One of the most interesting things I found in the Terrie reading was this pervasive sense that humans are apart from (and in most cases, superior than) the natural world around them--and even worse, that during the time that the Adirondacks were being settled, people didn't even realize this humans-over-wilderness complex. For the settlers coming to populate the wild north country, the Adirondacks represented "both a resource and an obstacle to their own prosperity" (Terrie, 29). People viewed the forest they migrated to as a means to achieve the not-yet-named American Dream and used the land as a tool for human progress. At first, these early settlers didn't so much work with the land as they worked to make the land fit their needs--as seen by their insistence upon farming the mostly infertile soils and by physically and visibly altering the landscape. According to Terrie, "every family's goal was to secure a good living by eliminating at least that part of wilderness around their home farm" (Terrie, 42). The people of this time (and many today as well) viewed the Adirondacks equally as a land of opportunity for human gain and, unfortunately, as an unnecessary and begging-to-be-changed "impediment to personal comfort, material success, and cultural advancement" (Terrie, 42). Both of these viewpoints feed into the idea that humans are entitled to using (and abusing!) the landscape for their own personal advancement, an interesting thread in the Adirondack narrative considering Terrie's discussion of land ownership. When considering whether the poor migrants actually working the land or the fat-cat but entirely absent men who laid financial claim to the land should technically own the lots, Terrie asked what I found to be an incredibly probing question relevant to more than just land ownership: "who should control the land--those living on it or someone else?" (Terrie, 25). Ultimately what this question made me think of is who, as in what beings or forces of nature, should control the land? Should humans be allowed to manipulate nature to their advantage or should we learn to live with the land rather than on top of it? To me the answer is clear and points to a solution of successful integration and cohabitation instead of a completely one-sided urbanization in some parts and pure wilderness in others approach--a proposal much easier said than done. If nothing else, however, I think today's reading serves as an important reminder that people and their landscape will never successfully thrive together as long as humans expect the land to "yiel[d] to civilization" (Terrie, 42).
You ask some really important and provocative questions. First it is important for us to remember that when the settlers inhabited the Adirondacks and built their homesteads, the wilderness in America was abundant and therefore did not hold the same value as it does now. My immediate answer to Terrie’s question would be that those living on the land should be the ones making the decisions about it, but at the same time they do not have the perspective as those living outside of the park who can see the park more clearly in the context of the state, the country, and even the world. I don’t think that humans should manipulate nature, but I do think that in the world we live in it is impossible for us to not influence the land around us, even if it land we intend to maintain as “wilderness”. In an ideal world we would live completely harmoniously with the land, but because of the commercialized world we live in the most we can do is be conscientious and limit our impact on the environment. I completely agree with you; mindful cohabitation is an ideal solution. We need to remember that the land is not a here for us to use endlessly to our advantage, but rather precious and delicate. Therefore it is vital that we regard and respect the needs and health of the Adirondack wilderness when choosing the way in which we inhabit it.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that land is "begging" to be changed is one that comes up again and again throughout history - not just in the history of the Adirondack park. The Spanish conquistadors also come to mind, a group who took one look at the land and society of the indigenous Mexican populations and decided that it was their duty to overturn their backward ways in the name of their beliefs and what they considered progress. Despite being a different context than the landowners in the city controlling the inhabitants of another area, it is still interesting to note that this humans-over-wilderness and sometimes humans-over-other-humans- complex is a universal one.
ReplyDelete