Get E-Mail Updates

Ken Burns' National Parks: An Unnatural Wilderness

Last week Ken Burns unleashed his new series on America's national parks, subtitled "America's Best Idea." The cinematography is incredible and Ken Burns is known as a progressive thinker. In his recent interviews promoting his new series he appeared to be a true believer in democracy for all Americans, rich or poor, black or white, et al. That is why I was so surprised how "off the mark" his narrative about the formation of the national parks really was concerning the parks and the role of America's indigenous peoples.

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

The national parks, in all their grandeur, have never been the "unspoiled wilderness" that Burns and millions of others have suggested. In fact, the whole idea of a naturally unspoiled wilderness is part and parcel of the American myth that was used to justify the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans from this continent so white folks could do with it what they wanted. The areas we now call our national parks were no different. There is no accessible region in the United States that was not home to, or considered a part of, the life-ways of at least one Native American people. Take, for example, the most visited national park on the list: The Smoky Mountains National Park.

The Smokies, including the designated park boundaries, were once home to the whole Cherokee nation of Indians. There were numerous cities (known popularly as "villages") throughout the region for thousands of years. The land was macro-managed to ensure the best possible fertility of soil for growing crops; the best hunting conditions including controlled fires; and the best living conditions for tens of thousands of people.

Only in a worldview built upon the dualistic assumption that nature is categorically distinct from human beings can the idea of pristine wilderness exist. In our Native American worldview we are symbiotically intertwined with the earth and all her creatures. To view the land without humanity living with it in harmony is unnatural.

The bifurcated western worldview has summarily viewed the earth with all its resources as something to be exploited and conquered, a "thing" whose resources are to be extracted and utilized to make a small amount of people wealthy. Like a flock of locusts, the wealthy destroy everything in their path and the rest of us believe that is somehow good for us. I guess the payoff for those less fortunate people is that a small portion of land, still somewhat unmolested by greed, is set aside and everyone gets to see it on a limited basis in the same way they view wax figures of American Indians in a Natural History Museum.

My question is this: What kind of worldview makes laws to protect a few particularly stunning places on the earth so they cannot be exploited? Answer: a society with a sick, twisted worldview. A society addicted to exploitation and greed so much that it has to even protect the earth from itself because it knows if it does not, nothing will be left. Might this action also engender a propensity to believe it is okay to destroy everything else?

While I am thankful that we have national parks (and I have visited more than a few of them) I am concerned that a dualistic worldview, founded primarily upon greed, will eventually exploit these beautiful places as well. People living in these great places did not stop "progress" that resulted in a rationalized ethnic cleansing. Do we think that land without people living on it will stop the "march toward progress?"

To Ken Burns and others I would say, if we want to keep our national parks we need to start by telling the truth about their history. We need admit the foundational flaws in the western imperialistic worldview that allow such a history and permit us to continue to view those places as "natural" even when they are without people. If we don't begin here, the story of the national parks just becomes another building block in the American myth: The Story of the Locusts.

Randy WoodleyRev. Dr. Randy Woodley is a Keetoowah Cherokee Indian descendent and the author of Living in Color: Embracing God's Passion for Ethnic Diversity. He teaches history, theology, and culture at George Fox Evangelical Seminary in Portland, Oregon.

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

10-05-2009 @ 10:30pm

The original Cherokee Nation was a whole lot larger than the boundaries of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which is only in a small portion of Eastern Tennessee and Western North Carolina. It also included parts of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia.

The people of the State of Georgia wanted the Cherokee land in the Northern part of that state because, as the saying goes, "Thar wuz gold in them thar hills." Gold was still being mined in that area in the early 1900s.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

10-05-2009 @ 10:45pm

I don't have as much Cherokee Blood Quantum as Randy (I have met him before in Tulsa); so, I can only belong to the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.

I do appreciate the intent of Randy's blog though.

I think about the Cherokees understood the meaning of water baptism by immersion because they did a immersion ritual in a running stream every year. They also couldn't figure out why the Europeans and Europeans didn't take daily baths.

