Perrin

1.  Discuss how the title  reflects the ideas dceveloped

in Perrins' essay, "Forever Virgin:  The American View

of America" (643).

2.  Compare and contrast Perrin's imagery of the grizzly

bear and the buffalo as important images of Mother

Nature.

3.  How would you describe the ideal relationship

between humans and nature?  What possibilities can you

imagine for a new relationship, if any?

Message no. 213[Branch from no. 211]
Posted by MARK DEVALIANT on Monday, March 3, 2003 9:21pm
Subject Re: Wk 8 Discussion Questions

1. Written in the hey days of the early 80's, when

national spirit was high and the world seemed a largely

undisputed realm of the citizens of the United States,

this title suggests the permanence of the American way

of life.  Seen as virile and with the same potential as

the day westerners set foot ashore, America's power lies

in the innocence of its people and impunity in its

evergreen-ness.

2.  The Grizzly is a potent symbol of the "wild things"

and the power they posess.  Dangerous and unpredicatable

it would take six men shooting accurately to subdue one.

 Thus with enough men, it is possible to tame or rather

kill off nature as represnted by the bear. Similarly

with the buffalo.  When first witnessed by white man,

they appeared as a sea of beasts.  Seemingly without

end, these endless herds roamed the prairies at whim.

Just as with the tracts of forest, the buffalo were

infinte.  I however have some doubts as to the validity

of Perrin's account of native Americans herding buffalo

over cliffs.  What would Chief Seattle say?

3. Frankly I'm not sure that there is a happy medium

between nature and man, as long as man sees himself

outside of nature.  We're all made of the same stuff,

why can't we live a little more in harmony?  Native

peoples have been doing that all over the world for tens

of thousands of years.  Of course their numbers were far

less than the population today....hmmm, perhaps that is

the answer.

Message no. 215[Branch from no. 213]
Posted by ANGELA-ROSE MANESS on Monday, March 3, 2003 11:09pm
Subject Re: Wk 8 Discussion Questions

Mark,   Hey, I found your responses very good because

they were pithy yet inclusive.  As I have said before, I

really like your expression of words, and I think that

it adds a lot to the content of your responses.  I

agreed with all of your statements and also had some

doubts about "the validity of Perrin's account of Native

Americans herding buffalo over cliffs."  As I was told,

Indians definitely used all of what they could get out

of the buffalo.  Actually, I was taught that Indians

used every piece of what they killed for different

purposes because they respected the buffalo and were

quite the conservatives, if you may.

Message no. 217[Branch from no. 215]
Posted by MARK DEVALIANT on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 12:32pm
Subject Re: Wk 8 Discussion Questions

Thank you for your kind remarks. Yes, I admit that my

replies were a little brief.  But better that than my

usual bombastic verbosity I think. I think I was a

little off colour last night, that might explain it. But

thatnk you again.

Message no. 275[Branch from no. 217]
Posted by NATALIE A PETERS on Saturday, March 22, 2003 12:16pm
Subject Re: Wk 8 Discussion Questions

Can I ask what bombastic verbosity means?? It seems like

a cool phrase but I haven't gotten the first clue what

it means...

Message no. 277[Branch from no. 275]
Posted by MARK DEVALIANT on Saturday, March 22, 2003 8:21pm
Subject Re: Wk 8 Discussion Questions

Well, its pretty much what Orwell said.  I use big words

to feel all important, and I use more words than I need

to. That kind of thing.

Message no. 280[Branch from no. 277]
Posted by NATALIE A PETERS on Sunday, March 23, 2003 5:38pm
Subject Re: Wk 8 Discussion Questions

Oh... ok.... (lightbulb)

That's my "word" of the day.... ;)

Message no. 228[Branch from no. 215]
Posted by DANIEL T TOTEV on Wednesday, March 5, 2003 1:13am
Subject Re: Wk 8 Discussion Questions

I also have some reservations about Perrin's statement

that Native Americans herded buffalos over cliffs. It is

against their religion that suggusts peace and harmany

with nature. And here's what Chief Seattle actually

says: "If all the beasts were gone, men would die from

great loneliness of spiritness, for whatever happens to

the beasts also happens to man" /641/.

It is very likely that white men herded buffalos over

cliffs. They had their reason - depriving Native

Americans from their main source of food.

Message no. 214[Branch from no. 211]
Posted by ANGELA-ROSE MANESS on Monday, March 3, 2003 10:51pm
Subject Re: Wk 8 Discussion Questions

1. In "Forever Virgin: The American view of America,"

Noel Perrin discusses four important perspectives of

nature in America and two relevant responses that stem

from these perspectives.  Perrin explains that the first

perspective is that nature is unending; it is infinite,

which can be seen when he quotes St. John: "Who can tell

how far it extends?" (645).  These people feel that

nature has the ability to recover from whatever damage

we inflict upon it, no matter how grave the consequences

are.  The second view is that nature is a beautiful

aspect of life that needs to be treasured and preserved.

