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

[shane@theplacewithnoname.com (Shane Steinkamp)]

> ************************
> [WARNING:  This is not a gear report.  It is not
> about thru-
> hiking, or about chili or humus, or where to park the car
> on your next section hike.  Those with a distaste for
> politics are advised to seek another channel.]
> *************************

> If the Naktculturists are your best example, Shane, then
> I'd question the notion of your "broad background" in the
> social movements of the 1920s.  Think 1917, O Wise One.

You are the only person ever to accuse me of being wise -
even in jest.  Thinkering.......  Ok, then, the women's
movement.  The philosophy is still valid, but the vision has
changed as progress has been made.

> You say, "The only thing that separates MacKaye from the
> Nactkulturists are clothes."  Feh.  That sells MacKaye
> way short.

I don't think so.  The philosophies are so similar that it
is startling.  I really do wonder if MacKaye knew Knopp or
Merril.  Both movements had essentially the same
philosophy - but they did have very different visions and
solutions of the methods to apply that philosophy - which is
why I chose the example.

> I'd venture to say that MacKaye's notions were, shall we
> say, just a bit influenced by Socialism.

All naturalistic (for lack of a better term) philosophies
were, and still are, based on aspects of Socialism.
Socialism isn't really a bad word anymore, and like all
systems has some valid points.  Socialism actually works
with small groups of people - witness many communes.

> Point is, that these were hardly irrelevant movements;
> they dominated most of the rest of the 20th century.

The movements themselves were not irrelevant.  They shaped
history.  It is not my contention that they did nothing.  My
contention is merely that where they were and where we are,
are two different places.

> OTOH, I dare say MacKaye draws from a much deeper
> well than the NaktCulturists, and that well is
> far from empty.

Read Merrill's 'Among the Nudists', and get back to me.

I think I said it plainly enough before, and it still is my
major point, so I'll quote myself:

"It would be far better, I think, to make our own vision
from the place where we stand, rather than rely on the plans
of a man standing many years behind us."

Thank you for your calm thoughts.

Shane