Yes, the federal government has taken lands from the native tribes and either made them public lands or gave them to European-Americans. While my maternal Cherokee Ancestors lived in the Cherokee Nation in Eastern Indian Territory, My paternal grandfather was in one of the Land Runs which opened the Cherokee Outlet in the Northwestern part of the "original" Indian Territory."

The USA had taken what was the Cherokee Outlet (aka Cherokee Strip) and gave it to the "White" folks for homesteading. But, the Cherokee Outlet/Strip had originally been claimed by other tribes before the arrival of the Europeans.

When one says "Indian Giver," he unknowingly means "White European Giver." The USA's federal government took away lands from some tribes and gave it to other tribes and then took that away and gave it to non Natives.

by: amyplymptonfortunato

10-06-2009 @ 1:04am

Thank you for your wisdom an dinsights to inform my worldview. Really sorry for all the crimes against your people and this earth. God forgive us. I appreciate your response to the Ken Burns series.

by: alphacarol

10-06-2009 @ 2:02am

Thank you for raising the issue. I was uncomfortable in several places as I watched the "epic", specifically bec. I thought that opportunities were missed to say more. As it happened, I had just finished reading the Meacham book on Andrew Jackson, so the Cherokee Trail of Tears was on my mind. I was raised in Minnesota, and have an abiding anger about the Sioux uprising. I was taught that my word was my honor very early on. The government of the US still doesnt get it. Treaties are treaties, and starvation, privation, and death are not written into any of the treaties. I guess it all started with Gen. Amherst giving small pox contaminated blankets to the indigenous people of western Mass.

by: hikertom

10-17-2009 @ 4:07am

It's not true that North America was never an unspoiled wilderness. Everyone who lives on this continent is an immigrant or descended from immigrants, including Indians. They were the first immigrants, coming from northeast Asia, but they are still immigrants. DNA comparisons show that they are closely related to the indigenous people of Siberia and came to North America about 12,000-15,000 years ago. That sounds like a long time ago, but in terms of natural history that is very recent. The mountains and forests of North America are tens of millions of years old.

by: hikertom

10-17-2009 @ 2:07am

It's not true that North America was never an unspoiled wilderness. Everyone who lives on this continent is an immigrant or descended from immigrants, including Indians. They were the first immigrants, coming from northeast Asia, but they are still immigrants. DNA comparisons show that they are closely related to the indigenous people of Siberia and came to North America about 12,000-15,000 years ago. That sounds like a long time ago, but in terms of natural history that is very recent. The mountains and forests of North America are tens of millions of years old.

by: hikertom

10-17-2009 @ 2:07am

It's not true that North America was never an unspoiled wilderness. Everyone who lives on this continent is an immigrant or descended from immigrants, including Indians. They were the first immigrants, coming from northeast Asia, but they are still immigrants. DNA comparisons show that they are closely related to the indigenous people of Siberia and came to North America about 12,000-15,000 years ago. That sounds like a long time ago, but in terms of natural history that is very recent. The mountains and forests of North America are tens of millions of years old.

by: angiefadel

10-07-2009 @ 1:24pm

Randy, thank you for helping explain why I was uncomfortable during that series. As a child I had the previlage of visiting some of the National Parks and remember being amazed by their beauty and now as an adult I need some truth telling. Thank you for opening my eyes to something I hadn't seen before.

by: angiefadel

10-07-2009 @ 1:24pm

Randy, thank you for helping explain why I was uncomfortable during that series. As a child I had the previlage of visiting some of the National Parks and remember being amazed by their beauty and now as an adult I need some truth telling. Thank you for opening my eyes to something I hadn't seen before.

by: nicholastheintern

10-12-2009 @ 3:43pm

hey there,

i think you might enjoy this exclusive web short the colbert report did with
ken burns. here is the link:

http://tinyurl.com/yz5zb5m

you can also use this one:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report...
9/exclusive---backstage-with-ken-burns

hope you like!

thanks,
nick

by: letjusticerolldown

10-07-2009 @ 10:15pm

I have not seen one minute of the series. But is Burns really saying something fundamentally different?

i.e. The Story--is not history--but rather the "national story" as woven into the history of the parks. Is the national story complete? No. But maybe that should not be put at the feet of Ken Burns.