 They have an innate inclination towards nature.  To

them, nature is not something that should be destroyed

or collaborated with by man.  It is a gift that needs to

be cared for because it provides everything for us.  On

the contrary, others perceive nature as a wild beast

that needs to be tamed.  St. John had this notion; he

believed that "nature is an appalling thing.  He saw no

beauty in wilderness whatsoever."  People with this

perspective have no appreciation for the beauty of true

nature.  From the last view, people perceive nature to

be very limited.  The resources that we get from nature

will not last forever because nature cannot recover from

the permanent damage that humans cause.  People shifted

their views of nature because of the technological

progression that occured in the last century.  Perrin

states that there are generally two responses in the

United States.  The first is "to do our damndest to keep

part of our continent still virgin--pure nature,

wilderness."  He says that this is the response from the

people who love and care for nature.  They see nature as

a limited gift of the earth.  He includes the Sierra

Club as a group that responds in this way.  The next

response, he says, is to collaborate with nature because

"[n]ature is resilient; it can still absorb anything we

do" (650).  In his example, he uses the American

government as an organization that responds in this way.

 Nevertheless, the first perspective clearly reflects

the title of the essay.  Perrin claims that the dominant

view about nature in America is that nature is unending

and our constant increasing demolition of it does not

entail serious punishments.

2. Perrin includes grizzly bears and buffalos in his

discussion of nature in its early, bountiful days to

show the contrast between nature then and nature in its

present state.  By presenting the buffalo, he says that

nature used to be bountiful so the perspective of an

unlimited nature was reasonable.  Indians used to run

buffalo off cliffs by the herds and thought nothing of

it.  They took what they wanted and left the rest

because there was no shortage of food; as Perrin states,

"Their behavior made perfect sense at the time" (647).

After this, he talks about the grizzly bears that roamed

the region in masses.  He says that the bears "just

generally enjoy(ed) life" (647).  Rifles and individuals

were not enough to tame the bear.  When the men came

together as a group, humans were able to control the

bear as they saw fit.  Plus, when technology advanced,

men were able to kill as many bears as they wanted with

ease and quickness.  In this instance, he represents

nature with the grizzly bear and buffalos.  Bears used

to run wild and free but are now tamed and limited by

humans.  As technology increased, grizzly bears

decreased, as is the same with nature.  We can kill as

many buffalo as we need to so long as we save enough for

our beneficial purpose.

3. It's very hard for me to envision or describe the

perfect relationship between humans and nature.

However, I guess that this ideal relationship would

consist of humans taking and giving to nature and nature

not only providing but being provided for.  This

relationship would have to be mutual, and no one side

could benefit more from the other side.  As much as we

would take from nature, we would have to give back.  In

America, I think that one possibility would be to stop

or dramatically decrease the expansion of American

society.  However, this would entail some serious

problems: population growth would have to be regulated.

This is why this possibility is controversial and not in

progress.  In addition to the decrease of expansion, we

would have to preserve what little bits of Mother Nature

that we still have intact and provide support for the

growth of nature.

Message no. 219[Branch from no. 214]
Posted by MARK DEVALIANT on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 12:45pm
Subject Re: Wk 8 Discussion Questions

I think your vision of an even par relationship with

nature is marvellous.  I absolutely agree but I have

concerns.  Not concerns about your ideas because I whole

heartedly agree with them.

 Population is the number 1 planet killer (perhaps that

view is a little extreme) but in the United States, as

in most first world nations, the population is breeding

at below replacement rates ie. we are not having enough

babies to replace the people that die.  It is in the

third world that the rape and plunder of our natural

resources is most prevalent.  But how do you tell a man,

a man who subsists on a barely significant diet of

grain, that he musn't have any more children, that he

can't go into the rain forest and cut down old growth

forest?(I know, mixing metahpors - rice, rainforests

etc.)  If he doesn't have sons to work the land, he and

his family will not eat.  If he does not clear fell the

forest he has no land for his animals to graze on.

 As we all know, the Amazon basin is being pillaged at

an incredible rate.  Part of this is due to huge

corporations funding operations so the end product of

the grazing land they can lap up at dramatically

decreased cost.  Who is going to stop a multi-national

corporation from injecting millions in funds into a

desperately starving economy?  That is the conundrum.

