The Last Wilderness Preserve And A New Land Of Opportunity

Franklin, John Hope, and Loren Schweninger. In Search of the Promised Land: A Slave Family in the Old South. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

In the year 1991, Vaclav Havel, former prime minister of the Czech Republic, delivered a speech at a university called The Quiver of a Shrub in California that discussed the environmental problems of a small country in Europe and how humans as a species need to become more aware of the situation that is arising, and do something about it. Havel declares this speech in order to, inform people and make them more aware of the situation that is occurring in his home country. This situation being that all around, the environment is crumbling under the oblivious eyes of the people and that as a race humans need to realize that though they believe that being humans makes them superior to every other living creature. There is a need

Throughout my review of The Geography of Nowhere by James Kunstler I gave assessments on many different issues. However, for Randal O’Toole’s The Best-Laid Plans I did not. O’Toole sees government as the problem to everything and thinks the whole planning industry should close its doors. However, there is some good to planning and while planning for up to 50 years is advance is a bit too naïve, there may be some good to have broad targets that can be adjusted every five years or so as town and cities grow and change. Additionally, there can be something said for the over-reaching regulations that don’t allow land and home owners the ability to do what they want on their own land. Furthermore, O’Toole has brought to light some troubling practices

Carter uses reasoning in order to add power to the argument that industrializing the area should never happen. He argues that adding roads, pipelines, drilling rigs, and industrial facilities would only destroy the natural beauty of the Arctic by saying “Such proposed developments would forever destroy the wilderness character of America’s only Arctic

The interconnectedness of every living thing is not just an idea but a way of life. In "The Land Owns Us", we see this important message come to life through Bob Randall, a Yankunytjatjara elder and traditional owner of Uluru (Ayer 's Rock), who explains that all beings are part of a vast family and calls us to be responsible for this family and care for the land with unconditional love and responsibility.

The second half of the essay begins with "The Ecological Conscience". Starting off by stating “Conservation is a state of harmony between men and land” and going on to describe how our fight for land is improving it is moving far too slow. This transforms into the

In his 1995 essay “The Trouble with Wilderness,” William Cronon declares that “the time has come to rethink wilderness” (69). From the practice of agriculture to masculine frontier fantasies, Cronon argues that Americans have historically defined wilderness as an “island,” separate from their polluted urban industrial homes (69). He traces the idea of wilderness throughout American history, asserting that the idea of untouched, pristine wilderness is a harmful fantasy. By idealizing wilderness from a distance, he argues that people justify the destruction of less sublime landscapes and aggravate environmental conflict.

The Alaskan Bush is one of the hardest places to survive without any assistance, supplies, skills, and little food. Jon Krakauer explains in his biography, Into The Wild, how Christopher McCandless ventured into the Alaskan Bush and ultimately perished due to lack of preparation and hubris. McCandless was an intelligent young man who made a few mistakes but overall Krakauer believed that McCandless was not an ignorant adrenalin junkie who had no respect for the land. Krakauer chose to write this biography because he too had the strong desire to discover and explore as he also ventured into the Alaskan Bush when he was a young man, but he survived unlike McCandless. Krakauer’s argument was convincing because he gives credible evidence that McCandless was not foolish like many critics say he was.

The 39th president of the United States of America Jimmy Carter fears the domination of domestic use of the Artctic Refuge. Carter argues that it is the duty of everyone to preserve the Arctic Refuge rather than dig holes in it to extract oil. The Arctic Refuge is a crucial refuge as it is one of the few left in the Arctic and around the world. In his letter, Carter uses ethos and pathos to persuade his audience to preserve the refuge and keep it sheltered.

Carter begins his speech by describing the beauty of the Arctic Refuge. He describes the Arctic Refuge by providing an anecdote to when he and his wife visited. On paragraph 2 he says, "We had hoped to see caribou during our trip, but to our amazement, we witnessed the migration of tens of thousands of caribou with their newborn calves". He provides the anecdote in order to give the audience a firsthand experience of what the Arctic Refuge is like. This story from the President allows the audience to understand the beauty of the Arctic Refuge and why it is important to preserve it.

Whether or not the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should be developed for industry is a national concern. In this passage, Jimmy Carter builds an argument to persuade his audience that the Refuge not be developed for industry. Cater effectively builds a persuasive argument using various rhetorical strategies, however his argument may be made stronger in several ways.

Bringing attention to the fact that if it's not bringing positive attention its deemed as unimportant. Although there are efforts being made he simply makes it out to be “not enough” he shows this by briefly stating things like “the predicament of actual polar bears, meanwhile, seemed only to be getting worse.” and “I noticed that the museum was scrapping its exhibit about disappearing glaciers and polar bears. It had proved unpopular and was mostly ignored,” statements such as these paint such a sad pitiful image for the polar bears. It causes readers attention to focus on themselves and hopefully push them to be more considerate and attentive to such pressing

In his article “Baked Alaska: Surviving Aniakchak National Monument”, Christopher Solomon argues the importance of taking risks and traveling where few have gone before. Though there might be hardships along the way, the experiences will be worth it. Solomon provides sufficient evidence by sharing his feelings, using statistics, and using literary devices to support his argument. However, his experience is only relatable to those who are daredevils. To the rest of us, this article is more of an informative read about the Alaska Peninsula.

He describes the Refuge as “magnificent,” “timeless,” and “a symbol of our national heritage.” This strong language serves to convey the depths of Carter’s passion for the Refuge, and helps the reader to feel some of that passion as well. This use of emotion helps to build Carter’s case as the audience becomes more connected to the place he wants to protect. After describing the Refuge using such grand terms, Carter goes on to describe the threat faced by the Refuge in similar fashion, describing the development of the land as a potential “tragedy” that would “forever destroy the wilderness character of America’s only Arctic Refuge,” as well as endangering the “precious human rights” of the area’s indigenous people. This powerful language causes the reader to feel that the refuge is under serious threat, and any harm that might come to the Refuge would be devastating. These feelings lead the reader directly into supporting Carter’s message of protecting the

As a former United States President, Jimmy Carter has a voice that many listen to. In “Foreward to Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: Seasons of Life and Land,” Carter uses that voice to encourage the American people to protect the wilderness. Carter prompts people to preserve the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and help the area to remain undeveloped. Carter maintains that it is imperative to protect this refuge by using personal anecdotes about his own time spent in Alaska, powerful word choice to draw the reader to his side, and employs the word “we” in order to instill a sense of coalition between the readers and Carter.