1. Rhetorical situation

The rhetorical situation of this text presents to an audience that would either be neutral or interested in environmental ideas/policies. The author's purpose it to express to the reader that the ideas of 'wilderness' being the goal is not one that is realistic or idealistic. He explains with a good humored sarcastic tone that the "virgin lands" that is typically imagined when thinking of the past is not a true idea but rather a western imagining. The author wants to convey to the reader that Natives have occupied these natural lands and have been able to live with the lands and not necessarily on it like we do in modern civilization. He combines his somewhat of a sarcastic tone and pathos to poke fun at this illusionary idea of complete wilderness and argue that the reality is that wilderness and natives co-existed peacefully and environmentally friendly. Using this arguments he opens the reader to hope. The hope that through learning through Native people, we as a society can once again coexist with the environment and that in order to save it, humans themselves do not need to be removed but rather the harmful consumer-centralized practices of these humans.

1. I think this perfectly sums up what needs to be understood in order for humanity to once again live with nature. My question is: using this idea, how can we make those changes both systematically and individually?

1. This passage reminds me of Norgaard's article on how native people use fire to enhance and manage the land. The author discusses the idea of how wilderness seems like a good idea to those who are not part of the wilderness and have "never...worked the land to make a living." The relation I see most is the misunderstanding between how these indigenous people are responsible for the nourishment of the land through practices not understood through a western eye.

1. This last sentence perfectly encapsulates the author's main argument. The author argues that the Western idea of pristine wilderness is actually wrong and was never true even before modern society. The author argues that humans, like other creatures, play a central role in the natural habitats. He goes on to explain that it is not the existence of humans that is damaging but instead the consumer way of life that is accepted as the norm. He argues that we must protect these indigenous people as they too are important to the ecosystems of the land.