  We have already destroyed the majority of our

wilderness.  We need to learn from our mistakes and come

up with some plan to educate (presumptuous, I know) and

aid the countries where that wilderness still exists.

Instead we look to the stars so that when this rock

sustains us no more, we just move on...

Message no. 222[Branch from no. 214]
Posted by ANNE C BAATSTAD on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 7:21pm
Subject Re: Wk 8 Discussion Questions

Angela,

I especially enjoyed your response to question 3. As you

can probably tell after reading my answers, I have a

pesimistic view of the world and feel as if the chance

of nature and humans coexisiting effectively and safely

is slim to none. I have also pondered the idea of

population control. As awful and unrealistic as that

seems today, won't that be the situation in the years to

come? The Chinese do it, as well as several other

countries. However, I don't believe that this will float

well within our democracy. We can't even sell hot coffee

anymore in our McD's or fattening hamburgers... how on

Earth could a democracy demand to control the number of

children born? It seems so hopeless... every time I see

or think of a great solution to these problems, I know

that our form of gov't will prevent it b/c we will be

"denying the citizens their natural/civil

rights"..."unconsitutional"... "freedom of blah, blah,

blah..."  AGH!!! At some point, we the citizens need to

stop letting gov't worry about all the problems b/c they

wait too long. And instead of telling the gov't "No, you

can't tell me what to do" when they finally do come up

with a solution, we should try it. Would population

control really hurt anyone? NO. We don't need 10 kids

for our apple farms. We need them for instinctional

purposes, otherwise it's only "want", not "need". I love

our country and democracy is proven to be the most

effective form of government in established

democracratic countries, but Americans take it too far.

Ok, well I meant to give you a short compliment but I

(once again!) went off on an opinionated tangent! See

you tomorrow and good job!

~Anne

Message no. 229[Branch from no. 214]
Posted by SELENA EDWARDS RIESS on Thursday, March 6, 2003 10:53am
Subject Re: Wk 8 Discussion Questions

Angela,  I like the way you divided Perrin's view into

four perspectives.  Your ideas were very insightful. I

especially agree with the part about how "others

perceive nature as a wild beast that needs to be tamed."

 It almost stands to reason that that is the view taken

by most of the people now.  It saddens me when I drive

in the country and pass a place that I knew was once

full of trees and see them all gone.  Everytime one

turns around there is another apartment complex of sorts

going up.  Look how far Jonesville has expanded in just

a few short years.  Sadly, it seems that we, as a

society, still view nature as something that needs to be

reckoned with as we carelessly toss aside all that it

once offered.  Great post!!

Selena :o)

Message no. 216[Branch from no. 211]
Posted by SUMMER A SMITH on Monday, March 3, 2003 11:25pm
Subject Re: Wk 8 Discussion Questions

1.) Perrin's title, "Forever Virgin: The American View

of America," adequately encompasses his undeniable theme

throughout the essay in that, Americans think of their

country as an endless resource. Perrin offers examples

in citing Crevecoeur's Letters From an American Farmer,

"Many ages will not see the shores of our great lakes

replenished with inland nations, nor the unknown bounds

of North America entirely peopled. Who can tell how far

it extends," he said. Crevecoeur had know way of

prophetically envisioning the birth of industrialized

nation only two generations following his own. In this

generation, there is no excuse for such a virginal image

of America; that's what seems to have provoked Perrin.

2.) Perrin's Grizzly/Buffalo metaphor uses each of the

beasts to represent nature. Their similarities include

that they are both bigger, stronger, and faster than

man, and they both obstruct, or have the potential to

obstruct, man's path. Their differences include that the

grizzly is untamable (and therefore useless) and the

buffalo is only partially untamable. Nature plays a role

of resistance here, but in the end man rids his land of

the useless, and replaces the partially useful with a

more profitable/tamable beast.

3.) An ideal state of coexistence between man and nature

that operates in an egalitarian manner would leave man

in a suspended state. In order for mankind to grow,

nature must submit or be subdued by man. It seems that

because unlike any other of Earth's creatures, man

entertains a high faculty of thought, reason, and logic,

it should be man that grows, and nature that

deteriorates. Although, a beast of such elite

intelligence should produce a more effective method in

slowing the approach of Perrin's metaphorical "red

light" that is so swiftly approaching.

