[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[at-l] MacKaye And The Silent Majority (OB)
In a message dated 1/13/02 11:27:57 AM Eastern Standard Time,
orangebug74@yahoo.com writes:
>
> It is interesting to read these historical writings with our 20-20
> hindsight.
***The controversies surrounding them still exist as much today as then.
Persons who view the Trail on a deeper level than equipment itemizing,
organizing get-togethers, or abusing others on a list, realize this.
There is irony in MacKaye's comments regarding the use of
> the trail as mental sanitariums < > We
> all know persons who have not found healing in our shelters and along
> the path.
*** I don't think OB ever through-hiked. Most experienced Trail people
know the emotional catharsis long distance hikers experience after a long
duration hike on the AT. I know OB gives little concern to MacKaye's
writings, but, if he had read MacKaye's own words, he would see he intended
those enclaves to be restorative recuperation camps from urban stresses.
Again, wilderness serving as a social mechanism. Today's fresh-air camps in
NY are an example. As OB illustrates, it's not difficult to glaze over and
give a shallow opinion if one isn't really that interested to begin with.
>
> There is the further irony of those demanding wilderness while MacKaye
> appears to promote Utopian communal colonization of the backcountry,
> including logging, farming and other business endeavors. An unspoken
> background to the "recreation" issue was the very real concern of labor
> shortages in the 20's, perception of inadequate birthrates and desire
> to prevent procreation of "undersirable" humans. There was hope these
> communities would become "breeding grounds" so to speak. That became
> totally unimportant in the 30's with a glut of labor and development of
> all male CCC camps.
*** I wrote on this before. MacKaye wasn't stupid. He knew a progressive
environmental commune would never sell to bureaucrats who had to justify
expenditures. Therefore, with WW I veterans available and needing half-way
help, and vast unemployment from the Great Depression, he included functional
elements to his plan that would surely attract funding for very low-cost
treatment of the problem. I suggest the idea of the CCC was borrowed by the
government from MacKaye. That way it wouldn't have any political attachments.
Those who simply label MacKaye's vision as "utopian" fail to see the greater
good it would return in terms of conservation and installing in America's
mind the need to preserve Appalachian wilds. "Utopian" is simply a sterile
classification of an intellectual vein. MacKaye and the AT are living proof.
Shame some can't see his ideas in place and working under their noses while
they seek to pigeon-hole him as an easily dismissed eccentric.
The superior race he was going to breed were conservationists. Anyone
can think of a hundred excuses why his plan wouldn't work. However,
manifesting a working conservation college on a national level was not as
easy.
Logging and farming would have been negligible compared to the
surrounding wilderness tracts. Once again, OB is failing to understand that
MacKaye was trying to create model conservation communities to show how much
wilderness could be preserved while a functioning community existed within.
Here we have another confident MacKaye/R'nR critic missing the entire picture
while confidently putting down what he doesn't even grasp.
>
> Jim, we know that RnR has some odd perceptions. By responding to his
> not-real facts, you show honor to his dogmatism and play by his rules.
> You won't win -- just as you can't teach a pig to sing and dance, you
> wind up frustrated and muddy with a more noisy pig.
*** This is silly and beneath the level of discussion we were having.
For a man who bloats his psychiatric background as much as possible on the
List I find this a rather weak and shallow-minded response (besides being a
direct personal attack in place of any topic and in direct violation of the
rules so often quoted). What competent psychologist would gang up to shut up
an otherwise civil discussion of a Trail related intellectual topic? It's
obvious that OB doesn't have any valid response so he reflexively needs to
rally others to snuff out for egotistical control. OB's childishly
contemptuous response is designed to provoke a fight in order to discredit a
serious topic. Like an infant in an AT-L crib mauling a priceless
intellectual Calder dangled in front of him. The rules OB plays by are
running to censorship when he can't productively answer and personal attacks
by means of ugly reference. I wonder if that leaves him qualified to comment
in such an authoritative way? Remind me again OB, exactly what Trail lesson
YOU were trying to teach the pig?
(I assumed since nobody protested his deliberate hack that I'm allowed
to respond...)
>
> The real trail is what matters, not historical writings or romanticized
> ramblings about those writings.
>
*** Exactly what I was trying to say. Once one realizes that another
Trail universe exists outside hiking groups or lists one can start to
understand what exactly the "real" Trail is. What he doesn't realize is that
ATC has been pursuing the goals inspired by those "ramblings" for over 60
years. I find it almost dumb to not realize that MacKaye put the "real"
Trail, of which OB speaks, under his feet so he can chase MacKaye backers off
it. It's obvious that OB's post is simply another attempt to bully or
intimidate another list user into submission. I say a decent conversation was
going and he can mind his own business and not break site rules.
Unfortunately he takes Trail advocacy as a threat and is content with seeing
in the simple terms above. It isn't that simple.
> If you really believe this is important, then I ask of this list to
> tell me who would beat whose ass: Superman or Captain Marvel?
>
*** I'll stick with MacKaye, you can choose the comic rack...
--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
text/plain (text body -- kept)
text/html
---