Cronon V Thoreau

My first impression of Cronon’s views on Thoreau and wilderness were similar to the first time I came across Thoreau myself. To many people Thoreau’s views can be seen as somewhat delusional but to some they can seem awe-inspiring. The concept that mankind can find their true self in nature by giving up everything is quite a claim. A claim that Cronon disagrees with by simply explaining that nature cannot be a place where mankind resides for if we reside in wilderness then we our contradicting the definition of wilderness.

One of Cronon’s arguments that stood out to me was when he described American settler’s driving Indians out of their homelands to create an uninhabited wilderness for us. Cronon explains, “there is nothing natural about the concept of wilderness. It is entirely a creation of the culture that holds it dear, a product of the very history it seeks to deny.” (79). I agree with Cronon in this aspect. If wilderness is something that we have created through our redefining of a landmass then how can it be a place untouched by mankind? If our culture has created something, regardless of what it may be, then our creation cannot be a pure as something which Thoreau describes. This is one of Cronon’s big arguments and he gives strong reasoning to support his claim.

Overall, Cronon and Thoreau are at opposite poles when it comes to the concept of wilderness. Cronon bashes Thoreau’s theory but he does it respectfully. He supplies reasonable evidence and does some good persuading throughout the piece. If someone were to read this article after being baffled by Thoreau then I feel there would be a strong will to accept Cronon’s view because of the complex and extreme measures Thoreau takes to prove his point. It is easier for people to believe something which that can grasp and really understand; similar to many of the arguments which Cronon makes. Thoreau is really going against the grain because not many people have put themselves into the type of situation which he has been in. What Cronon does in this piece is take a very complex idea and attack it with strong evidence. Something which Cronon and I believe Thoreau lacks.