I can't help but be a little anxious for our trip coming up next weekend. This emanates primarily from a reason that parallels a large part of what we've talked about when dealing with the "wilderness" aspect of the park. Conservationists seek to have a portion of the park deemed "forever wild" in which little to no large scale human interaction can occur. It seems particular ironic and paradoxical to have a human created pastoral utopia in wilderness, a term that inherently implies that there is no human interference at all. Thus, we are outsiders looking into a place we directly influence but do not inhabit.
In turn, I feel a bit uneasy going to a contentious place that I know is not mine. I was not born in the Adirondacks, nor do I own a writer's cabin, or regularly commute there. In fact, my family and I participate in the recreational aspect of the park that we see condemned so very much in our talks concerning the park. It feels strange to make such strong statements in class along the lines of "We should preserve the park! Limited timber industry! No ski lodges there!" in a place where I do not live with the repercussions of how that affects the local economies, interest, jobs, and tourism in the region (and the fact that we're using pre-existing infrastructure [read: a highway and staying in a castle] on our journey). Thus, we come back to the "outsider looking in" mechanic. I believe it is very good to go from an academic standpoint and that the issues (property rights on waterways in particular) are very polarizing and exciting to debate. I simply think being cognizant of my role in relation to the park and its inhabitants is very important to keep in mind throughout the week.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYour point about making strong ideological statements about a place in which I do not inhabit and therefore do not directly experience the repercussions really resonated with me. When I was 13 I attended a hearing at the town hall in Tupper Lake on the issue of the Foxman’s resorts. I had very little knowledge of the issue, and any information that I did have at the time came from my mother who was, and still is, vehemently against any new development. She spoke at the meeting and read a short piece that I wrote while sitting at the meeting, believing that my voice, as a representation of the parks future, was as important as any other. I wrote:
ReplyDeleteThe highlight of my summer is going to my grandparent’s cottage on Simon Pond. I love its peacefulness and natural beauty. Here are some of my thoughts on the development idea. It is peaceful and quiet. Then suddenly the lake boils over with boats and noisy jet skis. Shots ring out through the mountains. The sweet serenity is all gone. This development would change the natural beauty of Simon Pond and reduce its attractiveness. Beautiful trees would be chopped down for sewer pipes. Killing native plants that rely on undisturbed habitat would open forests to the invasion of non-native plants and animals. Lawn chemicals, septic waste and gas from boats would all find their way to into Simon Pond and make the already at risk water unsafe. The water that I drink from! This world only has 50% of the trees it needs. Why cut down more trees and contribute to global warming? Tupper Lake has one of the darkest skies I know. The stars are bright and pure. Why smudge them out with more bright car and street lights? Tupper Lake and Simon Pond are beautiful and peaceful. Why ruin it with such massive development? Why not put that time, effort, and money into the already existing town?
Clearly there are some undeveloped arguments here, but all youthful and idyllic ignorance aside I had taken my stance. I also took a tally of the people of the people who spoke, noting those for and against the development: 28 for, 15 against. Those who defend this argument, the residents of Tupper Lake and the developers, understand this issue from mainly an economic point of view. Those, like my mother, who oppose the development, understand the issue more from an environmental standpoint. After hearing each person talk I remember being uncertain that my mother’s opinion correct. As a 13-year-old, I needed to understand this issue in black and white, and hearing everyone speak had introduced a grey area that had not previously existed. I began to question if I had actually said the right thing, argued what I actually believed. After all, who was I to have an opinion about this place that was not mine? I was going to drive back home after this meeting and all of these people were going to stay here. I have regretted what I wrote at times, realizing that I had simply acted as a puppet of my mother and my words had been merely a reflection of her beliefs. I have since learned more about this issue (though still not enough) and have come to the conclusion I did take a stand for something in which I still believe. Whether or not I believe that my tourist’s opinion should impact the lives of those who call the park home is still a question to which I have no good answer.