# data[].attributes.body
Out of all of the readings we've covered this year, N.K. Jemisin's "The Ones Who Stay and Fight" was my favorite. The highlighted portion of this section here has played over and over in my head since I first read it in Week 5. The idea that a word is just a word–an entity devoid of real meaning, connotation, or emotion until given by us, is what inspired this deconstructed final.

Using Cronon's "The Trouble with Wilderness," this padlet explores how our nation's history has given meaning to the word "nature," and how such a word might be adjusted in an effort to create a more sustainable, environmentally aware society.

# data[].attributes.body
The "sublime" and "frontier" are concepts that Cronon frequently returns to in his writing. In essence, the "sublime" (the right side of this image) refers to the sacral aspect of nature: places considered closest to God; a place where one feels beautifully insignificant surrounded by the vast, powerful landscape. Today, such places would be the Grand Canyon, the Cliffs of Moher, etc. The "frontier" refers to the wild, untamed side of nature (the left side of this image). A lot of the times, the concept of a frontier emerges alongside the idea that nature is there for us to conquer and use.

Both of these concepts will appear throughout this padlet as we dive deeper into how the power dynamics of our history shaped our relationship with the environment and how we define the word "nature."

# data[].attributes.body
Cronon begins "The Trouble with Wilderness" by making the point that if we were to go back 250 years, American and European views of Nature would be very misaligned from the concept of the sublime. Biblically, wilderness was represented as treacherous and fearful. The only value wilderness had was in its ability to be conquered and used for human purpose. Without such intervention, it offered little but tragedy and danger to the civilized person. The "wilderness experience" was something that brought you further from yourself and God rather than closer. The outside world had little to no control over human society–there was no profit to be made off of promised revelations or sacred experiences. Nature merely existed, separate from society.

# data[].attributes.headline
Giving Power to Nature in the Interest of Profit

# data[].attributes.subject
Giving Power to Nature in the Interest of Profit

# data[].attributes.body
As time (and society) progressed, so did our relationship with nature. Suddenly, the fearful, treacherous lands of Wyoming were breathtaking, sacred, and, most importantly, profitable. So became Yellowstone National Park–a powerful landscape worthy of our protection.

When Cronon talks about the growing influence of the "sublime," he notes that landscapes not included under this umbrella were not worthy, at first, of the same protection. It's not that our interest was in the protection of the wilderness, but in the protection of the landscapes most appealing in terms of profitable tourism. This is not a relationship with or for nature, but rather a lordship over it.

# data[].attributes.headline
Protecting the Sublime: Yosemite National Park

# data[].attributes.subject
Protecting the Sublime: Yosemite National Park

# data[].attributes.body
As an example of a landscape worth of our protection, Cronon notes the national debate that occurred over whether San Fransisco should be permitted to dam the Toulumne River within Yosemite National Park. This debate, to me, is a key landmark on our journey through the history of "nature." The arguments made against the dams, comparing it to the destruction of the Garden of Eden, among other things, proved that our society's outlook on nature had shifted from the early days of fear and abandonment. Now, "nature" was a connection to God rather than a temptful land of the devil. Not all nature, of course. But the beautiful landscapes, the sublime, were now sacred and in need of preservation.

# data[].attributes.body
Once it was established that nature, at least parts of nature, were beautiful, endearing, and even biblical, it was easy to find profit off of the landscapes that surrounded us. "Nature" became defined by its beauty. It was not an experience but something to be visited and looked at. The problem is, our greed for profit eventually took away the secluded aspect of nature that made it sacral in the first place. Standing alone atop a mountain, gazing down at a vast landscape of trees and rivers, one might feel small and connected to something much bigger than human society. Standing between two ropes on a man-made platform, enjoying the same view while bumping shoulder to shoulder with hundreds of strangers who paid for the same experience does not evoke the same feeling. As Cronon states, nature and the religious sentiments it evoked became more of a "pleasant parish church" rather than a "grand cathedral."

# data[].attributes.body
As the beauty and influence of the sublime faded, the rugged, untouched wilderness became more and more interesting. Nature became the symbol of origin for our nation. Cronon explains how claims that we were "losing the frontier," losing the very backbone of our nation, were what motivated wilderness protection during this time. As society continued to develop, nature became a place to go for recreation. A camping trip into the wilderness was a way for one to step away from the modernity of the growing world and reconnect with the simple origins of our nation. "Nature" was now, essentially, a vacation hotspot.

# data[].attributes.body
A main point made by Cronon here is that the concept of wilderness, which I have broadened throughout these posts to now examine the concept of nature, is merely a creation and reflection of the culture that defines it. In the case of nature as an escape, this definition of nature highlighted the economical disparities of our society. It wasn't everyone who saw nature as a vacation–just as it wasn't everyone who was able to experience the beauty of the sublime. The people seeking and profiting off of the "wilderness experience" were the wealthy elite–disproportionally white males. In this way, a relationship with nature was not given. It was bought.

