[at-l] topic police... I'll say it ---- having been.....

[RoksnRoots@aol.com (RoksnRoots@aol.com)]

In a message dated 4/9/2002 11:13:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
rafe.bustin@verizon.net writes:


>  in 
> MacKaye's essays. < > What I found was that the word "wilderness" appears 
> hardly at all, 
> but the word "recreation" appears again and again.


    *** Anyone who has seriously read MacKaye knows how concerned he was 
about setting up wilderness enclaves as his main focus. He did so to the 
point of forsaking the need for a connected pathway. There's absolutely no 
doubt amongst serious MacKaye studiers that he strove to create vast 
wilderness parcels of preserved Appalachian wilds in order to perpetuate a 
feeling of wildness in his "recreators". First and foremost, he sought to 
influence the preservation of the viable forest lands he wanted to protect in 
order to keep a form of original American Appalachian biosphere intact. This 
was progressive for its time and ambitious.
     The most well-known example of his dedication to a wilderness model for 
the AT was his break with Avery for allowing the Skyline Drive to intercept 
the Trail every mile. I strongly suspect that MacKaye was politically wise 
and inserted a broad recreation purpose for his Project. After all, how was 
he going to get the government, in the 1920's, to fund a progressive 
biosphere preservation zone? Think... 



> 
> I believe I have a reasonable appreciation for wilderness, but I do 
> not enjoy being clubbed over the head by those who feel that my 
> appreciation isn't pure enough or sincere enough.


    ***   "Clubbed over the head" is simply an expression of reluctance to 
recognize what was being attempted. It's a sensibility that makes sense 
within the ruleless confines of a list and personal animosities that will 
inevitably follow. I equally do not enjoy the revered philosophical origins 
of the AT itself being dealt with in such superficial and insulting terms. 
Your view only makes sense if you have no respect or appreciation for what 
MacKaye sought or even what the ATC still seeks today. To think that a word 
search of MacKaye would somehow prove that his intention was equal to 
encouraging Disney World attendance is preposterous. If anything is being 
clubbed remorselessly it is the sense of purpose of the AT and those who make 
it known... 


> 
> There is also the matter of access.  To the extent that we impose 
> (or, rather, allow) true wilderness, access becomes difficult, and 
> especially so for those who are very young, very old, or not of 
> perfect health.  Is wilderness something that only the fittest may 
> experience?


     ***  The implication of this is to allow all sorts of wilderness 
damaging improvements into the AT for the sake of a challenged minority. Did 
it ever occur to you that the most popular AT sections are the most remote 
and inaccessible? Yours is a backwards argument that validates the 
diminishment of a much greater and threatened entity for the sake of 
comforting capricious feelings. The AT has more than enough access right now 
for just about anyone who wants it. The rest would simply intrude too far 
into the Trail's wilderness integrity to justify -not matter what the 
intention. This type of "wilderness is a threat to civilization and civilized 
thought" is *exactly* what MacKaye wrote about. The corridor is a place where 
this thinking is excluded and takes no place before the need to protect pure 
nature. So, the question is an inappropriate one and one spurred not by a 
sense of duty to the difficult project preserving wild, rough and dangerous 
wilds is, but to seeking a logical excuse to further its loss and remove its 
challenge as it was intended. What you see here is the conflict Benton 
MacKaye deliberately planned in order for man to question his relationship to 
nature. It is the intellectual form of the AT Project and the one he 
cherished most. Some just don't get it. Then and now...



> 
> The AT is full of compromises between wildness and access.  
> Bridges and shelters exist.  I'm mostly glad that they are there, 
> but they do diminish the wilderness.
> 

   
      ***  I haven't seen anything here that would validate a furthering of 
the depreciation of the Trail's wild character. This argument is an angels on 
the head of a pin avoidance of the real question. It works backwards against 
the Trail's purpose by seeking to indict it with its own form. I see nothing 
here questioning what end will result from unending land development and 
nature destruction. *That* is a more relevant AT question. Some have come to 
see that as the enemy. The real question is preserving as much wild corridor 
as possible and using that recreation place to encourage investigation over 
how we relate to nature and what good it does to preserve it. As long as 
people fail to see that, it can't be mentioned enough. That my "clubbed" 
friend is the AT...


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---