Message no. 220[Branch from no. 211]
Posted by NATALIE A PETERS on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 5:08pm
Subject Re: Wk 8 Discussion Questions

1.) Perrin's title to his essay, "Forever Virgin: The

American View of America" encompasses every generation's

ideas of "there will always been enough for me" type

thinking about nature. Perrin talks throughout his essay

about how each forthcoming generation took what they

needed, and then some from nature without ever thinking

that someday maybe nature would run out of its

resources. I was once told that America contains 5% of

the world's population but uses 50% of the world's

resources. Does one know the word "greedy?" I don't

think so. Even the Indians that are always portrayed as

living at one with the land were even spoken of killing

buffalo well above the amount needed. Once man became

stronger and more powerful than they land he lived on,

nature didn't stand a chance. Man could dam any lake and

kill every animal. I like when Perrin said "There's not

even a thrill to it" (649). You would think that if

there is no thrill, then maybe one wouldn't do it?? How

naive of me to think so because people are still killing

shamelessly every day. Even a past President, Theodore

Roosevelt, who dominated National Conservation in his

days as President, still killed and stuffed a houseful

of animals from the African landscape. Once again, how

naive of me.

2.) Perrin's use of imagery when talking about the

grizzly and the buffalo claims that they are both

standing for wild nature. She claims that both animals

are bigger, stronger and faster than man. The grizzly

though, different from the buffalo is untameable and

therefore rendered useless to the people. They are only

helpful in becoming targets to kill, showing off the

heroic and dangerous task of "subduing the wilderness"

(648). The buffalo however, well hey, this one is

tameable and therefore carries some importance to the

people. If they can control it and tame it, it's

important then. By killing some of the buffalo for food,

but keeping some around to ensure that the species does

not die out, the animal is serving the man a purpose.

This killing of the buffalo also serves the purpose of

subduing the wilderness "less heroic, maybe, but still a

big job, and still nature offers plenty of resistance to

the changes we make" (648). Are these people trying to

piss Mother Nature off??? Because I think it's

working....

3.) I believe that the yellow light that was once green

is about to stop traffic and become red. I think man has

destroyed enough of the globe (over 98%!!!) and it's

about to stop producing the resources that it has been

doing so selflessly for so many years. Since man has

become stronger than its surroundings, "human power has

grown at almost a geometric rate, while the forces of

nature have remained static" (649). I think nature is

about to throw in the towel and say "I quit! I'm done!"

An ideal relationship between people and nature is not

even a possibility in my eyes. We have wrecked and

ravaged nature for so many years, are we really just

supposed to say "I'm sorry?" I don't know how that will

help the almost exhausted resources. If people could

relocate to the moon for a couple of decades so that

nature could play a little (hmph. not little, huge!)

game of catch-up and try to cling to what little it has

left, well then maybe I could see something close to

"ideal." Until then, I wait for the light to turn red.

Message no. 231[Branch from no. 220]
Posted by SHERRY M ISLER on Thursday, March 6, 2003 11:34pm
Subject Re: Wk 8 Discussion Questions

I think greedy is a good word for what has happened to

our economy's resources.  Look at Bush, he wanted to

drill for oil just off our coast (Florida) in the Gulf

of Mexico!--at what lengths will we finally say as a

people, enough?!  I think in addition to greedy,

unappreciative is also a good word to use.  In general,

the U.S. has a lot of waste in every aspect and we take

advantage of every resource to the point of milking them

dry.  Hopefully we'll hit the stop sign and wake up

before we get to the red light.

Are people ententionally trying to piss mother nature

off?--I wouldn't say that; it's the lack of concern and

the attitude that there will always be more resources

somewhere that they feel entitled to (Iraq and the oil

contreversy there...)

As far as your comment "I wait for the light to turn

red." I think it's terribly sad that you or anyone else

feels this way.  But what's even more sadening is the

fact that because of the way things are and what our

nation specificlly, has done in depleting and abusing

resources, there really isn't much alternative work

reverse the massave damage that has been done.  If only

more people recognized their part, no matter how small

or insignificant they might percieve it to be, it does

make a difference when added to every other person doing

their small part; together with a combined awareness

changes can be made in a more positive manner.  "If at

first you don't succeed, try, try again."

Message no. 221[Branch from no. 211]
Posted by ANNE C BAATSTAD on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 7:06pm
Subject Re: Wk 8 Discussion Questions

1.  Perrin refers to the American continent on page 650

as "virgin - pure, nature, wilderness". Perrin's ideas

are that Americans throughout our 200+ history, have

always believed America to be this constantly

replenishing, renovating mass of natural production -

the supplies and resources will never run out. He states

that even the Native Americans at one point believed

this.

