[at-l] More Thoughts On Benton (@nd try)

[RoksnRoots@xxxxxxx (RoksnRoots@xxxxxxx)]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
In a message dated 4/7/2003 7:40:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, greyowl@rcn.com
writes:


> I have done a lot of reading about Benton and he had a vision
> of the trail and trail community that does not exist today or
> for that matter will exist.


        ***   Which doesn't say that if it did exist, it wouldn't have been a
good thing. But even this isn't entirely true. A small semblance of MacKaye's
Trail force exists in the volunteer maintainers and AT supporters who see
beyond this narrow summation of MacKaye's vision.





  One must first remember he was a
> socialist.  Socialism works very will when everyone buys into
> the system and will work for the common good of the
> community.  It is the antithesis to capitalism which is for
> the good of the individual and based on greed (yeah, I know
> they give it nicer names, but the poster child for capitalism
> is Ken Laay)


       ***    I very much doubt MacKaye was attempting to convert America to
socialism by means of the Trail. I've seen others on this list avoid
addressing the practical good his camp structure would have done by simply
smacking a socialist tag on the finer aspects of his plan and moving on. The
US actually did a moderated form of those camp crews in the form of the CCC
and other depression-era manpower projects. Much of what they did was based
on MacKaye-type conservation development blueprints. It would be a grave
injustice to not credit his role in inspiring this type of regional park
development where vast parks and trail systems were constructed by CCC crews.
This includes the AT. To say "MacKaye planned something that was impossible"
is to ignore that his planning and inspiration gave us the AT itself. This
Trail-creating level of enthusiasm he inspired hasn't been reached since. To
look at it as a battle of social ideologies is to omit this crucial
history...



>
> Secondly, even though Benton was a visionary he could not
> imagine what America would be like in the Year 2001 as we
> cannot imagine what America would be like twenty years from
> now.  So trying to follow a blue print that is out of date is
> pretty silly (IN MY HUMBLE OPINION).



       ***   It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that human nature isn't
going to stop and set aside preserved areas unless prompted. Population
growth and its accompanying land consumption were inevitable. MacKaye didn't
need to know the perfect exact pictorial of the future to understand that his
feared threats needed to be headed off by secured wild areas. I'm sorry Grey
Owl, but this is a rather unjust way to judge it considering that recent
times have seen real needs for conservation. Watershed purity issues is one
example of something the MacKaye couldn't have foreseen directly, but his
plan managed to head-off. Deep woods song bird habitat is another. There's
absolutely nothing "out of date" about this need. If anything, it's even more
needed now.


>
> If I had any say so in the planning and maintenance of the AT
> I would surely have a lot different vision of the trail than
> many people do on this list.  Again I OPINIONS ARE MY OWN and
> I do not have to dig up some old dusty document to support
> my views.  If my views cannot stand on their own merits then
> they are not valid or useful.  End of discussion.
>


       ***    So, if read properly, your angle is that the Trail is a failed
project not worth organizing over. It's amazing how easily some people can
rationalize their way out of organizing productively.

      First, Benton's plan is not a "dusty old document". And that's a rather
insulting way to refer to the thinking which not only gave us the AT, but
continues to maintain it today. Second, I don't see where you are showing us
how this thinking failed own its own merit.

       There is no "end of discussion" ever with the AT. That is why its
ruling organization is called a Trail "Conference". The link to MacKaye,
through the past 75 years of its activity, has never broken.

      I'm sure if I said the above, Jim Owen would say "then why don't you DO
SOMETHING about it? He doesn't with you because there's a movement to
establish this limbo as acceptable. It isn't, and never was.






> So we may argue over what person A feels should be done while
> person B may have another idea.  This is where the
> Environmentalist have it all wrong, they are not able to
> compromise so they lose more times than they win.  Compromise
> and determining who utilizes the trail and to what purpose
> does people use the trail will insure its continued existence.
>
> Grey Owl
>


         ***   The Trail is permanent and set where it is a national park.
This doesn't have to be fought for. It has a protective constitution and
legal status. Where the Trail exists in active, progressing form is on its
threatened edges where it needs to be protected from corridor-destroying
development. The problem with the view expressed above is that it focuses on
a perceived defect in Trail approach from a collectively-labeled, stereotyped
membership. And that is all it does. It's an empty criticism that, if you'll
notice, doesn't offer any practical solution. This "in my humble opinion"
business is bogus. It is used as cover for not recognizing and cooperating
with provable Trail necessities. The idea of the AT is one of not
compromising. The compromise has already been spent in our sprawling,
polluted urban areas. These areas are now spreading out and heading for the
AT. The AT needs to be defended uncompromisingly. Unfortunately, the type of
compromise solicited here is one that will only slowly trade in what few
remaining wild qualities the AT possesses. It's a false promise that sells
the Trail's last few precious wild parts one by one in order to pay
ideological 'rent' on both a physical and political basis. What some fail to
understand is that the AT is necessarily "environmental". Take the
environmental out of it and you have a hiking, smiley-face Disneyland.

       The idea of compromising to determine the AT's future is only a
retrofitting of the Trail's previous challenges to fit incompatible usage and
Trail perception. In this case, the Trail doesn't actively teach anything or
force any difference. It merely compromises to any and all demands put on it
by persons who will threaten to harm it politically if it doesn't come along.
That, Trail members, is pure AT heresy and completely opposite what the Trail
is about. It also explains the need to excommunicate MacKaye and his thinking
from the Trail he gave us. I can't think of any greater threat to the AT. By
the way, MacKaye never compromised his plan and went down with it. Which is
more than I can say for those so eager to compromise...