Although I have only read half of the reading thus far, I found the large portion of the text to be rather interesting. I have read a handful of Muir’s, Thoreau’s, and Roosevelt’s works from this time and it was cool to see a piece that incorporated all of their works together. I have found that I personally struggle to support both the industrial movements to attempt to overrule the land and the religious ideologies that came into place to protect our national parks/wilderness landmarks. I think it is great that through romanticism and religious ideologies that we were able to develop this appreciation for nature; it makes sense that the religious appeals were what worked for the people in this time period. However today, we still have these issues going on with large corporations attempting to tap into the resources of beautiful environmental landscapes but religious ideologies will not suffice in halting their activities (especially in other countries with different religious beliefs). On top of that, we have many US companies that are intentionally going to other countries to exploit labor and natural resources because it’s cheaper and not deemed illegal the way it is in the US. This plays on the concept of NIMBY (not in my backyard), which is nice to know that the states are protected, but doesn’t stop Americans from going elsewhere for resources, still prompting the question about how much we really care for our earth.
One part that spoke to me was when the author mentioned views and actions towards the wilderness. It states, “[f]or them, wild land was not a site for productive labor and not a permanent home; rather, it was a place of recreation. One went to the wilderness not as a producer but as a consumer, hiring guides and other backcountry residents who could serve as romantic surrogates for the rough riders and hunters of the frontier if one was willing to overlook their new status as employees and servants of the rich” (Cronon, page 15). This speaks to me as I led ocean tours along the Palos Verdes Peninsula for many years. What frustrates me is that in this context, I would be deemed a guide for the hunters of the frontier, which is a humorous joke. I know those waters, landscapes, animals, and everything there is to know about that area. The people that I take out are not frontiersmen, they are typically wealthy people that have no appreciation for the ocean nor any understanding of the powers it has (until they take my tour). In this regard, I think it is ironic to say that the tourists flocking in with money are rough-riders. However, to play devil’s advocate, without wealthy individuals coming and paying for guides and tours, we wouldn’t have the money to protect and serve the environment the way we do. At the end of the day, I think I have a heightened sense of appreciation for the environment because I have watched some of my favorite places on earth get destroyed by anthropogenic activities. I struggle to understand another perspective that might attempt to destroy what I find has innate beauty simply because it wasn’t manmade.