I just finished watching Ken Burns’ recent documentary on America’s National Parks. The scenery was great, but Burns’ interpretation of the meaning of the National Parks was a bit confused. The entire series seemed to be a celebration of democracy – that the creation of the National Parks was an essentially American idea, to create places for all to visit – rich or poor, upper or lower class, native or immigrant, etc. With the amazing foresight and passion of a few dedicated individuals, and the power of the well functioning American government, massive open spaces containing natural beauty were preserved – because, as John Muir said, anything dollarable is at risk.
Burns fails to point out two significant oversights or inconsistencies with this narrative. One is practical, another is his interpretation of the meaning of democracy.
Furthermore, the next time one of you attends a national park, take a look around you at the demographics and tell me with a straight face that it is even remotely close to a snapshot of what America looks like. I was in the Sierras at the end of May, and all I saw were, well, maybe I’ll leave that for another post.
Once again, Burns shows us that government is raw power, and that the idea of democracy is not only cloudy, but invoked in the name of things that some individuals think is desirable. Saying something is democratic does not make it so, and invoking the term democracy does not make the objects of political decisions somehow sacred. I am happy we have National Parks. Whether they are best managed by the US Government is a very open question, and whether their creation was some sort of democratic success is not exactly historically accurate. It would have been nice for Burns to recognize this. But when you worship at the altar of Big Government, all introspection is thrown out the window. In a future post, we’ll show you some of the “success” stories from the Federal Government’s “management” of our national treasures.
I enjoyed some of the series, but couldn’t make it through all of it. In general, my wife doesn’t like it when I start on econ lectures, and that show provides enough material for a semester!
I watched the same piece, and share your observation about the parks being a manifestation of democracy.
We got most all of that land with the Louisiana Purchase and the rest by conquering the descendants of Cortez. (I do not have any qualms about subsequent owners having clear title.)
I’ve been fortunate to having spent much time in Yellowstone and the Tetons, thanks to a connection when I was an undergraduate that got me a job as a camp counselor at Teton Valley Ranch, perhaps the Eden of all camps for kids.
The camp was anything but democratic, since prospective campers themselves were interviewed, to be assured that they were good kids of the sort that you or I would think were clean-living kids we’d want our kids hanging out with. Except for the transportation cost, which included coach travel on the train to Rock Springs, the camp was no more expensive than some place in the Adirondacks, where the biggest event may have been paddling a canoe, as opposed to going on a pack trip, the very best pack trip, to the headwaters of the Yellowstone River.
The experience was one that only maybe a few thousand, if that, will ever see. I cannot imagine how much it would cost to put one of those trips together, but it would be far more than four figures for a family of four.
The ranch was sold several years ago, but it has been reincarnated not far from Sheridan, and they still do backpacks in the Tetons, and pack trips to the Teton wilderness and Yellowstone, far from the nearest car.
Sorry, wintercow, you are too old. They only take seventh- graders on up to I believe fifteen years old.
That is, unless you get a job as a camp counselor.
One final note: I rode Jack Palance’s horse, bareback.
Pingback: National Parks, a Countercyclical Asset? | The Unbroken Window