Arctic Dreams By Montana McLeod (04/30/14 22:25:17)
The author is secluded in the Arctic and elaborates on the common misconception of the Arctic as an impoverished, desolate, pagan where little development can persist. His defense against the Western view associated with the arctic is interesting in his attempt to change the reader’s perception. He illustrates the land through his eyes. He explains not only how he has come to see the land, but how the native Eskimos see the land, whose whole life is summarized within the said pagan and desolate land. From a western perception it is much easier to value the land for what it has to offer. We look at the world and land in a cause and effect relationship, as though the experiences are structured as black and white and understood through primitive intent. The western world does not have the same values as the natives of the Arctic Tundra. What the Eskimos do value proves rather interesting to my own preconceived ideas of the arctic.
They value the way their mind can evolve to follow the ridges and grains of the land. That with the ever-changing landscape, their mind forms to fit these newly defined contours. Their life does not persist outside of the land, meaning it is unfathomable for the factors that affect the landscape to not intimately affect them as well. He even describes that the “spiritual landscape exists in the physical landscape.” The native people value the land so that they root natural experiences and the physical land as sacred and evident in spiritual representation. It is so easy to get lost in the natural world and I feel like valuing the land for more than just its resources is a way of connecting with the native people. The native people feel that they coexist with the land and understand the land in a way that researchers looking for a specific criteria cannot. The Eskimos can facilitate these incredible maps because they take into account every aspect of the land. Most nonnative people simply look for traits that are categorical and previously studied. They have a hard time looking outside of the box, and seeing without searching. I understand this structured perspective, as it is much simpler to look for something specific, than it is to observe and then break it down to its function. Their understanding of the land is conceptual and derived from experience.
The author argues that to know the land you must live within the natural habitat, watch the migrations, sleep in the dirt, and travel chronologically as the migrations would. I think the idea of living in the natural habitat can be applied to interspecies collaboration quite effortlessly. In essence, the only way to come to value something will be through seeing from another’s perspective. If you physically put yourself in the place of another’s shoes, you will see what these objects and places have to offer that might not have been significant to your own lifestyle. The slope and the moisture of the ground now has purpose to it, the ability to plan for the future is essentially lost and your actions will be reduced to your natural instincts.
From a scientific perspective, I value the way that the marine biologist and other researchers regard the information of the arctic as equal to the knowledge gained from their collaborations with the native people. They see the beauty in the way the birds create a static schedule that repeats every 24 hours, and how this pattern in and of itself flows in equilibrium with the environment as a whole. The biologists look at these animals and see more than the anthropogenic potential. They see that even individually, the animals are larger than just a subject of an experiment. It is the industry that values animals as a means of developing. The scientists argue that animals are much more than the numbers and figures they acquire through research. The statistics imposed on them often trivialize their existence; moreover I believe it would be beneficial to explore significance outside of statistics. However, to address the status of the animals in the way that the natives do, the message is often not received and misinterpreted.
The author states, “The physical landscape is an unstructured abode of space and time and is not entirely fathomable.” He argues that this is exactly what gives us the desire to explore and identify with the vast environment in a personal and self-reflective way. I think this is a fascinating concept. The separation between space and time posses many questions as to at what point do they separate or if they even separate at all. Many theories regarding the existence of life in relation to space and time have evolved due to diverse cultural perceptions. The ambiguity of the land within space and time essentially opens your mind to see the smaller aspects of life as an even bigger power and entity than ever explored. I think the way that the different cultures value space and time is so extraordinary and apparent in what they value, as well as how they choose to live their life.
[Write Comment]