[at-l] Re: Who cares about MacKaye?

[shane@theplacewithnoname.com (Shane Steinkamp)]

ALAS!  I have missed a step and fallen into a mud puddle.
And I thought it was so simple...  This is halfway on topic,
but please feel free to delete.

> > MacKaye's ideologies...are no longer relevant.
>
> That's a profound claim.  I disagree, but I'd
> like to hear your reasoning.

I do not say that his philosophy is no longer relevant.  Let
me use a different word:  His VISION is irrelevant.

I'll use another well documented movement from MacKaye's
time to illustrate my point.  MacKaye's age was one of great
hope, but also of great stress.  People were looking for
solutions, and there were many movements all over the world
that encouraged man's return to nature.  The Nacktkultur
(loosely, Naked Culture) movement in Germany spread quickly
to this country in the early part of last century.  (Hey!
It's a new century...)  This movement has come to be known
in this country as the Nudist or Naturist movement.  It
still exists.  The philosophy of the Nacktkultur was not
new, in fact it is quite ancient.  It proposed, using the
exact reason sings that MacKaye did, that the outdoor life
was good for the human body, the human mind, the human
spirit, and the human soul.  The only thing that separates
MacKaye from the Nactkulturists are clothes.  Wilderness
preservation and the human enjoyment of that wilderness are
key to the philosophy - and they are the same philosophy - a
philosophy that I share.  Nakedness was not absolutely key
to the Nacktkultur movement, so don't let that trip you up.

That simple philosophy:  That men, women, and children,
benefit from communing in their own natural environment in a
genuine way while learning about the natural world and
working to preserve it, IS STILL TODAY A VALID PHILOSOPHY,
AND ALWAYS WILL BE.

Now, to make my point:  The Nacktkultur movement had more
than a philosophy.  It had a vision.  A vision where all men
and women could commingle comfortably in any state of dress
they desired.  Large parks and natural areas would be
integrated with cities to make cities more friendly to the
creature of man.  Men and women would exercise, take sun
baths, and enjoy fresh air and clean living.  Vegetarianism
would be encouraged for healthful living.  Eventually
everyone would be brought to a state of free thinking, and
an enlightened society would result.

Now the clincher: The vision of the Nactkulturists is no
longer relevant.  There has been no social revolution.
Society has not developed in the way they envisioned - nor,
I may hazard to guess, will it.  There is a new vision
shared by the Naturists now:  To preserve those areas set
aside for nude recreation, such as beaches, and to educate
the public about their lifestyle.  They fight many of the
same fights that the ecologists do, and you will find that
nudist designated beaches are often cleaner than textile
beaches because the nudists, sharing a common philosophy,
strive to improve their natural world.  Unfortunately there
are some problems, and the nudist movement is far from
perfect - but no movement is.

The vision of MacKaye is no longer valid.  The trail did not
develop as he envisioned.  To use his vision as a template
for the future is to try to impose a vision on a world, and
a trail, that has changed.  His vision may be of interest,
but we need to formulate a new vision - one that fits the
time and the circumstances of modern America.  Arguing about
what MacKaye wanted is like arguing about what the early
Nactkulturists envisioned - something no naturist ever does.

> So why is it that 2nd Amendment zealots are so
> quick to point out
> the correspondence of the founding fathers, the
> constitutional
> debates, and the assorted musings of rich white
> men who've been dead for 200 years now?

We are talking about MacKaye's vision.  The Constitution is
a legal philosophy of Government that is still relevant.  I
care little what the founding father's vision was - their
vision is no longer relevant either.  Their vision did not
include, for instance, the right of women to vote.  The
Constitution, however, IS relevant - it is the foundation of
our governmental system - and that document has changed
through the amendment process to reflect the new vision of
the people of this country.  For example, the vision of the
founding fathers was never to have a standing army.  The
vision today is that one is necessary.

I shall not argue the second amendment.  It stands as it is
written, along with other basic rights that are also
relevant today - speech, press, etc.  A constitutional
amendment can change any of those at any time.  Nobody seems
particularly interested in divesting themselves of rights
other than the second amendment - but maybe they have a
different vision... The Constitution is already a very
different document from the original.

> Who's to decide what's relevant?

We all are.  If it's relevant for you, then that's fine.
Perhaps I should say that Mr. Washington's vision for this
country is no longer relevant to me...

> Specifically, the original
> conditions no longer hold,
> and therefore the opinions of that age are no
> longer relevant to our own.

Exactly.

Shane