2.  Perrin uses the grizzly/buffalo metaphor to

represent nature. Both creatures are stronger than

humans, who are weaker but impressively more clever. We

have been able to invent and advance our creations into

weapons, and then upgrade these weapons until we can

take over nature, which we did with the buffalo. We

killed them off, like we're doing with nature. The

grizzlies are harder to kill off, but we are in the

process of making them extinct - our last bit of natural

nature is what the grizzlies represent.We kill off what

we deem unnecessary, thinking not of the future of

ourselves or the species (nature, in some terms) and

kill off most of what is necessary but since we're still

not thinking of the future, we try not to care as long

as we make sure there is just enough around for the time

being, or that the item is replaceable like the cattle

for the buffalo.

3.  I have a very strong opinion on the topic which had

developed throughout my childhood but was shaped in my

International Relations class, which I shared with

Summer so maybe she already has an idea of what I'm

about to say. :-) Perrin states on pages 649-650 that we

are like goldfish in a tank. We have learned to

manipulate the system to decrease what we deem

unnecessary (such as the turtle) and increase what we

like, whether it's necessary or not, such as the oxygen

and goldfish food. Now that we're in control of the

world, half of us feel a sense of power and ultimate

control. We have the fate of mother nature and ourselves

in our hands, and half of us relish this. The other half

(which included me) realizes this and becomes scared.

Sure, being in control feels better than not, but you

can never predict mother nature, so what's the use of

being in control? This power-trip is temporary and in

the end will whip around and hurt us rather than help

us. We are so far along in the destruction of the earth

that mother nature will never recuperate. We ARE making

mistakes, the aquarium is beyond total repair. We can

stop now and work with what we have left, but it will

never be the same. Someday we will have to live outside

of the aquarium.  If there were an ideal relationship

between humans and nature, I would say that it would

have to exist in the past, circa early 1800's, before

the development of CFC's, chemicals and unrecycleable

products. We would have to recognize though in that

ignorant day that the world is not to be abused and that

every action we make has a consequence later down the

road.  As you can see, I have little optimism for the

possibilities of a new relationship. Hopefully, someone

soon will prove me wrong.

Message no. 223[Branch from no. 221]
Posted by MARK DEVALIANT on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 8:19pm
Subject Re: Wk 8 Discussion Questions

I like your response to question 3 in particular the

reference to having power over nature.  But Mother

Nature raises her hand to us every now and again just to

let us know where the real power is.  A strategically

placed hurricane, a carefully plotted tsunami or maybe a

little shakin' and movin' around about, hmmm....the San

Andreas Fault line?  We may live here, but we are just

renting and soon enough our lease will be up.

Message no. 224[Branch from no. 211]
Posted by SELENA EDWARDS RIESS on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 8:53pm
Subject Re: Wk 8 Discussion Questions

Noel Perrin’s title, “Forever Virgin:  The American View

of America,” reflects how people still naively view

America as being infinite in its resources, wildlife,

and nature’s elements.  The statement, “we have a

consciousness below knowledge that the big country can

handle all that” (643), almost equates to

procrastination on America’s part.  Eventually, America

will have to deal with the very real possibility that

everything may begin to be used up or destroyed.  For

now, America is viewed by most as “nature glad and

strong and free.” (643).  The idea that “nature is so

bounteous that we could never possibly run short of

anything” (647) still runs rampant even today.  It has

taken a strong few, ones who are members of such

organizations as the Sierra Club, to help try to turn

America’s way of thinking around. Another example would

be the farmers who grow their crops using the organic

method.  Furthermore, by doing so these farmers are

preserving Earth’s natural vitamins and minerals.

Essentially, Perrin suggests that the people need to

meet halfway if they want to preserve the virgin America

idea, and that is finding other options, that offer a

“better way of dealing with the relationship between man

and nature” (651).

2.  Compare and contrast Perrin's imagery of the grizzly

bear and the buffalo as important images of Mother

Nature.

Although the grizzly bear was considered wild, Perrin

viewed the grizzly as being “…more or less useless to

us” (6489).  If anything, the grizzly would represent a

trophy of sorts if man happened to be lucky enough to

kill the grizzly.  On the other hand, Perrin saw the

buffalo as a domicile animal with one important thing to

offer man, food, “because we want them around to eat”

(648).

Perrin believed both the buffalo and grizzly bear were

“physically stronger than men, and can run faster”

(648).  Also, killing the grizzly bear and some of the

buffalo would be a “…part of subduing nature” (648).

Between the two, there is a give and take between Mother

Nature and man.  Man helped keep Earth from being

overcrowded with grizzly bears and buffalo, and in

return, Mother Nature provided man something to eat as

well as buffalo skin that could be made into blankets

and clothing.

3.  How would you describe the ideal relationship

between humans and nature?  What possibilities can you

imagine for a new relationship, if any?

