Cronon and Thoreau

After reading both works, I really feel a bit more drawn to Cronon. Thoreau certainly makes valid points, about how we should love and appreciate nature, but as Cronon points out in that same appreciation and love we are making nature into something specific to us, and our love of it. If we have the idea in our heads of Niagra Falls or California's redwood forests' majesty before we ever go there, then we're more likely to transplant those ideas onto the actual locations when we actually arrive, even if the reality doesn't quite match up. Hence, physical nature becomes merged with our mental image of it, making "Nature" more a concept in our heads than a forest or unspoiled stream. The physical reality is being shaped by our thoughts and perceptions, and is thus despoiled in a new way.

Thoreau thinks of nature as a true representation of the divine, but Cronon points out that previously untamed wilderness was viewed as a terrifying, evil place. Native Americans were often seen as demons simply through their close connection to the woods. So Thoreau, when he goes off to putter around Walden, is really just seeing what he wants to see: a pristine, beautiful, unspoiled creation. Cronon just seems to offer a more realistic, less idyllic view to me.

Thoreau idealizes the wilderness to a ridiculous degree, not just as a place of beauty, but also in how he applies other thoughts to it. He goes on and on about how one can learn more there than in a classroom, or most any civilized place for that matter, whether about life skills or intellectually, when in some cases that simply isn't true. Yes, you can grow as a person and have wonderful experiences outside, but you're not going to learn how to be a locksmith, or speak Spanish by walking around in the woods. Depending on what you want to do with your life, and what your interests are, strolling around under trees or by a stream may not be for you. Cronon helps point out this silliness, partially in our "dualistic vision" of nature.

Most of us do not live off the land. It is not our home. So we cannot simply say it is better than our houses, and must try to learn to see it a bit more objectively, just as we must look at our human made habitat objectively.