This American Land

[mfb99]

David Brooks of the NYT wrote an amazing piece today in his column.

I encourage everyone no matter what their political leanings to read it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/opinion/this-american-land.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-
region

Some may see things they don't like, but have the COURAGE, to keep reading.......

Here are a couple of short excerpts:

"From the nation’s founding, Americans had a sense that their continent’s vast and beautiful abundance gave their nation a unifying destiny and mission. The land made them feel apart from Europe — their manners simpler, their admiration for practical work more fervent and their ambitions more epic".

"The biggest thing nature did was offer ideals. Different Americans came up with different character types for how to engage with nature. Each type offered a model for how to live an admirable life".

"The first ideal was the Steward. This is the small yeoman farmer and craftsman who lives close to the soil — self-reliant, upright, humble before creation and bonded to his local community".

"The second ideal was the Pioneer. This is the person who pushes against the wilderness and develops skill, courage and virility. This is the daring innovator who ushers progress by venturing to the edge of the known".

"The third ideal was the Elevated Spirit. This is the person who slips off the conformist materialism of commercial society and is both purified and enlarged by nature’s grandeur. This is John Muir in Yosemite, Ansel Adams in the Grand Canyon".

My suggestion is everyone place their political views on the sidelines. No one is suggesting that you have to give them up to support the fight for OUR Public Lands.

To be successful in the fight for OUR Public Lands and communicate civilly, everyone must give up the nonsense of trying to force others to take their view.

I am not a fan of Zinke, others may like Zinke. When I write negatively about him, don't attack me, instead give a thoughtful rebuttal of why you like him.

I am sure everyone here is smart enough to make up their own mind about the subjects on this forum and certainly everyone is smart enough to decide if THEY believe in the underlying news source. News sources are just that, sources. They have zero power to MAKE you do anything. We will be here till dooms day trying to convince others of the validity of news sources.

Today we are facing some real attacks on OUR Public Lands; the best way to defend them is a united, energized and well funded front.

Cheers,

Mark

 

[mplane72]

Thanks for sharing. I've always found David Brooks to be a reasonable guy. Even when I don't agree with him.

 

[Nutrioso]

What a great take on our public lands. It is so easy to see this as a simple resource allocation issue: Who gets to use the public lands, ranchers or hunters; timber harvesters or fisherman; energy companies or bird watchers? In that debate there is no common currency on which to measure the competing values, so we argue endlessly over economic return versus intangibles. This misses the central truth that land not owned by the King or gentry is what made America so different from our European homelands. Public land in an inseparable element of American democracy. We should hold access to our public lands as valuable a right as any guaranteed by the Constitution. It is just as crucial to our democracy.

Hal Herring made a similar point in his recent BHA podcast. Brooks is usually regarded as having a conservative bent and it is refreshing to see him lay out this position in the Times.

 

[Zach]

From my perspective, the article seems to point to land as being the source of peoples creative juices. My belief is that is misguided. It's God that gives us our inspiration to use the creation. As we deviate from that the more we'll struggle.

.02

 

[OriginalOscar]

David Brooks of the NYT wrote an amazing piece today in his column.

I encourage everyone no matter what their political leanings to read it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/opinion/this-american-land.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-
region

Some may see things they don't like, but have the COURAGE, to keep reading.......

Here are a couple of short excerpts:

"From the nation’s founding, Americans had a sense that their continent’s vast and beautiful abundance gave their nation a unifying destiny and mission. The land made them feel apart from Europe — their manners simpler, their admiration for practical work more fervent and their ambitions more epic".

"The biggest thing nature did was offer ideals. Different Americans came up with different character types for how to engage with nature. Each type offered a model for how to live an admirable life".

"The first ideal was the Steward. This is the small yeoman farmer and craftsman who lives close to the soil — self-reliant, upright, humble before creation and bonded to his local community".

"The second ideal was the Pioneer. This is the person who pushes against the wilderness and develops skill, courage and virility. This is the daring innovator who ushers progress by venturing to the edge of the known".

"The third ideal was the Elevated Spirit. This is the person who slips off the conformist materialism of commercial society and is both purified and enlarged by nature’s grandeur. This is John Muir in Yosemite, Ansel Adams in the Grand Canyon".

My suggestion is everyone place their political views on the sidelines. No one is suggesting that you have to give them up to support the fight for OUR Public Lands.

To be successful in the fight for OUR Public Lands and communicate civilly, everyone must give up the nonsense of trying to force others to take their view.

My view is don't give an inch on Public Lands monument reductions. Giving an inch now will lead to more negative impact on OUR Public Lands.

Cheers,

Mark

I am not a fan of Zinke, others may like Zinke. When I write negatively about him, don't attack me, instead give a thoughtful rebuttal of why you like him.

I am sure everyone here is smart enough to make up their own mind about the subjects on this forum and certainly everyone is smart enough to decide if THEY believe in the underlying news source. News sources are just that, sources. They have zero power to MAKE you do anything. We will be here till dooms day trying to convince others of the validity of news sources.

Today we are facing some real attacks on OUR Public Lands; the best way to defend them is a united, energized and well funded front.

Cheers,

Mark

Hmm?

 

[OriginalOscar]

The first ideal was the Steward. This is the small yeoman farmer and craftsman who lives close to the soil — self-reliant, upright, humble before creation and bonded to his local community.

I like this term and it defines people in small communities around the west who do have special appreciation for the land. With the monument debate these good people are often labeled as either ignorant or patsy's for industry.

The third ideal was the Elevated Spirit. This is the person who slips off the conformist materialism of commercial society and is both purified and enlarged by nature’s grandeur. This is John Muir in Yosemite, Ansel Adams in the Grand Canyon.

Hate this term. Elevated implies higher level of knowledge and appreciate of nature. It's easy for those with means to slip into wild places for short periods for purification and renewal. Then they return to their materialistic lives typically in urban areas removed from nature.

Does Yvon Chouinard with Patagonia who many would consider the Elevated Spirit love the land more than a rancher from Blanding Utah the Steward who's family has been tied to the land for 100+ years? I would say the Steward has greater appreciation for the land because their very livelihood comes from the land.

Zach's point of appreciating God as creator and our responsibility to him is excellent.

 

[Gerald Martin]

From my perspective, the article seems to point to land as being the source of peoples creative juices. My belief is that is misguided. It's God that gives us our inspiration to use the creation. As we deviate from that the more we'll struggle.

.02

Tag line worthy there...