Category: Reading Reflections

Opinions are great, even if they differ from my own. However, blatant lies and twisting history is uncalled for. While not every article contained it, many of these articles used history as their playground. They climbed all over it and abused it in order to fit their political argument. When we read Chauncey’s articles, some were concerned with the evidence he used and said it was poor. While I did not like everything he said, and felt there were elements of his arguments that contained more opinion than fact, he at least included some sources.  Well for the majority of these articles I ask where is the evidence at all? Many of them contained no facts to backup their opinions. Without facts you have no argument. A lot of the articles contained hypothetical arguments such as if George Washington lived today he’d allow Americans to own any gun they wanted. Or that if Martin Luther King were alive today he’d stand next to Rush Limbaugh in protest of big government. I think it’s pointless to make a statement that someone who lived hundreds of years ago would agree with something you are doing today because it’s impossible to prove.

 

Allan Carlson used sources to backup his claims, however he used the same author for most of his evidence. He made a good point that FOX News contributes to the narrowing of thought and closes people off to a healthy debate. When you watch Hannity and O’Reilly, there is no debate. They are right and you are wrong and they prove this by shouting at you rather than providing facts and debating in a polite way. However, FOX should not be solely targeted. MSNBC is guilty as well, as is CNN. Like Chauncey said, the corporate media networks are not interested in telling the truth but are interested in viewers so they stir the pot. What is shocking is how many people believe their pot stirring statements.

 

Moving on to Carol Scott’s article on the Constitution. She claims there are only three types of Democrats when it comes to the Constitution: Those who don’t support it, those who sort of support it but secretly don’t, and those that do. First off, it’s more complex than that. Just because someone does not support every single piece of the Constitution does not make them anti-American, or against the Founding Fathers. She basically said that those who do not support the Constitution 100% do not understand the Federalist papers and are not supporters of the Founding Fathers, which is a simplistic and ignorant statement.  Her agenda is clear; to make Liberals seem anti-American and against the Founding Fathers, while at the same time make Republicans the true patriots carrying on the legacy of the founders. She stated the “so-to speak supporters” are misleading the public. What is her argument doing then? Exactly the same thing.

 

The Optimistic Conservative provided us with an article on how everything in this country is tied to God. While everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs, we are a country that was founded on the separation of Church and State. Meaning state should not influence religion, and religion should not influence the state. However, I feel the latter is not as condemned as the former. The rights in this country were created by men, not God first of all. Secondly, to clump all the founders in as Church going Christians is a misrepresentation of what they were. While the majority identified as Christians, to assume they all practiced the same way and with the same passion is, again, a generalization. We have freedom of religion in this country, which means saying this country was created under God (which means the Protestant version of God) is infringing on the rights of Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Taoists, etc. If government is not allowed to make decisions which infringe on religion, then why is religion allowed to make decisions which dictate legislation (abortion, gay marriage, creation taught in school, etc)? Seems hypocritical to me.

 

Ken Taylor’s article may have been the most biased out of the group. Not only did he include zero citations or evidence, but his argument is hypocritical. He blamed the liberals for using the founding fathers to back up their political claims, yet what is he doing in this article? The same exact thing. Not only is he taking words spoken by Washington out of context, he is forgetting that the second amendment stated guns should be available for a “well regulated militia.” A militia is not every single person who wants a gun. While the right to bear arms is clear, the right to bear any arm is not clear. He’s comparing the guns of 1776 to the guns of 2012? Sorry, but there is no comparison. I don’t agree when people say things like “Well George Washington would have agreed with me today” when they really have no idea what he would think. What would Washington’s reaction to the second amendment be if he saw we had automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, and clips that could hold 100 rounds? Even 30 rounds would seem like an assault weapon to him. I don’t think Taylor should be so confident that Washington’s reaction would be supportive of total gun freedom. He also said there has never been a successful case of gun control in any country, which is false. Australia instituted gun legislation after the massacre in Tasmania and haven’t had a massacre since. Before that, they saw eight massacres within the last thirteen years. Europe is another example where gun violence is down. So it has worked in other countries Mr. Taylor.

