Visitor Center
Copyright 2005-2009
National Park Advocates LLC
Follow the Traveler
Recent comments
- Lynn Berk on Is This the Most Unique Job in the National Park Service?
6 hours 30 min ago - lacey on The Pacific Northwest Trail Will Establish Important Linkages
7 hours 27 min ago - Marshall Dillon on True Tales From the National Parks: Get Me Off Devils Tower!
9 hours 28 min ago - beschundler on National Park Service Director Jarvis Reminds Employees To Be Ethical in All They Do
9 hours 55 min ago - Bruce on True Tales From the National Parks: Get Me Off Devils Tower!
12 hours 1 min ago - Bruce on Backup Maintenance Could Take the Traveler Down Tonight
12 hours 21 min ago - Edmund Fitzgerald Service on History Abounds in the Waters Surrounding Isle Royale National Park
12 hours 37 min ago - y_p_w on True Tales From the National Parks: Get Me Off Devils Tower!
14 hours 56 min ago - haunted hiker on National Park Service Director Jarvis Reminds Employees To Be Ethical in All They Do
15 hours 28 min ago - Kurt Repanshek on True Tales From the National Parks: Get Me Off Devils Tower!
15 hours 36 min ago









Jim Macdonald
Okay, we can pick this up another time. One of my favorite philosophers is G.W. Leibniz, a contemporary of Locke, and he disagreed with Locke on so many things. He actually wrote a dialogue called New Essays on Human Understanding that reads more like a blow by blow response to Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. I come from the rationalist tradition, though I'm not that fond of Descartes or Spinoza. Anyhow, we aren't really that far removed from that climate, though Locke's worldview has been far more influential on practice, especially in the American experience. Perhaps, that's why I think the critics of Locke are all that much more relevant, whether they be rationalists like Leibniz or fellow empiricists like Berkeley. I'm especially fond of the critiques offered by the Scottish common sense realists, especially Thomas Reid. Of course, this isn't just academic to me. How we talk about what we think we know and why we know it goes deep into our discussions about things that are seemingly more accessible, like the issue of race in the national parks. Often, our dividing lines, or the reasons we stay divided, come to basic questions about existence and knowledge. A lot of us haven't thought much about those problems, but we still carry on the thinking of these dead men almost unwittingly. It's doubly interesting when one thinks of the role European men like Leibniz and Locke played in the racism of our own times both consciously and as part of the colonial process.
I don't think one needs to study Locke and Leibniz to talk about race in the parks. I think all one has to do is talk and be willing to consider the force of the discussion on each of our lives. I hope that people will continue to do that. the other stuff we've been talking about is there for those who are interested--in the history, in the history of the ideology, etc. But, it's clear from even just this discussion that racism poisons us, keeps us separated and disempowered. Discussions that explore that experience are worthwhile. And, it might as well be in the parks context; there are a million fitting reasons why.
Jim Macdonald
The Magic of Yellowstone
Yellowstone Newspaper
Jim's Eclectic World