[at-l] Genuineness of Contemporary Thru-hikes (LONG)

[RoksnRoots@xxxxxxx (RoksnRoots@xxxxxxx)]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
In a message dated 1/8/2003 4:12:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
spiriteagle99@hotmail.com writes:


> Not quite - it's as simple as that TO YOU.  And therefore, you should hike
> and live by that criteria.  Anything else would be a violation of your own
> beliefs.
>
> For others it's not nearly that simple - and if you don't respect their
> beliefs, then don't expect them to respect yours.  Have you ever watched a
> 2,000 mile "war" between two groups of thruhikers?  I have.  It's not a
> pretty sight - and it was caused by a simple lack of respect on the part of
> someone who thought it was "that simple".
>


          ***  I'm surprised nobody else besides Rick points out the
obviousness that Jim's view is just as subjective as any purist's. Even he
admits it in his own logic. If I'm getting it right, Jim is mainly concerned
with others trying to impose their hiking views on everybody...

      In the case of subjective views being equal one resorts to
investigating their origins to determine their validity. I admit Jim makes a
convincing argument for universal HYOH. My only criticism is that I'm struck
with the view that he has -through his logic - managed to outlaw and deny the
inner held view of 'purism'. I get this from things like, "if you don't
respect their view they won't respect yours," or, "95% of hikers vote with
their feet". I find that a little imposing itself, to tell you the truth. He
makes it seem to me that alienating or shunning purists (or advocates) is
somehow a justifiable consequence of what even Jim admits is a valid Trail
view. Sort of like snuffing out purism with overwhelming tolerance...

             If the legitimacy of purism is up in the air you have to go back
and look at where it began. Purism very definitely originated with the early
ATC. A through-hike was an extraordinary achievement and was taken seriously
enough to warrant proof. It can accurately be said that a much greater
percentage of AT hikers didn't through-hike back then, yet more long distance
hikers stayed true to the actual path. Purism today is mainly either a
philosophical issue between hikers or a requirement of the ATC certificate...

        I'm fuzzy on where the origins of HYOH originated. It probably
originated in a sense of human freedom and the need to look past rules and
binding limitations. There's a lot to be said for HYOH when it comes to
actual AT experiences and what happens and why out on the Trail. Perhaps it
is true that a non-purist through-hiker could have a much more fulfilling
Appalachian experience on their hike by not always following the actual
route. In fact I would say with good planning it is almost certain. In this
case the ATC requirement doesn't necessarily serve the best hike. And a
blue-blazer who does more miles than the actual AT isn't doing it for reasons
of laziness. I can imagine Sloetoe's Maine bushwacks were wilder experiences
than the eroded path. I'm also pretty sure the ATC would have allowed them in
granting the certificate...


      Where I specifically differ with Jim is where he ignores the fact that
trends definitely point towards non-purists being responsible for Trail
problems or decline on a greater basis than purists. These are not
AT-intangibles and shouldn't just register dumbly as "one view is as good as
the other". They are attached to real Trail realities that affect the Trail.
I imagine Baltimore Jack could enlighten us with the percentage of purist
screw-ups who trash hostels and become nuisances etc vs non-purists. So, the
AT isn't happening in a vacuum and HYOH isn't free from objective evaluation.
No, I'm not trying to demonize non-purists, I'm just trying to put purism or
advocacy into a dynamic perspective that reflects actual Trail evolution...

            Jim knows that the annual AT will NEVER consist of 800
locksteppers marching with Trailplace parapacker guides in unison. It just
won't ever happen. He knows that. What makes R&R cringe in the same way is
the image of a homogenous HYOH community where the simple importance of
traditional hiking or even purism has been wiped out by a politically correct
majority mainly interested in returning perceived 'disrespect' to fulfill
their sense of self-tolerance. Where the struggling small percentage of
productive Trail advocates are marginalized and referred to as a "small
minority - and what does that tell ya!" Where the precious conservation cause
that is an inseparable part of the AT is stigmatized, ridiculed, and excised.
So in a sense, the anti-purist effort is an undeserved overreaction to what
is mostly an innocent respect for the original Trail. Purism was originally
unquestioned because there really wasn't anything else. The certificate is a
product of this. I suspect some purists are simply trying to keep a tradition
going that was worth keeping. Something they felt more completely embodied
the Trail's meaning. To see this described as "I won't let others control my
hike" makes me think it has been misconstrued into something it isn't...

         In the same sense rendering the conflict between development and
wild spaces in the same terms is an equal underserving and misconstruction of
the AT and its purpose that has become all too popular today under the
panaceaic mantra of HYOH. Sorry, but people who truly understand the AT
realize that it will never really be finished...