 

I am done rambling now, but for the majority of the articles I just found zero sources or facts to back up any claims. I found ignorance towards historical events from a lot of the articles. Not only did they use history to justify their political viewpoints, but they ignored historical evidence which countered parts of their arguments. Liberals are not exempt either. Both sides use history to their benefit. However, the hijacking of MLK really annoyed me. While they use the argument his niece said he was a Republican, his own son said not only was he not a Republican, he never voted for one in his entire life. Who is a more reliable source? His niece or his son? However, I get the impression it doesn’t matter who said it as long as someone did, which troubles me. If you don’t use critical thinking when faced with facts such as this, how can you be a historian? You can’t say he was a Republican because his niece said so when his son says otherwise.

http://www.politifact.com/tennessee/statements/2012/jan/23/charlotte-bergmann/another-republican-claims-martin-luther-king-jr-wa/

 

While 100% objectivity is impossible, I feel that trying to be as objective as possible is attainable. Not only were a majority of these articles not objective at all, but there was not even an attempt. A lack of evidence hurt their arguments as well.  Hardly any of them used any statistics or facts to support what they said. While I didn’t disagree with everything they stated, the way they presented it turned me away. Had they brought in other arguments and considered them instead of the “I am right, you are wrong” argument, it would have helped. And yes, Ms. Bachmann is incorrect, the majority of the Founding Fathers owned slaves including Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Samuel Chase, John Hancock, and Benjamin Franklin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In reading this weeks postings I have come to the conclusion that conservatives and liberals do in fact “do history” differently.  The bloggers that I read this week like to write about how things were better before liberals ruined the country.  They believe that if only they could eliminate the liberal indoctrination of the children of America things would be much better.  This is a concept that keeps popping up over and over again; indoctrination.  This is a real fear for them.  Because they believe that liberals are evil, as Strickland stated, and have morally compromised leaders as Scott affirms.  This is why they can show Barak Obama as the devil and state that Jimmy Carter is the worst liberal ever.  Really, Jimmy Carter is the worst liberal ever?  This man has spent the past 35 years building homes for the homeless and attempting to stop the spread of disease in Africa through creating methods for cleaner drinking water.  This is not the worst liberal ever.

Another concept that I noticed is that some bloggers use facts in a new and surprising way.  For example, Barton claimed that the 3/5ths clause was not a measurement of human worth.  The reality is that they did not see slaves as human, they were property.  This can’t be ignored.  To call it an anti-slavery provision is a bit disingenuous.  The North did not think it was fair to have slaves be property and yet still count as population.  There was also an argument made that the Founding Fathers were mostly opposed to slavery.  Again, this is an interesting interpretation of the facts.  Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe all owned slaves.  Even Klugewicz, another conservative blogger, stated that after the Constitutional Convention Madison sold off his valet because he was afraid that his slave might get ideas about freedom and liberty.  So while they might have claimed to dislike the institution of slavery, none of them were willing to take the financial hit that freeing their slaves would have caused.  This class is also aware that Washington created the runaway slave laws after his own slave ran off.  So it’s not like they were fighting the good fight to end slavery or that they were willing to put their money where their morals were.

I agree with Vanessa Anderson regarding the contributions of blacks in history.  I think too often we focus on what was done to blacks.  History shows that they had their own methods of rebelling.  Black people have made enourmous contributions to this country, as have women and Native Americans.  We should talk about that more often.  It is funny that she made this point by attacking liberals for wanting to teach sex education.  “I firmly believe that if accurate history regarding this era was actually taught in schools (instead of teaching our youth how to have safe anal sex), we would by now be dealing with fading racial scars instead of wounds that wont heal; better yet, wounds that are not allowed to heal.”  Sigh.

