As The National Parks: America's Best Idea rolls out this week, it leaves in its wake many, many reviews and critiques. In his assessment, Dan Lenihan finds only a few faults of substance with the 12-hour mini-series on national parks.
A recently retired National Park Service ranger, Mr. Lenihan brings to his critique an insider's eye for analyzing both the cinematography as well as the content. Written for Natural History Magazine, the review immediately notes that a key point of the documentary that can get lost amid the gorgeous landscapes and compelling historical figures is that ...it was in America that the natural landscape was first determined to be a national birthright and set aside for the many rather than the privileged.
And yet, notes Mr. Lenihan, coming to grips with that birthright wasn't without conflict.
Competing elements of the American spirit rubbed sparks throughout the heated growth of the national park system. The film reminds us that besides being the land of the free, America was also the land of Manifest Destiny, with an endless frontier available for the taking by simply heading west and displacing any aboriginal species, including humans, that got in the way. Endless resources were available for target practice from the train, and the same American ethos that permitted the near destruction of the bison and the complete eradication of the passenger pigeon somehow accommodated what became the most enlightened approach to conservation ever conceived.
...The conflict between faith in the ultimate beneficence of the free market and belief in the value of government control takes root early in the story, and as the episodes go by we see those hands played over and over. Western politicians operating nearest to the parks had the greatest stake in seeing the federal government’s protective mantle removed. That the parks should come to be seen as national properties owned by all Americans, rather than as resources to be exploited by those living in closest proximity, was—and still is—of critical importance.
The shortcomings of the series, in Mr. Lenihan's opinion, is that it concentrates only on the 58 "national parks," and that it gives short shrift to units of the National Park System that deal with cultural or historical resources.
At one point the narrator remarks that a certain visitor’s souvenir “passport” indicated he had visited “every one of the fifty-eight National Parks.” But nearly six times that number of units are recognized under other designations—National Monuments, National Seashores, National Historic Sites, and so on. All 391 areas have stamps for the visitor’s passport, and the resources in all of them are treated equally by rangers. The difference is often more one of nomenclature and legalities than of real significance.
Until episode 5, when the series deals with the 1933 reorganization that unified historic, military, and natural monuments under the Park Service, very short shrift is given to archaeological or historical parks. While the Service’s change of focus from scenery to ecosystems is well presented, the melding of human history with natural history is not adeptly handled. The National Park Service operates in a world composed of both natural and cultural values, and more than half the units in the system are primarily archaeological or historical in emphasis— but only one of those (Mesa Verde) is designated a National Park. The film’s approach diminishes the role of cultural sites in the viewer’s eyes.
And yet, in summation, the series is certainly worth your time, Mr. Lenihan concludes.
But on the whole, the series is, in my estimation, not just good but excellent. Although many think of Burns as a pictorial historian, he has eluded the curse of that genre, which is to fall too much in love with available imagery, thereby putting prose in thrall to the splash of color on the screen. The subtext of this series is that the story of the National Parks is the story of America. That gives the film the potential for either true greatness or true overreaching. It does not overreach.
You can find the entire review here: http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/041480/enjoy-and-conserve
Comments
After 3 episodes, it's a magnificent, captivating, addicting story. Can hardly wait until the next night, to hear the great anecdotes.
I think, as opposed to making all travelers flock to the "big 10"
I think it will cause many people to click on the internet, aiming for Yellowstone, and discover there's a national park nearby.
And, the big ones are already hugely crowded in the peak summer travel, what's an extra 10,000?
As a dweller on the edge of GrandTetonNP and Yellowstone, I hope millions of Americans pile into their cars next year and
head out here to see these great places. We'll make room.
If you have to question why Hot Springs is a national park, I suspect you've never had the opportunity to visit. Most importantly, since Andrew Jackson set it aside as a national reservation in the 1830s (the FIRST such designation) the waters have enjoyed federal protection. True, this park is small and very unique in that it protects a natural wonder as well as the industry of the spas, but that makes it even more worthwhile in my eyes. I'm suprised this park and it's uniqueness is being overlooked. Even more disappointing is the omission of Sulphur Springs Reservation/Platt National Park in Oklahoma, which was the 9th park established. For years the smallest park in the system it, like Hot Springs, was designed to protect the water and was actually a partnership with the Indian tribes and the government. It is also one of only a handful of parks to ever be redesignated as something other than a national park.
[Ed: Platt National Park, which was established in 1906, was abolished in 1976 and is now part of Chickasaw National Recreation Area.]