Just a thought

by: nicholastheintern

10-12-2009 @ 3:43pm

hey there,

i think you might enjoy this exclusive web short the colbert report did with
ken burns. here is the link:

http://tinyurl.com/yz5zb5m

you can also use this one:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report...
9/exclusive---backstage-with-ken-burns

hope you like!

thanks,
nick

by: hikertom

10-17-2009 @ 4:07am

It's not true that North America was never an unspoiled wilderness. Everyone who lives on this continent is an immigrant or descended from immigrants, including Indians. They were the first immigrants, coming from northeast Asia, but they are still immigrants. DNA comparisons show that they are closely related to the indigenous people of Siberia and came to North America about 12,000-15,000 years ago. That sounds like a long time ago, but in terms of natural history that is very recent. The mountains and forests of North America are tens of millions of years old.

by: letjusticerolldown

10-07-2009 @ 10:15pm

I have not seen one minute of the series. But is Burns really saying something fundamentally different?

i.e. The Story--is not history--but rather the "national story" as woven into the history of the parks. Is the national story complete? No. But maybe that should not be put at the feet of Ken Burns.

Just a thought

by: rachellebradt

10-08-2009 @ 7:19pm

I'm with you, Dr. Woodley. Ken Burns touches on this issue at the very end when he covers Alaska, where "it was done right" by granting the Inuit the right to continue hunting and living on Park lands. There is a hint with the commentary that the future of the National Parks is described as dedicated to "restauration". Should we assume that people will be "re-introduced" like the wolves in Yellowstone ?

In Switzerland, where I come from, a beautiful documentary was made about traditional farmers, named "The Landscape Gardeners". In Switzerland traditional farmers are subsidized as a national treasure, even if their farming is not profitable. Similar issues raise passions in France. these traditional agriculturalists are in an ongoing battle to preserve their way of life and land management against agro-industrial interests.

Whoever had the idea that people are not part of the natural landscape? Obviously, something is indeed missing in our National Parks. I just might volunteer to be "reintroduced" with a group of like minded Americans to create a community of sustainable culture in the wilderness of the National Parks.

by: DJ9791

10-05-2009 @ 5:59pm

Rev. Woodley-your comments are, sadly, right on the mark.

Here in the Souhtwest there has been a recent string of arrests involving "potpickers", local people who rob ancient Puebloans sites for profit. There has been on ongoing "discussion" in the media about how valid it is to arrest people who are "doing things we've done for a hundred years." Unfortunately, this involves destroying, desecrating and selling for profit objects which come from sacred sites. The justifications include the rationalization that these theves are "preserving" the cultural history of the region.

It's sad that the myth of the "Old West" continues to live on in such attitudes. The exploitation and near-extermination of Native Americans and Hispanic peoples was a large part of the true story of the region.

We revel in the national parks for all that they preserve...only in recent years has the dismal history which lead to settling this area begun to be explaiend and examiend by park historians. We can only hope that the complete story will one day be told.

Our skewed "worldview" which you describe also extends overseas, and has been evident in our foreign policy for the past forty + years. There are always cries that such "apologetics" are detrimental to America's future. If we are truly a nation, and a concept, which we want others to embrace, then we can stand the heat of revealing the sordid details of our history, as well as it's highlights.

Pray for Peace and Dare to Act!

by: rachellebradt

10-08-2009 @ 7:19pm

I'm with you, Dr. Woodley. Ken Burns touches on this issue at the very end when he covers Alaska, where "it was done right" by granting the Inuit the right to continue hunting and living on Park lands. There is a hint with the commentary that the future of the National Parks is described as dedicated to "restauration". Should we assume that people will be "re-introduced" like the wolves in Yellowstone ?