There seems to be this idea among conservatives that only they are truly patriotic.  They use the founding of America and the mythology that surrounds the Founding Fathers to point out that they hold the only means to saving this country from the horrors of liberalism.  Ken Taylor brings up all the men who died defending the heritage of America.  He writes about Old Glory, my country tis of thee, bravery, and freedom.  He wants us all to remember the fighting men and women keeping this country safe for democracy.  This is nationalism at its scariest.  He’s not really saying anything here, just using patriotic rhetoric to remind us that there is a war being fought that we should all be supporting.

The teacher/blogger made me laugh.  I had to roll my eyes at some of the things he said because I believe that, yes, the government should protect the environment because it has been proven that without the government business will use the most economical means of disposing of hazardous materials.  Usually this involves dumping them.  “Only by removing the communist principles in education can teachers again teach and further the life, liberty, and prosperity of our children.”  Again, I see fear inducing rhetoric.  Do this or life, liberty, and prosperity will be unavailable for your children.  I doubt it, but ok.  I will say that I liked his take on the preparedness and education of high school students.  Often what is overlooked is how intelligent some of these kids are.  Each succeeding generation is afraid for the lazy good-for-nothings coming up behind them.  I doubt that the USA will fall into failure when the next generation comes of age.  It will just be different than it was before; as it should be.  There is the crux of the difference between libs and cons.  One wants thing to stay the same and one is forever wanting change, to bad that they can’t work together, like yin and yang, bringing balance to the force.

After skimming the titles of the required posts for this week, I landed on Klugewicz’s article, “Hungry Souls and Brave Hearts: Heroism, History and Myth,” and I thought it would be an interesting read. In studying the history of the American West, I have learned to acknowledge the challenges of reconciling the dichotomy of the region’s actual history with that of the “Imagined West” (which is characterized as paternalistic, individualistic, timeless and placeless etc.). I figured that this article would promote a similar approach and would encourage readers to question their perceptions of the past, especially those perceptions clouded in myth. I thought the author would be reiterating the importance of recognizing the convoluted relationship between the history and myth. I was so wrong.

How can anyone seriously advocate telling “history as a great myth?” This approach creates so many problems, and I think this is why students dislike history to the extent that they do. They have grown up with a mythic understanding of the past, and at some point in their academic careers they are introduced to a less exaggerated, less epic, uglier version of the past, and I think they feel cheated. Why would they be interested in studying something that in no way resembles what they thought they knew about history? At this point, it is easier for them to disregard a truthful interpretation of the past and stick with the version of history that Hollywood created.

Western American historian Richard White provides a thorough explanation of the role that the “imagined West” plays in Western American history. While White acknowledges that it is difficult to separate the mythic West from the historic West, he recognizes that the two do need to be identified as distinct entities, both capable of providing insight into the past. But this insight is only visible when both versions are made available. While this is rather a long explanation, I think it is so well written and phrased. To not include it in this post would be most unfortunate.

Richard White writes, “Myth means falsehood; however in a second, deeper sense, myths are not so much falsehoods as explanations. Mythmakers draw from history: they use real people or actual incidents. They have no compunctions, however, about changing details, adding characters, and generally rearranging events in order to make the meaning of their stories clearer. Historians also draw from history, and they, too, are selective. Historians necessarily select from among numerous available facts in order to create a story about the past. Historians, by the code of their discipline, put great store in facts, but facts are rarely at the heart of historical disputes. Instead, historians argue over the relationships between largely agreed upon fact, for it is the relationship between facts that differentiates one historian’s story from another historian’s story. Historians and mythmakers thus both seek to order the past in a way that conveys meaning. Both tell stories. But, historians, also by the code of their craft, cannot reorder facts or invent new one. Historians are thus more cramped and constricted than mythmakers in their attempts to explain what the past means.”

