In Chapter 5 of The Mountains in California, Muir describes the Native Americans as, "mostly ugly, and some of them altogether hideous". He made unnecessary judgements like saying the dirt on their faces was probably so ancient it would carry important geological results if researched.

Muir describes these human beings as specimen, and regards them as a fleeting moment.

What particularly interests me in this is the fact that they can be included in a portrait of what the landscape is, but do not think the empathy and emotion that paints such people in the picture exists in any other color than a dark gray that ruins the beauty of the valley.

Despite a peaceful interaction, Muir later writes in the same chapter that he felt nervous sleeping in the proximity of them. A statement that later becomes filled with irony when one considers that for over a century after, their presence in this moment would go largely unrecognized in the history of the Yosemite.

Muir on the other hand had an interesting point of view that he made clear in a speech, "One soldier in the woods, armed with authority and a gun, would be more effective in forest preservation than millions of forbidding notices.". This idea of the militarization of nature is not unlike American values which do seem to favor rapid militarization, but it does present an argument of who is allowed to be violent in nature? Is one soldier in the woods a policy worth defending over the empty promises given to those who inhabited the woods first?

Nijhuis wrote, "Conservation is, after all, accomplished by humans, and a movement that includes more of us will be more successful." While I do think it is possible for the concept of a large support system to become a large mob if their support is full of hate, the club seems to have done a lot of good that has not erased the past, but Muir's impact did help to stop a lot of damaging projects and the like.

I think this is necessary to point out that it is easy for some people like Kantor to criticize the problematic elements of environmentalists, but that two things can be true at the same time. Muir may have built an idea of nature that is largely against Native Americans, but his idea of nature still rallied those to protect certain elements of nature.

While the concept of nature that was protected rids itself of the original, natural cultural and replacing it with one created by a small club, one must consider the idea that the club helped protect the environment.

According to the National Park Service's official website, Muir popularized the idea of "nature should be protected for its own sake."

He seemed to argue that humans should experience nature, but shouldn't really interfere with it. While I do think that this statement misses the mark given how directly humans are allowed to affect nature in other writings by him, I think it presents a very interesting opposition to Kantor's view.

While Muir may have had clear prejudice against Native Americans, he did view nature as something that everyone should be able to experience in their own right, assuming they view it with what he deemed as a respectful lens that did not seem to encompass all people's traditions, and imagined a place for nature to thrive and just be viewed.

This preservation of Nature that does not necessarily protect humans, although climate change of course harms us all, is different than Kantor's view of special rights being owed to Native Americans. However, Muir's viewpoint on her lacks the nuance of admitting that in order to achieve this dream it would have to cancel the human interference already culturally going on.

In an ironic way, Kantor's argument can only exist due to the very liberal movements that started with the internet or at the very least connection of the world through development. Kantor is allowed to make this arguments so freely due to what some people would argue is the most cultural, or lack of nature, space in the world: the online world. While I do not feel like nature cannot exist online as the internet can harm and save nature while also providing a glimpse into human nature, it still is a bit of a unique predicament for Kantor and Muir.

I do not feel like it excuses anyone to say "they're a product of their time" to disregard their harmful acts, it has to be considered that environmentalism is viewed very differently now and the environment is in a very different place. It is not a deep observation, but it is a necessary distinction.

Kantor is asking that the parks at least do a better job at educating people about the lands and the history. Not to criticize classmates or agree to heavily with Kantor, but I saw comments saying that nothing about this can be so simple however I viewed this concept as very simple.

Between the two writers, we saw one manage to help erase the history and create new history. In the modern world, why is it such a hard request to include education?

Muir believed that the best way to experience nature was to see it yourself, on a spiritual level if possible. While this is a statement I feel can be generally agreed upon, the nature they are seeing fails to educate you on the land's history. Kantor's wish for the land to be honest is rooted in realistic expectations, as nothing can be done to actually make up for the centuries lost.

It is interesting Kantor does believe that hunting wildlife should be a right afforded to Native Americans, because Muir seemed to advocate against hunting in general. The Sierra Club's own website expresses how much he believed wildlife not only deserved to not be hunted but also should have been given the right to communicate with us as we have a great deal to learn from them.

While I do not believe Kantor's belief in the rights the Native Americans should have in modern America has much personal thoughts about hunting in general, it is interesting to see the two appear to have differing opinions with such different contexts.

In a way, America has never had a separation of Nature and Culture. If one were to ask where you could find strictly culture or strictly nature at any point in American history with any location, there would be no clear answer.

An "uninhabited wilderness" is just one that has been robbed of its culture, and yet that reflects culture.

If all of that can be true, then who is to say if the parks are even natural?

The idea is of course ludicrous because it is a very colonial viewpoint that assumes all people are naturally drawn to making borderlines, taking out of consideration the fact that the Native Americans had peacefully existed in the area long before it was "discovered" without any real issues of coexisting. It is of course the colonizers who could not coexist and fell into overconsumption as, even in trying to protect the land, Kantor points out that efforts to move them off the land caused a Native American extinction.

What is most interesting about this failure to coexist is that Kantor points out there was an attempt at erasing their history through writers stating there was little to none Native American influence in these locations, something that is easily proved by archaeologists/anthropologists. This all raises the question: how was the west won?