Whether we realize it or not, we as a people have a specific way that we think about and view nature.\u00a0 This way is not the right or wrong way, but is different from the way other peoples might see it.\u00a0 We seem to have a fascination or an innate desire to separate and own land.\u00a0 The notion of \u2018property\u2019 is crucial to the foundations of democracy and thus the foundation of this country.\u00a0 John Locke, the founder of modern democracy, first established the right to life liberty and property.\u00a0 While we switched the words around to include \u201cthe pursuit of happiness,\u201d the idea of property never left the minds of our founding fathers.\u00a0 As a people we have a desire to mark territory that we alone own.\u00a0 The idea of \u2018fencing off\u2019 what we posses is very prominent in our society.<\/p>\n
This is never more transparent that in the Yellowstone Park Act of 1872.\u00a0 The wording for this act provided a legislative model for subsequent efforts for all types of conservation.\u00a0 The act stated that the land in the park was retained in \u201cits natural conditions\u201d and \u201cset apart\u201d for people to enjoy.\u00a0 Any person who operated against \u201cthe conditions of nature\u201d was not allowed to touch the land.\u00a0 While this legislation was motivated by a positive good, its wording reflects our views about the environment.\u00a0 It reflects our obsession with fencing off and owning property and it reflects our abuse of the word \u2018natural.\u2019\u00a0 This legislation suggests that our country knows what is truly natural.\u00a0 Yet how can we truly claim that anyone is acting against the conditions of nature?\u00a0 The way we define the conditions of nature may be different than the way a Native American would or anyone else would.\u00a0 Who are we to deem something against the laws of nature?\u00a0 Some people might even argue that fencing off any nature at all is inherently unnatural.<\/p>\n
Karl Jacoby\u2019s most captivating argument in the book for me was her argument that we often try to legitimize particular conceptions of nature and criminalize others.\u00a0\u00a0 While I agree that this process goes on all the time, I don\u2019t believe that it is just limited to the urban elite and kept separate from rural citizens.\u00a0 I believe that it stems from a fundamental capitalist and democratic understanding of land that was established by our forefathers.\u00a0 Jacoby talks about the elite because they are the easiest targets and they were the most successful at using our conceptions of nature for their benefit.\u00a0 I would love to see a study of this type of rhetoric among farmers and other rural Americans.\u00a0 I believe that it would be just as prominent.\u00a0 I think Justin<\/a> makes an intelligent point in his post about the importance of binaries in this work.\u00a0 I think Jacoby seeks to set up this binary opposite between these two groups of people.\u00a0 While it effective for the argument I would love to see more.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Whether we realize it or not, we as a people have a specific way that we think about and view nature.\u00a0 This way is not the right or wrong way, but is different from the way other peoples might see it.\u00a0 We seem to have a fascination or an innate desire to separate and own … <\/p>\n