“If we differentiate history from myth solely on the basis of facts, we will, however, run into conceptual difficulties over what a fact is, and more significantly, miss a larger difference. For a good historian, as the cliche goes, the past is another country. People in the past operate in a different context than we in the present. Any lessons the past teaches are those about processes and change. Myth, for all its attention to the past, denies this and thus denies “history” itself. Myth refuses to see the past as fundamentally different from the present. In myth, time brings no essential change. The past and the present are not only connected, they are also metaphorically identical. Myth rips events out of context and drains them of their historicity. How a cowboy acts in a myth is how an American male should act regardless of time or place. A man has to do what a man has to do. Myths thus are antihistory, for history above all depends on context.” (White, “It’s Your Misfortune and None of My Own: A New History of the American West, 615-616.)

Aside from the lunacy of Klugewicz’s support of myths as an acceptable form teaching the past, he has the audacity to further explain his asinine approach. He writes, “We understand that though good and evil most definitely exist, men themselves are neither black nor white but rather some shade of gray.” Teaching history as a myth creates a justification for ignoring these gray areas. In the classic “Western” movies of the 1950s and 1960s, at the height of Hollywood’s reign on Western American history, directors and screenwriters depicted Cowboys and Indians as the poster children for the quintessential Western myth. It was apparent that film makers expected audiences to aspire to be John Wayne and grow to despise the “uncivilized, dangerous, and savage” Indians. The plot of good versus evil is about as black and white as it gets; and in this story there is no room for grey. Audiences are supposed to ignore the realities behind these stories; realities of natives being killed, marginalized, and herded onto reservations; among other realities about the region. History tells us that living in the American West was not an easy feat, nor was it as fun as Hollywood pretends. All of these nuances stories disappear when the only version of history that is made available is the myth. I cannot even believe that Klugewicz would be advocating that we teach kids history this way without at least providing (and thoroughly explaining) that there is another version of the story that is a more truthful portrayal of the past!

 It is also an utter shame that at the end of the post, Klugewicz writes, “Scholars must compose sweeping narratives of the past that will appeal to a general audience…. And, finally, let us not forget to include humor in telling the story of America to the young, which will help to avoid boring them. Kids like people who can be funny.” It is people like Klugewicz, who advocate using backwards methods to teach history thus disgracing the discipline, who make good historians and scholars shy away from using humor and engaging narrative. When Klugewicz supports an approach to providing historical knowledge that completely disregards, in the words of Richard White, the “code of the discipline,” no one is going to side with him when it comes to writing techniques and style. He should have stopped while he was …behind, and left giving useful advice to the historians who are credible and know what they are talking about!

And on a side note, I think the emphasis on African American history, as seen through this week’s articles, stems from the fact that many of the nation’s conservatives and liberals involved with politics are based on the East Coast. There is less of an emphasis on the West and the West’s role in American history simply because of the legacy of the geographic bubble where these people live and work. In the East, the turning point in American history was the Civil War and all comes with that (slavery v. state’s rights, discrimination etc.). They need to take a lesson from Frederick Jackson Turner and recognize that the importance of the history of the American West in the larger narrative of American history. I think that would result in more discussions on broader topics from both liberals and conservatives alike.

Thomas F. King really dived into the issue of protecting our heritage in his book, but that is a very obvious observation giving such the title of his book. Interesting aspects of his book were, as others have mentioned, laws and bureaucracies. While both laws and bureaucracies bring about their own unique problems to heritage protection. Being able to examine and pick apart the issues within those two aspects of the King’s book allows the reader to come to a common conclusion in order to protect our heritage. We must not only actively participate as an individual to save our heritage, but work to get the community involved as well.

Dealing with government agencies can seem like an impossible task at times. Everyone has some story about the inability of some government agency to accomplish any task in a quick and efficient way. The ineffectiveness of certain bureaucracies and the individuals within them seems to create a stereotype that people easily accept. The stereotype being that the various bureaucracies and the laws that they use are inept to adequately handle the tasks that lay before them or to deal with the people who come to them. As Jim pointed out, King’s pessimistic attitude toward bureaucracies hides the fact that there are people within the system who want to help protect places of historical or cultural value.