# data[].attributes.body
As the concept of wilderness as an escape from modernity grew in popularity, the definition of nature became focused on purity. Nature was now seen as "virgin" "uninhabited land." Again, we see biblical influences make their way into this definition as we reinstate the landscape as peaceful and holy. This stands in stark contrast to the methods used to "preserve" and "care for" such lands. Importantly, Cronon acknowledge that much of the land established as national parks and advertised as pure, untouched land were taken from the Native people who lived there, forcefully removing them in violent ways that directly contradicted the image of peace and beauty that was presented to elite society. This, to me, is the key place in which "nature" no longer had any freestanding value or history. "Nature" was now a term completely owned, defined, and created by upper society.

# data[].attributes.body
Throughout the second half of his writing Cronon explains how the separation between man and nature that occurred as a result of this development of "nature" as a pristine, separate, and owned concept puts risk on our enviornment in many ways. For one, it alleviates us of taking care of the very place we live, as the "touched" places of society are not as sacred or deserving of our protection as something like Ireland's breathtaking cliffs of Moher. It also suggests that if something stops being "nature" once the human hand touches it, then the only action that could stop the complete destruction of nature would be the destruction of the human race. In placing strong lines between what is and isn't nature, we make it impossible to form a sustainable, forgiving relationship with the world around us.

# data[].attributes.body
At the beginning of this class, we did an assignment titled Nature vs. Culture. I drew a line down the middle of my paper and put things into one of the two columns based on my experience with and understanding of nature. What Kronon argues towards the end of his writing is that it is not the distinction between the two that we need to focus on, but the intersection. He states "the only thing we have to preserve nature with is culture." We need a culture where the stones that form the walls of the White House are just as natural as a stone you may stumble upon in the woods. A culture where both of these places are considered nature and worthy of our preservation. A culture that creates a balanced relationship, in which we (us and nature) take from and give to each other in a way that is careful and sustainable.

# data[].attributes.body
How does the definition of nature we've compiled so far reflect our nation's history? Let's return to the concept of the sublime and the creation of national parks. Here, only the most worthy parts of nature were "protected" (owned and profited from). It is hard not to see a connection between this hierarchical organization of the natural world and the organization of our society. The sublime, in essence, is the white male of the wilderness. As Cronon states, it isn't until the 1940s that the "less appealing" landscapes began to even be considered for protection, for example Everglades National Park.

# data[].attributes.body
This section of the reading sparked a lot of thought for me surrounding censorship in today's society, specifically in terms of history and education. Throughout the country, hundreds of books and lesson topics have been removed from schools for countless reasons. One instance that comes to mind in particular is the removal of LGBTQ+ inclusive books or lessons. In "purifying" the history we teach to our children, we choose exactly what we want our history to look like and who we want to include in it. This gives a whole new meaning to history itself– it is no longer a compilation of factual lessons but a carefully constructed, exclusive, portrait.

# data[].attributes.body
What does this representation of wilderness say about our society? I see connection here between the concept that wilderness only has value when conquered and the history of colonial America. This idea that everything around us was ours to take and use as we wish, and the belief that one subset of society was superior to all others, clearly played a hand in our relationship to nature.

Towards the end of his writing, Cronon talks about nature as a sort of equalizer. He states that nature "helps us remember.. that the interests of people are not necessarily identical to those of every other creature of the earth." There is great importance in acknowledging that we are not the center of the universe. In debunking this idea of nature as a servant to us, we can begin to foster responsible behavior that cares for not just ourselves but all other presences around us.

# data[].attributes.body
In my first post, I stated that I wanted to use Cronon's "The Trouble with Wilderness" to explore how our nation's history has given meaning to the word "nature," and how such a word might be adjusted in an effort to create a more sustainable, environmentally aware society. I would be wrong to say that I can provide a complete definition at this point, as using just one perspective to define such an expansive and inclusive concept would be essentially a repetition of the exclusion I have noted in the posts above. I can, however use this as a starting point upon which to dive further into future experiences and inquiries.

What I've learned from this class, and this reading specifically, is that much of what we think of when we hear the word "nature" has been carefully constructed by upper class elites and fed to society in the interest of both control and money (power). The exclusion that occurred during the creation of "nature" is reflected in our idea that there is a stark divide between the natural and unnatural, and it is this divide that stops us from being able to form a more harmonious, sustainable relationship with the world around us. In debunking these beliefs and exploring a more open, equitable wilderness, whether that be the potted plant in my office or the patch of flowers in a field, we begin to move forward into a world where we consider ourselves no longer the center of the universe. If we are able to do so, the health of our planet may increase exponentially.