[at-l] More Thoughts On Benton (?th try)

[bullard@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Jim Bullard)]

At 09:23 PM 4/7/2003 -0400, RoksnRoots@aol.com wrote:
>--
>[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
>
>       R&R wrote:
> >
> > >> You can never really leave MacKaye,
> >> because MacKaye IS the AT -whether you accept it or not.
>
>     Bullard responded:
>
> > I don't. And that's the problem with this discussion. YOU cannot separate
> > the man from his idea. < snip> The AT has it's own life beyond the original
> > conception of MacKaye.
>
>
>         ***    Then just consider everything I wrote to be speaking of his
>idea.
>
>                       I believe if you listed everything you considered to be
>the AT's life "beyond" MacKaye it would: 1) Not adequately cover his
>environmental nuances. 2) Completely miss the overt suggestions within his
>Trail intentions of the establishment of guardianship of wilderness and a
>wilderness-conforming and preserving mindset amongst the AT's users. 3)
>Credit current MacKaye-inspired AT activities as being otherwise.  4) Omit
>how the AT was designed to be a conservation front combating encroachment in
>not only the Appalachian Mountains, but in the minds of Americans.  5)
>Underplay the need for AT members to realize this before presuming
>influential roles in AT involvement  6)  Forget the fact that if MacKaye is
>decoupled from the Trail's concept, there isn't much else that would conform
>to the AT's purpose to replace it.
>
>           I'm not sure that even you are completely sure of what you don't
>"accept" in MacKaye and what does and doesn't belong to him Trail-wise. I'd
>be perfectly willing to argue the camp form to show how it would have served
>a better conservation purpose, but that seems to get bogged down before the
>points get made. What could be safely argued now is that a thin remnant form
>of the camp version exists in the trail crews, Trail organizations, and,
>ironically, the annual through-hiker population. The irony being that as much
>as MacKaye regretted through-hiking detracting from his fuller AT form, that
>population is now the most conforming to his nature immersion plan. The only
>problem is they are experiencing the intended effect of his creation -only
>they haven't had its full intention impressed upon them as it was intended,
>nor is there any outward structure or guidance leading them to. The problem
>is that MacKaye built a wonderful dynamic socio-environmental machine only to
>have it never used as it was intended. MacKaye is the key. When it is turned
>in the AT ignition it starts that machine up and it runs...

I am sure that I'm sure and I repeat, "that's the problem with this
discussion. YOU cannot separate the man from his idea". Read what you just
wrote for crying out loud. I could not have offered more proof of your
myopic view if I had tried.