Wilderness, the Conqueror - Ernie Stanley

“We do not think of the great open plains, the beautiful rolling hills and winding streams with tangled growth as “wild.” Only to the white man was nature a “wilderness” and only to him was the land “infested” with “wild” animals and “savage” people. To us it was tame.” -A statement by an Oglala Sioux, Luther Standing Bear from Touch the Earth

I found this striking quote within Bill Devall’s description of deep ecology. It is an illustration of the western paradigm (views about an area) that I found very profound. Thoughts spawned from the Sioux’s words and I immediately questioned “wilderness”. I first searched for its denotation:

From Merriam-Websters

Wilderness (n)
A. (1) : a tract or region uncultivated and uninhabited by human beings (2) : an area essentially undisturbed by human activity together with its naturally developed life community
B. an empty or pathless area or region

Then I began considering the implications “wilderness” and it’s adjective “wild” give. Wilderness and its meaning in use imply human domination over nature. Can “wilderness” exist without human supremacy over nature? The Definition A certainly does not allow for this, using words such as “Human” and “developed”. I also reason that definition B implies human domination over nature. “Empty” itself is a human word. It involves a view that no value can be derived from something and the idea of value relates only to the things objectified by human. Further, pathless in the sense of “wilderness” only applies to the steps of man and animal presence is ignored when declaring a wilderness. Thinking further, I find that “wilderness” and “wild” are also associated with negativism within mainstream Western society, attaching themselves to things such as confusion, danger and deviation.

And in reasoning this I am disturbed. It is our Cartesian and Baconian ideas that man is separated or even above nature that has led us to hurt and scar that which our corporeal existence is entirely reliant: the planet. “Wilderness”, in its use, separates us from the planet allows us to manipulate, to consume and exploit the planet. Under “wilderness” the natural and undisturbed immediately becomes objectified as an untapped resource for humans. And this is the western paradigm of the planet.

I now ask, how can we hope to mend our relationship with the planet if undisturbed areas are labeled as untapped resources, not yet ready for use? Even in the most positive sense “wilderness” still separates us from the planet. If we ever hope to achieve understanding with the planet and the natural, we must leave trappings which set us apart from the planet behind. And so I say wildernesses must be despised and eradicated, replaced by nature itself.