6 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. History has been very evident in this reading, but I think it is somewhat repeating itself with the anti-immigration government we have right now, trying to keep America pristine for white people. Although we are getting better at recognizing the cultural significance of Native Americans, there is still room for improvement, especially with immigrants. At the same time, I think it is important to keep people who are not welcoming of other cultures in mind to remind us of what can happen if we ignore history.

    2. Grant andthe Boone and Crockett Club advocated for game lawsthat dictated how many animals could be taken, when, andwhere.

      It seems like what these men really wanted was control based off their hunting regulations (not that hunting regulations are bad, but maybe they were creating them for the wrong reasons) and their background in eugenics.

    3. Other individuals prominent in the broader history ofscience and conservation—such as Gifford Pinchot,Henry Fairfield Osborn, and David Starr Jordan—alsosupported eugenics

      Although these and the aforementioned men had hateful and supremacist ideals, I am still grateful for their work in protecting what are now National Parks, which can be enjoyed by all.

    4. Susan Schrepfer’s The Fight to Savethe Redwoods

      I'd really like to read this. I went to see Redwood on Broadway last winter, and it really got me interested in the majesty of Redwoods and the urgency of protecting them.

    5. some of the key peoplebehind the creation of some of the most popular USnational parks—not only Acadia, but also Denali, Glacier,Everglades, Redwood, and Yosemite—also discriminatedagainst anyone they deemed “unfit” and inferior, anda few (but not all) of the same were leaders in anti-immigration and forced sterilization eugenics

      This is concerning because I have very strong beliefs that National Parks and nature in general is for everyone to enjoy. Cutting off anyone's access to public land is cruel.