In Switzerland, where I come from, a beautiful documentary was made about traditional farmers, named "The Landscape Gardeners". In Switzerland traditional farmers are subsidized as a national treasure, even if their farming is not profitable. Similar issues raise passions in France. these traditional agriculturalists are in an ongoing battle to preserve their way of life and land management against agro-industrial interests.

Whoever had the idea that people are not part of the natural landscape? Obviously, something is indeed missing in our National Parks. I just might volunteer to be "reintroduced" with a group of like minded Americans to create a community of sustainable culture in the wilderness of the National Parks.

by: kofg

10-05-2009 @ 6:05pm

Thank you for this piece. It provides a lot of food for thought, and reveals just how unhealthy a worldview is held by so many.

by: Heather_Miller

10-05-2009 @ 8:13pm

In response to the Ken Burns film, Montana PBS funded a short documentary explaining the Native views of Yellowstone and Glacier Parks. Please take a look and order the film for more information regarding Native Views of these two sacred spaces. http://www.montanapbs.org/BeforeThereWereParks/
Thank you,
Heather (Wyandotte)

by: Katie Rodgers Boxeth

10-05-2009 @ 8:42pm

Randy, I really enjoyed your thoughts! Looking forward to discussing this on Thursday.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

10-05-2009 @ 10:30pm

The original Cherokee Nation was a whole lot larger than the boundaries of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which is only in a small portion of Eastern Tennessee and Western North Carolina. It also included parts of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia.

The people of the State of Georgia wanted the Cherokee land in the Northern part of that state because, as the saying goes, "Thar wuz gold in them thar hills." Gold was still being mined in that area in the early 1900s.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

10-05-2009 @ 10:45pm

I don't have as much Cherokee Blood Quantum as Randy (I have met him before in Tulsa); so, I can only belong to the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.

I do appreciate the intent of Randy's blog though.

I think about the Cherokees understood the meaning of water baptism by immersion because they did a immersion ritual in a running stream every year. They also couldn't figure out why the Europeans and Europeans didn't take daily baths.

Yes, the federal government has taken lands from the native tribes and either made them public lands or gave them to European-Americans. While my maternal Cherokee Ancestors lived in the Cherokee Nation in Eastern Indian Territory, My paternal grandfather was in one of the Land Runs which opened the Cherokee Outlet in the Northwestern part of the "original" Indian Territory."

The USA had taken what was the Cherokee Outlet (aka Cherokee Strip) and gave it to the "White" folks for homesteading. But, the Cherokee Outlet/Strip had originally been claimed by other tribes before the arrival of the Europeans.

When one says "Indian Giver," he unknowingly means "White European Giver." The USA's federal government took away lands from some tribes and gave it to other tribes and then took that away and gave it to non Natives.

by: amyplymptonfortunato

10-06-2009 @ 1:04am

Thank you for your wisdom an dinsights to inform my worldview. Really sorry for all the crimes against your people and this earth. God forgive us. I appreciate your response to the Ken Burns series.

by: DJ9791

10-05-2009 @ 5:59pm

Rev. Woodley-your comments are, sadly, right on the mark.

Here in the Souhtwest there has been a recent string of arrests involving "potpickers", local people who rob ancient Puebloans sites for profit. There has been on ongoing "discussion" in the media about how valid it is to arrest people who are "doing things we've done for a hundred years." Unfortunately, this involves destroying, desecrating and selling for profit objects which come from sacred sites. The justifications include the rationalization that these theves are "preserving" the cultural history of the region.

It's sad that the myth of the "Old West" continues to live on in such attitudes. The exploitation and near-extermination of Native Americans and Hispanic peoples was a large part of the true story of the region.

We revel in the national parks for all that they preserve...only in recent years has the dismal history which lead to settling this area begun to be explaiend and examiend by park historians. We can only hope that the complete story will one day be told.

