully understand all of the
opposition for the public park Roxanne Quimby wanted to build in
Maine. Were people really that unwilling to give up using their
snowmobiles and ATVs there? It sounds unreasonable. Because that
article was written 13 years ago, has public opinion on this
topic changed since then?
Like Edward Abbey wrote in the reading, we have to make up our
minds about development vs preservation, but the preservers of
the parks emphasize "leaving [the parks] unimpaired" (275) Even
though the developers also say that accessibility is important,
I would agree with Abbey in the sense that (for the most part)
machines and cars in public parks are damaging to the park. I
would say that beyond the impact on public enjoyment of the
parks, machines and cars have a negative effect because of
possible pollution and noise. Does anyone else have strong
opinions on this, and if so, what are they?
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page