Although the book King wrote has an agenda in terms of heritage sites and development, he does manage to convey to the reader the difficulties present in conservation. I think having spent a part of his life battling aspects of the system in order to protect heritage sites created a pessimistic, or defeatist, attitude within King. When you witness something destroyed and felt that the system in place proved incompetent at procuring the goal you wanted, it can become soul crushing. Knowing this perspective helps to show people the portion of the reality that exists in conservation and having this knowledge prepares one to undertake this, at times, seemingly hopeless mission.

Our Unprotected Heritage by Thomas F. King is written in an easy, informal style. The style of writing makes the book easy to read, but the content of the book is difficult to swallow. King lays out for the reader the basics of what the world of cultural and historic preservation looks like from the inside, and the major problems with the process.

In section 106, according to King, it says that “federal agencies must ‘take into account’—that is consider—the effects of their actions on historic properties.” Here in lies a huge part of the problem, because agencies are only asked to consider their actions, not report on them, not explain them; Section 106 really doesn’t provide or enforce anything. False and fraudulent reports by EIA firms and CRM firms, hired by developers are technically following Section 106. The major problems that contribute to our losing cultural and environment resources are that the legislation meant to protect it is too convoluted and vague. Vagueness is something that works in the favor of those avoiding the spirit of law, when it comes to preservation. Those who do not wish to consult with local groups also use convoluted statements to their advantage. As noted by King, “obfuscation is often very convenient for a project proponent, or for an agency that doesn’t want to be bothered by the public. If they can confuse enough, you’ll give up and go away,”

The main problem is abstractions vs. real solid policies. Right now, policies make the assumption (as King says we should never do) that people care about cultural heritage, the environment, and other people. Suggestions don’t make people care, and neither do laws, but at least laws keep them beholden and offer an alternative of punishment.

Within agencies, it seems that no one is willing to step up and take responsibility or work through any project that may be messy—in fact, it seems like within federal agencies their whole job is devoted to creative methods of avoiding actual work. Section 106 regulations, as quoted by King “say to look at all kinds of effects, all kinds of properties, and to do so in consultation with interested parties.” Again, the wording of this clause makes it easy for people to interpret it any way they wish. Many agencies can simply create their own definitions of what “effects” “properties” and “consultation” means to them. True consultation is avoided since, as King points out, “Consultation is unnecessary, irrelevant, a mere bother if you’ve decided what you’re going to do and aren’t interested in considering alternatives.” Further, government agencies are just making things up to avoid doing work.

Compared to the other historic preservation book we read, this one is much more honest and realistic—and therefore refreshing. Although, King doesn’t give us a playbook about how to improve every situation he does take a critical first step in outlining where we need to begin in preserving our cultural heritage and natural environments. I think anyone working for a federal agency, contractor, and developer needs to read this book; so they know that people like King are well aware of what they are doing and that knowledge is being sharing with the rest of us.

I do not think it is necessarily surprising to many that bureaucracy makes things more difficult. Just because a law is on the books does not mean that it will be enforced in the manner that everyone might want it to be. In an ideal world, historical places and events would be protected for future generations. The problem then becomes what history and what events?  Sometimes people can become too myopic when it comes to preserving one specific thing. A Civil War battlefield, for example, is culturally significant, but that battle is likely not the only important thing that has occurred there.

I do not agree with the argument that business, corporations or even the government are the antithesis of preservation or conservation. There are many, many businesses and agencies that act responsibly with regards to not only cultural but also environmental issues. While King’s book and blog were informative, I do not know that they actually contribute to a solution. A more balanced approach to the topic would have done more to elucidate the issues and provide tools for future public historians.

