This week’s public history readings brought a new perspective on working in the public history field. They discussed public history and the environment; a combination I might not have immediately linked together. The fact is a region’s landscape can reveal a vast amount of historical information to any researcher. In David Glassberg’s article “Interpreting Landscapes”, he discusses the educational information that natural or built landscapes can reveal about our history. (Natural landscapes are associated with mountains or lakes and built landscapes are seen to be anything man-made: buildings, memorials, or even man-made lakes etc) He states that “evidence of social culture forces, as well as natural ones, are writ large in the hills, rocks, soil and plants that humans encountered and rearranged.”(1) Various forms of landscape can even provide insight into issues such as race, class, ethnicity, gender relations, cultural ideals, the economy, or even technology. Human influence on landscapes from over a number of generations can also be examined to better understand history. Glassberg also mentions the need for public involvement in preserving and interpreting their local landscape.(2) Long-term residents, he states, can emphasize the landscape value through their personal associations with the local environment. These areas might even be landscapes not initially identified by the greater community. Visitors to the area can also express the value of unique landscapes, natural or built, that may be different from what they’re used to. Encouraging public reflection and involvement can not only enhance their sense of place in the larger world but can also be a critical tool in guiding environmental perceptions.
Glassberg’s article clearly relates to Rebecca Conard’s article, “Spading Common Ground: Reconciling the Built and Natural Environments”. In discussing the value landscapes have in our society, Glassberg also demonstrates the lack of distinction between built, or man-made, landscapes and natural landscapes. Conard is also trying to make this point clear in order to encourage historic preservationists, environmentalists, and land managers to join forces to protect the world’s most valuable landscapes. She believes that the similarities between natural and built landscapes should inspire these advocates to work together for a common goal. Arguably the most amusing part of her article is when she describes the reason for the lack of deference between these groups. The historic preservationists, she says, think in terms of design and who lived where instead of the environment. The environmentalists grasp on to their aspirations of an ideal wilderness and then of course there are the land managers who think the other two are just a bunch of “zealots”.(3) Conard argues that these three groups with seemingly different goals need to come to some middle ground and work together. Otherwise the ever-sprawling new developments will eat up the environment and no one will reach their goal. The truth is, their objectives go hand in hand quite nicely, as cultural geography also displays our heritage.(4) As Glassberg said, we can learn so much from various types of landscapes whether they are natural or built. Parks, especially National Parks, are where cultural and natural history intersects. There needs to be common ground between those who want to protect our environment and those that want to protect our heritage.
These readings remind me of a trip I took with my family to the Yukon/Alaska. My father, being a history major himself, decided it would be a great idea for a few of us to take on the challenge of hiking the famous Chilkoot Pass. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this trail, the Chilkoot Pass was the most famous route taken by prospectors and would-be miners on their way to the Klondike Gold Rush.(5) (the route being from Alaska to British Columbia to the Yukon) Many might remember the picture of a long ant-like trail going up a snow covered mountain from 1897. This national park is co-operatively managed by both the United States and Canada. (Specifically Canada Parks and the US National Parks Service). This park is a prime example of a landscape that incorporates the interests of both historic preservationists as well as environmentalists.
Now I realize that this park, being a National Park, has “user areas” with “built” trails to guide hikers through nature which is often seen as a negative, especially by environmentalists. However, the trail is approximately 53 kilometres through “isolated, strenuous, physically challenging and potentially hazardous terrain”.(6) It also comes with a warning that says, “the Chilkoot should only be attempted by persons who are physically fit and experienced in hiking and backpacking. It should not be attempted by novice hikers.” (funny story about this...please see below)(7) It is these words that prompt me to say this is no ordinary National Park. Clearly, not every Joe on the block is going to travel to this area and take up a 5 day hike, without modern conveniences, into the middle of nowhere for a vacation. (though I highly recommend it!) Not only does this trail generate aching feet after a 13 hour walk up and over the peak (an elevation of 3525 feet) but it also serves as a prime example of the environment and history coming together.
The trail is dotted off with various historical artifacts including sled frames, boot soles, back saddles and even the odd tombstone. SO this beautiful park provides an unforgettable education (and excitement for one public historian!) by walking in the footsteps of hopeful gold diggers of the late 1800s AND it also provides the hiker with a sense of appreciation for the beautiful environment around you. You literally walk through forests, foothills, snow, sand, and steep rocky terrain. Environmentalists should be more than happy with this national park. The park strongly advocates environmental conservation, closely follows the Leave No Trace philosophy and strongly recommends that hikers stay on the set path at all times. To be honest, from my experience, no one would want to leave the path anyways! You’d get lost! and when you’re in the middle of nowhere this is not a good thing. There is no one to help but the ranger stationed at the camp many, many hours away! So I have no doubt that a majority of the terrain is left alone. Overall, I think this National Park is a prime of example of how preserving both the environment and Canada’s heritage can work well together. 
If you ever have the time, I strongly encourage taking this memorable hike through history and the wilderness. BUT!! Watch out for bears! You don’t want to see one 30 feet in front of you, on the trail, like I did. Scary!!
___________________________________________________________________________________
(1) David Glassberg. “Interpreting Landscapes.” Public History and the Environment. Ed. Martin V. Melosi and Philip V. Scarpino. Florida: Krieger, 2004, 23.
(2)Glassberg, 33.
(3)Rebecca Conard, "Spading Common Ground." Public History and the Environment, ed. Martin V. Melosi and Philip V. Scarpino, (Florida: Kreiger, 2004), 6.
(4) Conrad, 18.
(5)Though this route was used even earlier by the Tlingit tribes for trading with interior First Nations groups.
(6) Canada Parks Website. “Hiking the Chilkoot” http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/yt/chilkoot/activ/activ1a_e.asp
(7) Well, the Chilkoot pass is a very difficult hike as was mentioned. I'll never forget, sitting on my porch, checking our bags the night before we were to leave on the trip and my dad reading a pamphlet that gave this very warning. Well...my siblings and I started laughing really hard. The reality was...none of us were avid hikers. In fact, I had never actually camped over night in the wild before! I don't think any of us realized the dangers we potentially could have experienced until afterwards. but we made it!! Even with a bear encounter and warnings of avalanches!
*****I forgot to mention....the picture above, with people in it, is of my family on the trail. I call it "Snowball fight in July". We're just about to go up the 'golden staircase' on the left. It looks like only 30 feet...but in reality it's MANY MANY more than that!! It actually took a good couple of hours to climb the steep rocky path to the summit.
No comments:
Post a Comment