Our skewed "worldview" which you describe also extends overseas, and has been evident in our foreign policy for the past forty + years. There are always cries that such "apologetics" are detrimental to America's future. If we are truly a nation, and a concept, which we want others to embrace, then we can stand the heat of revealing the sordid details of our history, as well as it's highlights.

Pray for Peace and Dare to Act!

by: kofg

10-05-2009 @ 6:05pm

Thank you for this piece. It provides a lot of food for thought, and reveals just how unhealthy a worldview is held by so many.

by: alphacarol

10-06-2009 @ 2:02am

Thank you for raising the issue. I was uncomfortable in several places as I watched the "epic", specifically bec. I thought that opportunities were missed to say more. As it happened, I had just finished reading the Meacham book on Andrew Jackson, so the Cherokee Trail of Tears was on my mind. I was raised in Minnesota, and have an abiding anger about the Sioux uprising. I was taught that my word was my honor very early on. The government of the US still doesnt get it. Treaties are treaties, and starvation, privation, and death are not written into any of the treaties. I guess it all started with Gen. Amherst giving small pox contaminated blankets to the indigenous people of western Mass.

by: Heather_Miller

10-05-2009 @ 8:13pm

In response to the Ken Burns film, Montana PBS funded a short documentary explaining the Native views of Yellowstone and Glacier Parks. Please take a look and order the film for more information regarding Native Views of these two sacred spaces. http://www.montanapbs.org/BeforeThereWereParks/
Thank you,
Heather (Wyandotte)

by: Katie Rodgers Boxeth

10-05-2009 @ 8:42pm

Randy, I really enjoyed your thoughts! Looking forward to discussing this on Thursday.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: DJ9791

10-05-2009 @ 5:59pm

Rev. Woodley-your comments are, sadly, right on the mark.

Here in the Souhtwest there has been a recent string of arrests involving "potpickers", local people who rob ancient Puebloans sites for profit. There has been on ongoing "discussion" in the media about how valid it is to arrest people who are "doing things we've done for a hundred years." Unfortunately, this involves destroying, desecrating and selling for profit objects which come from sacred sites. The justifications include the rationalization that these theves are "preserving" the cultural history of the region.

It's sad that the myth of the "Old West" continues to live on in such attitudes. The exploitation and near-extermination of Native Americans and Hispanic peoples was a large part of the true story of the region.

We revel in the national parks for all that they preserve...only in recent years has the dismal history which lead to settling this area begun to be explaiend and examiend by park historians. We can only hope that the complete story will one day be told.

Our skewed "worldview" which you describe also extends overseas, and has been evident in our foreign policy for the past forty + years. There are always cries that such "apologetics" are detrimental to America's future. If we are truly a nation, and a concept, which we want others to embrace, then we can stand the heat of revealing the sordid details of our history, as well as it's highlights.

Pray for Peace and Dare to Act!

by: DJ9791

10-05-2009 @ 5:59pm

Rev. Woodley-your comments are, sadly, right on the mark.

Here in the Souhtwest there has been a recent string of arrests involving "potpickers", local people who rob ancient Puebloans sites for profit. There has been on ongoing "discussion" in the media about how valid it is to arrest people who are "doing things we've done for a hundred years." Unfortunately, this involves destroying, desecrating and selling for profit objects which come from sacred sites. The justifications include the rationalization that these theves are "preserving" the cultural history of the region.

It's sad that the myth of the "Old West" continues to live on in such attitudes. The exploitation and near-extermination of Native Americans and Hispanic peoples was a large part of the true story of the region.

We revel in the national parks for all that they preserve...only in recent years has the dismal history which lead to settling this area begun to be explaiend and examiend by park historians. We can only hope that the complete story will one day be told.

Our skewed "worldview" which you describe also extends overseas, and has been evident in our foreign policy for the past forty + years. There are always cries that such "apologetics" are detrimental to America's future. If we are truly a nation, and a concept, which we want others to embrace, then we can stand the heat of revealing the sordid details of our history, as well as it's highlights.