After reading Thomas King’s book, Our Protected Heritage, I am more convinced than ever that I do not want to work for the federal government. Although I have a passion for public lands, and I understand the need to promote awareness and stewardship of these lands, I have no desire to seek out a career that is so laden with problems and self-induced headaches. King points out that the policies that are in place (NHPA and NEPA) developed with the hopes of protecting “our national and cultural heritage in the environment – the places and things that we citizens cherish” (King, 13). However, King argues that “we’ve drifted away from the intent of the laws, making them more and more pointless, less and less useful in protecting anything, except the profit margins of some companies and the jobs of some government employees.” While I can understand King’s frustrations with the outcomes of these laws, I do hope that he has realized that these are not the only policies that resulted in less-than-desired outcomes. Most of the laws and policy that Congress created did not workout the way they were supposed to. The 1942 Migrant Worker Legislation and the 1965 Immigration Legislation are prime examples of this. The 1942 legislation created the Bracero Program, a migrant guest worker program with Mexico, however, this program created significantly more problems than it ever intended to solve. Similarly, the 1965 legislation attempted to undo the discriminatory quota system that the government used to regulate immigration since 1924. However, this law also led to unforeseen consequences and even further complicated the immigration process. These are just two of many examples of problems that federal policies have created. And yet, King seems to think that the environmental policies the only policies that have been unsuccessful. What is even more infuriating, however, it that King thinks he can determinately point the blame for these failures on development companies hoping to seek a profit (King, 14). Not only is King’s attack on business narrow-minded, (and rather liberally biased) but I find it extremely difficult to think that the possible destruction that cultural and historic sites currently face is the result of the greed of one single stake-holder. Although I agree with King that our cultural heritage is in danger, I can hardly agree that business alone is the reason for this predicament.

 

 

Cultural resource management is a tough and complicated field.  That is what I got from reading Tom King’s book.  His bleak outlook on the laws and mandates created to give voice to those whose heritage is threatened by profiteering is sobering.  He makes it seem like even trying to protect the environment or historic sites is impossible.  The unlimited money bag of companies whose main goal is increasing the weight of those bags makes it difficult to stop the misuse of cultural resources or the environment.  That is King’s main point.  I think that he is burdened by years of fighting a good fight that no one else seems to care about.  Here’s what I am taking away from this book. We have to get as good at protecting our resources as contractors and businesses are at working around the laws created to protect our heritage.  States have to enact laws with teeth.  You come here, you pollute our ground, you tear up our land and you are going to pay and pay and pay.  Make it hurt for companies at their bottom line and they might think twice about some of their underhanded tactics.

We also have to be aware of when we are being sold a bill of goods.  My mind springs instantly to BP.  Recently this oil company has been running ads stating that they have happily and willingly done a wonderful job cleaning up the environment surrounding the coast.  They boast about the amount of money that they have poured into cleanup.  They swear that the people who live there are happy with the results.  They promise that the environment has returned to normal and tourism is higher than it ever was before.  All of that is of course, false.  BP is attempting to weasel out of its commitments and is fighting several lawsuits in court.  They want out of their responsibilities but the people of the gulf coast are not letting this slide into oblivion.  Neither are the states that were hurt by the spill.  I know that most issues don’t have quite as much coverage as this one, but most American’s have forgotten that the spill ever happened.  Being heard might be hard, but it has to be accomplished if you want to protect you land.

Finally, I wonder how interested people would be in preserving an archaeological site if they knew that by studying it we could learn that prehistoric cultures in Idaho were invaded by Polynesian’s with laser rifles who sailed across the Pacific Ocean at a time when London was a circle of huts.  I’m not saying that happened, but the truth is we don’t know what evidence lies in an archaeological site until we dig it out and examine it.  That is why preservation is important and good.  Not because of any inherent value in the site, but because we don’t know what is there until it is examined.  As a philosopher once said, “An unexamined life is not worth living for a human being.”  Well an unexamined dig site has the capacity to answer any number of questions about our ancestors (or possibly the lost continent of Atlantis).  If that is blown up to put in a new railroad that profits no one but the rail company, then what have we lost?  Preservation may not always be the answer.  Wanton destruction of cultural landmarks in the name of profit is not the answer either.  The good of the many has to be taken into consideration against the good of the few, but no one is doing that!  This is King’s point.  The laws were created to protect people and give them the opportunity to plead their case and corporate greed and overworked government employees are pushing projects through to fast to make sure that anyone who wants to have a say is listened to and heard.  Major fail on that one.

