Week 7

Week Seven, 10/3

            John Muir’s writing is really interesting, and his personality also strikes me as unique. The fact that he went out into the forest in the middle of a thunderstorm is quite strange and contradictory. Usually, in the midst of a storm, people tend to seek shelter to avoid the oncoming damage. I love being inside when it’s raining and either watching a movie, reading a book, or taking a nap because this is soothing. It conjures up a feeling of comfort and tranquility that I feel is shared among many. Muir is the opposite. He is more occupied in his interest of nature and what it has to offer, so much so that he wants to be part of the experience of the storm. He wants to be as close to it as possible because to him, only beauty radiates through. I was surprised with how much knowledge he had regarding trees and the wind. If there was a major offered in these fields, he would be an expert in it. He gave the trees and the wind life, whereas any ordinary person would not acknowledge these aspects of nature. We know they’re there, but rarely do we highlight their presence. Muir characterized the different aspects of nature in a personified fashion, relating it to things that the common person would be familiar with, like a “musical ensemble,” a “festival,” and a “sleeping child.”

The Lakota people have a deeply-rooted connection to nature, so much so that they liken the soil to one’s mother. It’s there for protection and guidance. Without it, you have no purpose. The soil is described as having healing powers, as well as providing wisdom and safety, which is not something most Americans associate with soil. I likened their belief of humans coming from the soil of the earth to the idea that many Christians believe that we came from dust/the earth, meaning that we are one and alike with it. The Lakota also believe in a “kinship with all creatures,” thus no animal is seen as lesser than a man. They choose to live in harmony with the wild and tamed creatures of the earth, realizing that they need to support each other. The white man is described as distanced and lacking awareness, in terms of nature, while the Indian is observant and in tune with nature. Many might not support the idea of seeing the white man as ignorant, but I think this would be an instance of taken the point to literally. I think what is trying to be conveyed is the idea that the civilized man is too out of touch. The idea of the “white man,” I believe, is chosen because they were the first colonizers, changing the land they encountered. The “white man” is being used as a symbol of a conqueror, one who does not appreciate the original or recognize/acknowledge the beauty in the primitive. The Indian, on the other hand, lives in concert with his surroundings. Again, “Indian” seems to be referring to those who preserve the wilderness as is and don’t try to become predators to it.

I see myself as part Pioneer and part Romantic/naturalist. I truly believe that the wilderness has resources that mankind can utilize, but only to a certain extent. Mankind has the opportunity to make use of the parts of the environment that can be naturally renewed. What I don’t agree with is the exploitation of scarce and nonrenewable resources, because once they’re gone, they’re gone. I don’t think nature should be altered but rather, there is beauty and value in the innate state of nature. The times that I have been completely entrenched in nature, I’ve felt a sense of peace because this gives me the opportunity to forget worldly troubles and dive into a space of self-reflection and awe. Without preserving such places, there would be no escape from civilization. Even locking yourself up in your room would not be sufficient because you would still be surrounded by the influence of mankind, which often serves as a reminder of the inevitable cycle of concern and worry.

Unfortunately, there is a good portion of the population that could not care less about the preservation of wild nature, and there is not much you can do about that. I don’t understand how someone can be so indifferent to the changing landscape around them, while only being concerned with those things that concern them personally. There is beauty and value in everything that God created, but how do you pose that argument to nonbelievers?