Pray for Peace and Dare to Act!

by: kofg

10-05-2009 @ 6:05pm

Thank you for this piece. It provides a lot of food for thought, and reveals just how unhealthy a worldview is held by so many.

by: kofg

10-05-2009 @ 6:05pm

Thank you for this piece. It provides a lot of food for thought, and reveals just how unhealthy a worldview is held by so many.

by: Heather_Miller

10-05-2009 @ 8:13pm

In response to the Ken Burns film, Montana PBS funded a short documentary explaining the Native views of Yellowstone and Glacier Parks. Please take a look and order the film for more information regarding Native Views of these two sacred spaces. http://www.montanapbs.org/BeforeThereWereParks/
Thank you,
Heather (Wyandotte)

by: Heather_Miller

10-05-2009 @ 8:13pm

In response to the Ken Burns film, Montana PBS funded a short documentary explaining the Native views of Yellowstone and Glacier Parks. Please take a look and order the film for more information regarding Native Views of these two sacred spaces. http://www.montanapbs.org/BeforeThereWereParks/
Thank you,
Heather (Wyandotte)

by: Katie Rodgers Boxeth

10-05-2009 @ 8:42pm

Randy, I really enjoyed your thoughts! Looking forward to discussing this on Thursday.

by: Katie Rodgers Boxeth

10-05-2009 @ 8:42pm

Randy, I really enjoyed your thoughts! Looking forward to discussing this on Thursday.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

10-05-2009 @ 10:30pm

The original Cherokee Nation was a whole lot larger than the boundaries of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which is only in a small portion of Eastern Tennessee and Western North Carolina. It also included parts of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia.

The people of the State of Georgia wanted the Cherokee land in the Northern part of that state because, as the saying goes, "Thar wuz gold in them thar hills." Gold was still being mined in that area in the early 1900s.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

10-05-2009 @ 10:30pm

The original Cherokee Nation was a whole lot larger than the boundaries of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, which is only in a small portion of Eastern Tennessee and Western North Carolina. It also included parts of Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia.

The people of the State of Georgia wanted the Cherokee land in the Northern part of that state because, as the saying goes, "Thar wuz gold in them thar hills." Gold was still being mined in that area in the early 1900s.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

10-05-2009 @ 10:45pm

I don't have as much Cherokee Blood Quantum as Randy (I have met him before in Tulsa); so, I can only belong to the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.

I do appreciate the intent of Randy's blog though.

I think about the Cherokees understood the meaning of water baptism by immersion because they did a immersion ritual in a running stream every year. They also couldn't figure out why the Europeans and Europeans didn't take daily baths.

Yes, the federal government has taken lands from the native tribes and either made them public lands or gave them to European-Americans. While my maternal Cherokee Ancestors lived in the Cherokee Nation in Eastern Indian Territory, My paternal grandfather was in one of the Land Runs which opened the Cherokee Outlet in the Northwestern part of the "original" Indian Territory."

The USA had taken what was the Cherokee Outlet (aka Cherokee Strip) and gave it to the "White" folks for homesteading. But, the Cherokee Outlet/Strip had originally been claimed by other tribes before the arrival of the Europeans.

When one says "Indian Giver," he unknowingly means "White European Giver." The USA's federal government took away lands from some tribes and gave it to other tribes and then took that away and gave it to non Natives.

by: Joe_Allen_Doty

10-05-2009 @ 10:45pm

I don't have as much Cherokee Blood Quantum as Randy (I have met him before in Tulsa); so, I can only belong to the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.

I do appreciate the intent of Randy's blog though.

I think about the Cherokees understood the meaning of water baptism by immersion because they did a immersion ritual in a running stream every year. They also couldn't figure out why the Europeans and Europeans didn't take daily baths.

Yes, the federal government has taken lands from the native tribes and either made them public lands or gave them to European-Americans. While my maternal Cherokee Ancestors lived in the Cherokee Nation in Eastern Indian Territory, My paternal grandfather was in one of the Land Runs which opened the Cherokee Outlet in the Northwestern part of the "original" Indian Territory."