King’s book seems like a good introduction to the issues involved with the different protection agencies and rules within the US. If I wanted to be scared away from getting a job working with, as, or against these different agencies then this would be the perfect book! He had me running scared when he compared workers to the Nazis that took Anne Frank. Like most thinly veiled insults in the book he quickly laughed off his words, but Godwin would certainly be pleased.

King’s book seemed to be constantly at odds with itself. Albeit, his topic is complex and obviously not easily solved as years of governmental attempts have proven. In his first chapter he points the preverbal finger at Bush and his administrations lack of legislative action on environmental issues and then a few paragraphs later observes that putting the federal government in charge of these laws “…put foxes in charge of guarding the henhouse…”(I don’t know how to post footnotes for Kindle books…). Each and every example showed what was wrong with the system and the dastardly people who got in the way of progress. He did of course put a disclaimer that the people within the system most likely weren’t purposefully clogging the system, but the disclaimer was often very little and then quite late. I have to agree with Zach that his tone comes across like that of a conspiracy theorist. I find that quite unfortunate because I think he may have had something worthwhile to say when he wasn’t blaming the Bush administration for the world’s problems.

The Constitutional Amendment, likely to most people surprise, is probably my favorite solution provided. The rest seem overly optimistic (i.e. asking Pres. Obama to tell everyone to do better at their jobs) and I fear the public won’t be quite as helpful should their attention be brought to the matter. Amending the Constitution on and providing a firm foundation for the “right to a clean, safe, and sustainable environment” would be the most functional solution. I personally error on the side of a smaller federal government, but perserving the natural beauties of Montana while protecting the citizen’s rights and livelihoods does appeal to me.

I certainly believe that preservation of our land’s natural beauty and heritage is a worthwhile cause or else I wouldn’t be aiming for the career I am. However, the consequences of our actions and and prospective of our decisions do need to keep in mind current people too. King’s examples were worrisome and (as he admits in his “A last word about Objectivity”) biased chosen to prove his points. I will be interested to hear what everyone else thought of the book and their different (and likely passionate) positions on the issues and solutions presented.

King’s book really outlined a topic unfamiliar to me, and he explained his case pretty bluntly: something needs to change in the way sites are preserved and kept from developers. His experience, over 40 years apparently, with lawmaking for the environment, makes him very qualified to make the statements he does, especially about the various administrations which helped ruin environmental protection. The Bush administration, although I am not surprised, was treated quite harshly by King. However, I cannot blame him especially for the policies which ignored environmental protection (21). I don’t understand why environmental issues are tagged with negativity by certain people. These lands are important to us, this is the world we live in and if we don’t take care of it, how is that going to help future generations? I think it is a very selfish thing to only concern oneself with the present and not the future. I think King showed that level of selfishness when talking about the sponsors who only care about money, not what you can do for the environment. Like he said with that caption “Your project means the world to us!”, does it really? I have a hard time trusting lots of companies and administration because it seems their target is profit and taking advantage of people, when it really should be helping and making a difference.

But the one thing I really came away with from the book was how hard it is to get anyone to listen to you, if you are small time. If big companies want to do something, it is really hard to stop them. As seen from the situation in Abo Pass and Buckland, it’s difficult to stop development from occurring when they have the ear of the government. King pointed out that the system is corrupt, and I couldn’t agree more. However, corruption is pretty much everywhere, so it didn’t surprise me. I think he made a good point though on page 44, that they’ve grown so accustomed to corruption that they don’t even notice it. I think that is true at a lot of levels in historical protection and preservation. There is corruption both from the government in the sense that is the money really going to the project? And there is corruption with how they deal with developers. But with such a bleak outlook in stopping corruption, King makes it hard to feel like one can make a difference. I think if more of the public in America became involved, it could make a difference, but it’s hard for the little communities who are trying to stop developers from coming in to make a difference.