Hmmm, it’s really hard to say what an ideal relationship

between humans and nature could be.  I think if one took

the time to enjoy the natural elements and all that it

offered, maybe one wouldn’t be as hasty with decisions

to change parts of nature.  One possibility I’ve already

mentioned, which is organic farming.  This method seems

to help nourish the earth, and at the same time, man

receives food as a trade.  Unfortunately, that’s one

small spoke in a big wheel.

Message no. 225[Branch from no. 211]
Posted by SHERRY M ISLER on Tuesday, March 4, 2003 10:39pm
Subject Re: Wk 8 Discussion Questions

1)  "Forever Virgin: The American View of America"

reflects Noel Perrin's ideas he develope's with the

progression of his essay.  He builds a strong argument

basiclly depicting the stereotype mentality of the "ugly

American."  As an American we feel as if we have a right

to anything, we have power or means to power over

everything, and we have an endless supply of resources

whenever we wish.    The term "ugly American" is stamped

on us by other countries in which we travel to and

demonstrate that persona so unaffectionately prescribed

to us.  I do a lot of traveling with a great deal of

international travel and when I sometimes see other

Americans and how they are speaking or interacting with

local cultures and people I am actually embaressed of

the fact that the are my fellow countrymen and digusted

by their behavior.  I usually feel sorry for their

disposition, for it is much more difficult to maintain

an ugly disposition than it is to smile and be happy for

you can always find something worthy of a smile.  Plus,

when you are in a foreign country (at least I believe)

you are there to learn about that culture and see the

beauties and wonders that country contains and offers,

not to sit up in a five-star hotel ordering room service

all day and snapping your fingers at the staff as if you

own them while you "see" the countryside from your

stationary view on your balcony.    Perrin also

illuminates the "virgin" viewpoint of Americans by

saying for example, "the sense is that nature is so

bounteous that we could never possibly run short of

anything" (647).  As Americans we have a "virgin"

perception of our resources; a nieve perception that

there are endless resources around the world of which we

are entitled to regardless of the consequences or

reprecutions of our actions.

2)  Perrin describes the image of the grizzly bear as a

massive beast that, "By experience, Lewis and Clark

found that about six soldiers equaled one grizzly."  Any

less and there was likely to be "trouble."  The grizzly

is seen as this huge beast that is uncontrolable or

tameable by man and as that, is a neucence and burden in

the way of man's conquests.  Where as the buffalo is

partially tameable and thus useful to us.  Both the

buffalo and the grizzly bear stand for wild nature.

They both are "physically stronger than men, and can run

faster."  But the buffalo is somewhat tameable and

useful as food and our "heroic and dangerous task" of

subduing the wilderness.  In contrast, the grizzly is

useless to us on the grounds that we cannot conquer or

tame the "wild" beasts.

3)  I'm not sure I know what the ideal relationship

between man and beast would be--I'd like to think that

if we knew what this "ideal" was we would be doing so

right now.  I think the closest thing to the best

relationship between man and nature in America would be

the relationship the Native Americans and the wilderness

used to have with each other.  The Native American's

believed in only killing if you have to.  They honored

the spirit and the delicacy of all living things.  When

they killed, they used every part of the carcus for

something.  Example, they would make a ball out of the

stomach, rugs or clothing from the fur, necklaces out of

the teeth, ate the meat, etc.  The believed in

preserving the nature in which they lived and thus had a

deep respect for the balance between themselves and

nature.  (Granted not all Native American's where quite

this resourceful.)  There are tribes in Africa that live

off the land and still respect the animals and habitat

in which they live, maintaining a balance.    As far as

possibilities of a new relationship, I'd sure like to

say there are possibilities but I'm reluctant to

misdirect my hopes that there are.  The possibility is

always out there I suppose, and we have great examples

of such relationships by observing how other cultures

and countries balance the two; but because of things

like the "ugly American" or the "American View of

America" we are crippled by our very selves.  We cannot

fix a problem that we do not, as a whole, recognize as a

problem unanimously or as a majority.  Plus there will

be people who believe that in the case that we do

someday run out of our own resources, that we are

entitled to the resources of other countries.  (Look at

the on-coming war in Iraq which I believe is politiclly

motivated for the natural resource of oil.--but that's

another topic all together which would probably not be a

good idea to go into.)  :) We have a definite problem

with our growing population globally and within our own

country.  Our resources are not equiped to support so

many people, especially at such a rapid rate and with

all of our (possibly unententional) destruction of

nature to expand our cities and build more and more.

Until we recognize, as a majority,  that we do not have

endless supplies of everything or that we will not run

out of anything and that we need to preserve and protect

what we have, there can be no improvement of the

relationship; that's what is so disheartening.