The USA had taken what was the Cherokee Outlet (aka Cherokee Strip) and gave it to the "White" folks for homesteading. But, the Cherokee Outlet/Strip had originally been claimed by other tribes before the arrival of the Europeans.

When one says "Indian Giver," he unknowingly means "White European Giver." The USA's federal government took away lands from some tribes and gave it to other tribes and then took that away and gave it to non Natives.

by: amyplymptonfortunato

10-06-2009 @ 1:04am

Thank you for your wisdom an dinsights to inform my worldview. Really sorry for all the crimes against your people and this earth. God forgive us. I appreciate your response to the Ken Burns series.

by: amyplymptonfortunato

10-06-2009 @ 1:04am

Thank you for your wisdom an dinsights to inform my worldview. Really sorry for all the crimes against your people and this earth. God forgive us. I appreciate your response to the Ken Burns series.

by: alphacarol

10-06-2009 @ 2:02am

Thank you for raising the issue. I was uncomfortable in several places as I watched the "epic", specifically bec. I thought that opportunities were missed to say more. As it happened, I had just finished reading the Meacham book on Andrew Jackson, so the Cherokee Trail of Tears was on my mind. I was raised in Minnesota, and have an abiding anger about the Sioux uprising. I was taught that my word was my honor very early on. The government of the US still doesnt get it. Treaties are treaties, and starvation, privation, and death are not written into any of the treaties. I guess it all started with Gen. Amherst giving small pox contaminated blankets to the indigenous people of western Mass.

by: alphacarol

10-06-2009 @ 2:02am

Thank you for raising the issue. I was uncomfortable in several places as I watched the "epic", specifically bec. I thought that opportunities were missed to say more. As it happened, I had just finished reading the Meacham book on Andrew Jackson, so the Cherokee Trail of Tears was on my mind. I was raised in Minnesota, and have an abiding anger about the Sioux uprising. I was taught that my word was my honor very early on. The government of the US still doesnt get it. Treaties are treaties, and starvation, privation, and death are not written into any of the treaties. I guess it all started with Gen. Amherst giving small pox contaminated blankets to the indigenous people of western Mass.

by: angiefadel

10-07-2009 @ 1:24pm

Randy, thank you for helping explain why I was uncomfortable during that series. As a child I had the previlage of visiting some of the National Parks and remember being amazed by their beauty and now as an adult I need some truth telling. Thank you for opening my eyes to something I hadn't seen before.

by: angiefadel

10-07-2009 @ 1:24pm

Randy, thank you for helping explain why I was uncomfortable during that series. As a child I had the previlage of visiting some of the National Parks and remember being amazed by their beauty and now as an adult I need some truth telling. Thank you for opening my eyes to something I hadn't seen before.

by: letjusticerolldown

10-07-2009 @ 10:15pm

I have not seen one minute of the series. But is Burns really saying something fundamentally different?

i.e. The Story--is not history--but rather the "national story" as woven into the history of the parks. Is the national story complete? No. But maybe that should not be put at the feet of Ken Burns.

Just a thought

by: letjusticerolldown

10-07-2009 @ 10:15pm

I have not seen one minute of the series. But is Burns really saying something fundamentally different?

i.e. The Story--is not history--but rather the "national story" as woven into the history of the parks. Is the national story complete? No. But maybe that should not be put at the feet of Ken Burns.

Just a thought

by: rachellebradt

10-08-2009 @ 7:19pm

I'm with you, Dr. Woodley. Ken Burns touches on this issue at the very end when he covers Alaska, where "it was done right" by granting the Inuit the right to continue hunting and living on Park lands. There is a hint with the commentary that the future of the National Parks is described as dedicated to "restauration". Should we assume that people will be "re-introduced" like the wolves in Yellowstone ?

