Cronon and Thoreau

Admittedly, at the time that I am writing this first paragraph, I am less than halfway through the reading on page 8, but in the danger of losing some of my early thoughts, I figured I would write as I read.

I do not understand the point Cronon is trying to get at. All right so, as I stated previously, I am less than halfway through the text but even so, I should already have a sense of what point he's trying to make and it's lost on me. So far, what he's saying is that the Wilderness did not used to be a tourist destination so...we should stop treating it like one? He hasn't really said just what exactly we should change about our approach to nature, only that it was usually used as a place of both spiritual conflict and renewal.

I don't even think the Wordsworth poem and the Thoreau passage he cited can possibly contribute to his argument because those are mountains. Yes, that is the Wilderness, but how many tourists actually make a habit of traversing mountains like Thoreau and Walden have? Not many. Most people, like John Muir - whom he is now citing - go to the forest and that is where most tourists find the awe and beauty. They can very likely see mountains or rocky hills in the distance but they are a healthy distance. Unless roads actually lead to the top, few people actually care to go beyond the forest.

(On Page 11). If Cronon wants pristine, truly untouched "Wilderness" he needs to watch Planet Earth, caves addition and see the segment on Leiturgia. Granted he could argue that it cannot be pristine since humans have wandered there, but after the BBC went down there to film their segment the cave was closed off to anymore human visitors. And the cave was only discovered in, I believe, 1988. So, it was open to likely the most seasoned cave explorers for 17 years before being closed off. I'm not sure you could get more pristine than that.

I have a feeling that if Thoreau could read Cronon today, his response - while not biting - would very likely seek to change just why people are attracted to "Wilderness." There is no denying that people are attracted to the Wilderness for escapism and possibly as an erasure to the past, but human civilization has always been volatile and viscous. There is, without a doubt, other reasons people seek the tranquility of the Wilderness.

Thoreau, based on his writings, sought out the Wilderness to, to a degree, be closer to God. He did in fact feel a spirituality in the land that he could not find in a church, considering his obvious disdain for organized religion. He also made a point of showing the simplicity of his life from living in the Wilderness, something that Cronon argues is part of this romantic view of Wilderness. BUT the systematic erasure of the past of the Indians is something I sincerely doubt most people thought of when taking a walk through the woods. Or at least that they fully supported and wanted the systematic erasure of the American past.

This is where I believe Cronon and Thoreau would in fact diverge on their ideas of Wilderness. Thoreau's time was much different to the comparatively modern Cronon and many people in the 1800s still had to work the land for their food. Maybe not everybody, but that is as a result of capitalism - specialization. Thoreau did try to live the land, by building his own house and trying to live in isolation. (Too bad he was just 2 miles out of town, or he would have a stronger case.)

Suffice it to say, there are people who have attempted to live out in the wilderness, hunting and making their own food even in this technologically advanced, modern world. But then...why criticize people for wishing to preserve nature simply because they have never had to work it? Is not retaining the Earth, whether we consider it pristine or not, enough to want to protect it to the best of our abilities?

Ah, I see, you're arguing that people need to let go of their foolhardy romantic notions so as to better preserve nature. Or so that it can be better preserved. Thoreau might argue that, in comparison to how people felt about the "Wilderness" back then, even today's romanticism is preferable than the uncaring desolation and consumption of the Earth's resources that pervaded society back then and certainly still to this day. Because, despite all that silly romanticism, the vast majority of Western Civilization still lives in suburbia and the cities.

Now the article has tailed off to bemoan the radical aspects of Environmentalism where people hold this fatalistic view that all humans should die in order to do the Earth no further harm. As much as a hindrance to environmentalism as the Tea Party is to politics right now, the moderates still make up the majority of the people and they will speak up before anything truly insane, like serving a poisonous Kool-Aid, will happen.

So, instead of being of the Earth-First crowd, Cronon is arguing more for the People-First crowd. Certainly nothing wrong with that, but the two should go hand in hand because without the environment, we cannot live. The only problem with both of these views is that human kind is so vast and, as aforementioned, volatile and viscous that we will never collaborate as a whole to save both people and the Earth. It will forever be touch and go. Certain people will be saved, but that anticipates the suffering of certain other people. Just as some areas of the world will be saved, while other areas are consumed in the name of progress and industrialization.

All in all, Cronon seems to be arguing against human nature. Which human nature is, in and of itself, hypocritical.