Message no. 226[Branch from no. 211]
Posted by MELISSA M RIVELL on Wednesday, March 5, 2003 12:06am
Subject Re: Wk 8 Discussion Questions

1.  Discuss how the title  reflects the ideas dceveloped

in Perrins' essay, "Forever Virgin:  The American View

of America" (643).

Perrin focuses mainly on early Americans' idea that

America was "a fresh, green breast of the new

world"(642), as he said the Dutch sailors saw it.

America was seen as an endless land with abundant

resources, virgin territory if you will, untouched by

Europeans. From the very beginning of our country's

start, we thought of it in this light, and many of us

continue to. Some of us do not fret over pollution and

extinction and the rainforest. The title reflects what

many people did and still do think about America: it's a

never-ending supply of land and resources.

2.  Compare and contrast Perrin's imagery of the grizzly

bear and the buffalo as important images of Mother

Nature.

The buffalo represents the sense of infinite resources.

According to Perrin it applied not only to white

settlers but also to Native Americans. He tells us that

"Lewis and Clark watched several times while a small

tribe of Plains Indians drove a whole herd of buffalo

over a cliff, took the tongues and humps of a couple

dozen to eat, and left all the rest to rot"(647). The

sense of abundance was in everyone.

The grizzly bear is important because in those early

times of the Lewis and Clark expedition, grizzly bears

represented nature as a force to still be reckoned with.

Perrin reveals that "By experience, Lewis and Clark

found that about six soldiers equaled one grizzly. If

all six shot, they were pretty likely to kill the bear

with no one being hurt or chased up a tree. If fewer

shot, there was apt to be trouble"(647).

Perrin later gives us a metaphor of the grizzly bear and

the buffalo: "Both are physically stronger than men, and

can run faster. One, the grizzly, is untameable, and

more or less useless to us. So the thing to do is kill

them, and that's a heroic and dangerous task:one part of

subduing the wilderness. The other the buffalo, is

partially tameable, and very useful to us. Kill them,

too, but not all of them, because we want them around to

eat. Or else replace them with cattle, which are

completely tameable. That's another part of subduing the

wilderness-less heroic, maybe, but still a big job, and

still nature offers plenty of resistance to the changes

we make"(648). He uses the buffalo and the grizzly bear

as representations of wild nature and truly sums up what

human beings have been doing to nature for hundreds and

thousands of years-attempting to control nature(and

perhaps even their destiny)though nature still exerts

some control on them.

3.  How would you describe the ideal relationship

between humans and nature?  What possibilities can you

imagine for a new relationship, if any?

Harmony of course would be ideal. But how can you stop

our horrible habits? I am sure there are people

concerned with our environment and how we are destroying

it. The question is not are there people that care, it

is are there people that care enough to DO anything.

I'll admit that it does seem like a hassle to have to

separate your trash in order to recycle and to pay extra

for more environment-friendly services such as solar

energy, electric cars, and new forms of energy to

replace oil. It's even harder to motivate people do

something when it probably won't affect their lifetime

or even their grandchildrens' lifetimes. I do not know

what to suggest for us to do to try and save our world.

We need to make more people care enough to do things

about saving it. I am very much a fence sitter on

issues. I feel like I can't decide because I can see

valid points from the little that I know from each side

of the debate.

Message no. 227[Branch from no. 211]
Posted by DANIEL T TOTEV on Wednesday, March 5, 2003 1:00am
Subject Re: Wk 8 Discussion Questions

         The green light of nature-lovers versus the

green light of hypocrites

       “[T]he majority of us don’t really worry much about

acid rain, or recycling, or any of that. We have a

consciousness below knowledge that the big country can

handle all that” /643/. This quote pretty much

summarizes Noel Perrin’s leitmotiv in his essay “Forever

Virgin: The American View of America”. However, did all

Americans believe in the illusion that the new continent

possesses infinite resources or did they just accept

this lie and use their false belief as an excuse for

their excessive pollution, deforestation and animal

killing? And do Americans today still believe in “the

metaphorical green traffic light,” because they see that

“the future is open” and nature can be preserved with

some effort from everybody, or do they use the two-faced

green light to maximize profits and let next generations

deal with an even more polluted and overcrowded

motherland?

       Settlers in the New World had a feeling that “nature is

so bounteous that we could never possibly run short of

anything” /647/. This point of view continued for

centuries, until the invention of the steam engines

which powered boats, trains, shovels and saws. It was in

the beginning of the ninetieth century when technology

“made the wilderness accessible and the continent

(relative) small” /648/. Then a handful of converts

emerged for whom “wilderness threatened became

wilderness desirable” /648/. They would probably agree

with Perrin that “pure nature is of course what exists

entirely without our will” /644/. They were aware, like

everybody today, that nature has its limits. However,

today there are still people who would say: “Nature is

still resilient; it can still absorb anything we do”

/650/. These are the narrow-minded people who look only

in the short term or probably these are the hypocritical

people who care about their own lives and they are not

concerned what they will leave to their generations. I

think they are insincere: they pretend to believe in the

green light so they can continue contaminating our

environment. They say: Yes, the Earth can be saved, but

they don’t do anything to improve its condition.

