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

[bullard@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Jim Bullard)]

At 03:27 PM 4/7/2003 -0400, RoksnRoots@aol.com wrote:
>--
>[ 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.

Good? Maybe. Better than the way the trail is? Depends on who you are
talking to.

>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.

No one said that his idea was entirely different from what exists. You're
the one making the black vs white distinctions.

>   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...

Where did you see anyone saying that he intended to convert Americans to
socialism with the trail? Again, that's your black/white thinking. His
socialist beliefs most certainly did influence his proposal though. RnR, I
know that you believe that MacKaye never really wanted a hiking trail and
proposed the trail only as a pretext for getting support to set aside the
Appalachians as wilderness. You said that in so many words in a previous
discussion you and I had off list.  Believing that, you miss one of the
major points of the influence of his socialist beliefs, namely that the
*primary* purpose was to benefit people through giving them a place to
escape cities and the drudgery of industrial jobs just as he said. What a
concept that is. MacKaye's words in the proposal can be taken at face value.

> > 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.

Whoa! Are you suggesting that those who have worked to preserve nature over
the years in this country are somehow above 'human nature'? Is this the
point of departure that makes MacKaye superhuman to you? The population is
a pretty thorough mix in terms of support for preservation. Those who see
everything in term of profit and gain will come down on the side of
exploitation, those who enjoy the world as God made it will be on the other
side. I don't think either point of view is the product of 'human nature'.

> > 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.

I can't speak for Grey Owl but I certainly wouldn't call the AT "a failed
project". That's your black/white thinking again. It isn't exactly what
MacKaye proposed but it is a great thing, in no small part because it is
the product of many people and isn't bound to a blueprint drawn by one
person who is now dead and can't explain how to interpret everything he
ever said.

> > 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.

So... Support the protection of the corridor on the merits of each case and
not on appeals to "what MacKaye intended". Calling someone else's opinion
"bogus" and suggesting that any compromise on what you consider to be
"provable Trail necessities" is more evidence of your black/white view of
the trail world. Your "Take the environmental out of it and you have a
hiking, smiley-face Disneyland" comment is pure hyperbole. No one is
suggesting that environmental concerns be ignored. OTOH, not everyone
agrees on what's 'necessary'. They didn't when it was built. What has
evolved was through compromise and most folks think that's pretty good.

>        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...

Black vs white yet again. If MacKaye's vision (as interpreted by true
believers) isn't the sole measure of all things AT then we are
excommunicating him from the AT. That's a crock RnR. MacKaye was a very
forward thinking man but you really need to put him in perspective. There
are many people willing to defend and preserve the AT on it's own merit
without first becoming acolytes to MacKaye. Perhaps the biggest compliment
to MacKaye is that, like a parent who does a good job of raising a child,
his idea (in its general form) is bigger than he and transcends the need
for his constant personal guidance to continue and thrive.