In Switzerland, where I come from, a beautiful documentary was made about traditional farmers, named "The Landscape Gardeners". In Switzerland traditional farmers are subsidized as a national treasure, even if their farming is not profitable. Similar issues raise passions in France. these traditional agriculturalists are in an ongoing battle to preserve their way of life and land management against agro-industrial interests.

Whoever had the idea that people are not part of the natural landscape? Obviously, something is indeed missing in our National Parks. I just might volunteer to be "reintroduced" with a group of like minded Americans to create a community of sustainable culture in the wilderness of the National Parks.

by: rachellebradt

10-08-2009 @ 7:19pm

I'm with you, Dr. Woodley. Ken Burns touches on this issue at the very end when he covers Alaska, where "it was done right" by granting the Inuit the right to continue hunting and living on Park lands. There is a hint with the commentary that the future of the National Parks is described as dedicated to "restauration". Should we assume that people will be "re-introduced" like the wolves in Yellowstone ?

In Switzerland, where I come from, a beautiful documentary was made about traditional farmers, named "The Landscape Gardeners". In Switzerland traditional farmers are subsidized as a national treasure, even if their farming is not profitable. Similar issues raise passions in France. these traditional agriculturalists are in an ongoing battle to preserve their way of life and land management against agro-industrial interests.

Whoever had the idea that people are not part of the natural landscape? Obviously, something is indeed missing in our National Parks. I just might volunteer to be "reintroduced" with a group of like minded Americans to create a community of sustainable culture in the wilderness of the National Parks.

by: nicholastheintern

10-12-2009 @ 3:43pm

hey there,

i think you might enjoy this exclusive web short the colbert report did with
ken burns. here is the link:

http://tinyurl.com/yz5zb5m

you can also use this one:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report...
9/exclusive---backstage-with-ken-burns

hope you like!

thanks,
nick

by: nicholastheintern

10-12-2009 @ 3:43pm

hey there,

i think you might enjoy this exclusive web short the colbert report did with
ken burns. here is the link:

http://tinyurl.com/yz5zb5m

you can also use this one:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report...
9/exclusive---backstage-with-ken-burns

hope you like!

thanks,
nick

by: hikertom

10-17-2009 @ 2:07am

It's not true that North America was never an unspoiled wilderness. Everyone who lives on this continent is an immigrant or descended from immigrants, including Indians. They were the first immigrants, coming from northeast Asia, but they are still immigrants. DNA comparisons show that they are closely related to the indigenous people of Siberia and came to North America about 12,000-15,000 years ago. That sounds like a long time ago, but in terms of natural history that is very recent. The mountains and forests of North America are tens of millions of years old.

by: hikertom

10-17-2009 @ 2:07am

It's not true that North America was never an unspoiled wilderness. Everyone who lives on this continent is an immigrant or descended from immigrants, including Indians. They were the first immigrants, coming from northeast Asia, but they are still immigrants. DNA comparisons show that they are closely related to the indigenous people of Siberia and came to North America about 12,000-15,000 years ago. That sounds like a long time ago, but in terms of natural history that is very recent. The mountains and forests of North America are tens of millions of years old.

by: hikertom

10-17-2009 @ 4:07am

It's not true that North America was never an unspoiled wilderness. Everyone who lives on this continent is an immigrant or descended from immigrants, including Indians. They were the first immigrants, coming from northeast Asia, but they are still immigrants. DNA comparisons show that they are closely related to the indigenous people of Siberia and came to North America about 12,000-15,000 years ago. That sounds like a long time ago, but in terms of natural history that is very recent. The mountains and forests of North America are tens of millions of years old.

by: hikertom

10-17-2009 @ 4:07am

It's not true that North America was never an unspoiled wilderness. Everyone who lives on this continent is an immigrant or descended from immigrants, including Indians. They were the first immigrants, coming from northeast Asia, but they are still immigrants. DNA comparisons show that they are closely related to the indigenous people of Siberia and came to North America about 12,000-15,000 years ago. That sounds like a long time ago, but in terms of natural history that is very recent. The mountains and forests of North America are tens of millions of years old.