       The problem is that the more we wait, the worse it

gets. Eventually, the damages might become irreparable.

And it won’t be fair to leave other people starving

because of the incapability of nature and biological,

chemical and gene engineering to catch up with the

growth of world population. We cannot grow trees with

the rate we cut them, and we cannot revive extinct

animals: cloning so far proved to be unsuccessful.

Although we are conscious of these problems, we kill

both animals that are useful to us and animals that are

useless. And we do it just for feat: killing them is a

“heroic and dangerous task” /648/. That’s why the vast

herds of buffalos numbering 60 million in the 1850s had

been destroyed and less than 200 buffalos remained

throughout the entire American West in 1883. And that’s

why grizzlies are endangered today. Perrin uses the

imagery of grizzly and buffalo, to show men’s power over

animals and at the same their carelessness about breeds’

extinctions - carelessness that slowly kills nature.

       Not only American but every person on this planet

should be concerned with the rate of population growth,

deforestation, contamination, and depletion of

resources. Many suggestions are given how we can save

our planet. Unfortunately, I don’t see an ideal

relationship between humans and nature in the near

future. Every country wants to be a power in this world.

Therefore, governments encourage using up all natural

resources and support production which often results in

huge amounts of waste cast in rivers and the atmosphere.

Thus, the first thing to do is to reconcile issues

between us and stop this insane competition for world

control. Otherwise, with these nuclear weapons “we [may]

make a mistake, and wreck the aquarium completely”

/650/.

Message no. 230[Branch from no. 211]
Posted by KELLY ANNE PURCELL on Thursday, March 6, 2003 8:26pm
Subject Re: Wk 8 Discussion Questions

The title "Forever Virgin: The American View of America"

reflects completely the outlook people have had about

North America for apparently a long time.  It is the

land of dreams.  From the time of the Dutch sailors

until now, the idea has been that there are more than

enough resources on earth to support the human race.

Although I believe that this idea is changing.

Conservationists are working to make the facts known by

all humans, as we are already feeling the effects of

resource depletion.  For example, in order to produce

more, more, and more food, a lot of the beef, eggs,

milk, and vegetables that people eat have some sort of

steroid, hormone, or hybrid gene within their bodies.

How many species of animal or plant life are extinct

because of the product of skin hunting or environment

destruction.  According to my geology professor,

something like 18 football fields of rain forest is cut

and burned every minute.  I wonder what will happen if

we continue to extract natural oils from the earth, how

that extraction will eventually effect tectonic plate

movement.  It is mind boggling to think about all of the

factors related to preservation of the earth and its

resources.

The grizzly bear and buffalo were both created by mother

nature and therefore stand for "wild nature." (page 648)

 They are both bigger than man and "Both are physically

stronger than men, and can run faster." (page 648)  He

remarks how the grizzly is not tamable and useless to

humans and the buffalo is partially tamable and useful.

I do not agree with the fact that grizzlies are useless

to humans.  Kill all of the grizzlies and keep the

buffalo because we can use the buffalo, and no matter

the impact on ecological welfare.  But, even though they

are useful, we somewhere down the road decided to kill

all of the buffalo because they are not plentiful in the

wild any longer.  Perrin is making the suggestion that

as long as something benefits us, we will let it live.

Otherwise, it matters none, and would actually be better

if there was no nuisance.  Quite arrogant of the human

race, if you ask me.

I don't know if, in reality, there is an ideal

relationship considering how large the human population

is now and will be in the future.  Humans are

procreating at lightning fast speeds and the earth will

not be able to support the population one day.  Yes,

recycling helps, but I do not think it will be the

source of equilibrium in respecting all life on earth.

Especially with technology and the constant need to have

more, be more, and know more.  Humans are greedy.  We

have paved forests, stripping homes from animals and

plants.  I know this is controversial, but look at China

and their laws on childbearing.  That is one of their

solutions. But, you never know.  The earth is alive

itself, and with all of the disease and natural

disasters it is creating, it may have a plan to

exterminate the nuisance on its skin.  Many, many years

ago, there was a volcano that put enough pyroclastic

materials into the atmosphere to kill pretty much

anything on earth's surface.  That could happen again at

any time... forget the nukes.