When I think about common sense a Canadian ideal of the wilderness; I think of a stereotyped approach that we should be in igloos and dog sledding. Another view is that if the land is not touched/ or helped by a human then it is still classified as wilderness. With that I don’t mean that people walking through is disrupting or declassifying wilderness; it is when humans make permit paths or add buildings, etc. In my story, it may not be your typical Canadian ideal but I know from class discussion that a lot of people have gone canoeing. I chose the one time I went canoe because that is the one time I felt where there was almost a full connection to the wilderness. Or at least of what I understand of what should be wilderness. Usually, on a lake, there isn’t much for humans to expand. Canoeing through the lake there were not many houses around; at some points, you would think you were in a different society. It is crazy to think that houses are literally everywhere and it is weird not to see them or expansions. From not getting distracted from advancements; I found it easier to focus on the task i was doing. Looking in the lake and observing little fish moving, dodging around rocks and looking at how tall the grass was along the shore. Comparing this canoe trip with my family to schooling activities like ski trip. outdoor ed, other environmental education trips. With my family, we did not have someone narrating everything we saw, but we took the time on our own to try to focus and build an understanding. Schooling events either slam you with facts of our surroundings or it is not even mentioned. It is very one or the other; it also makes it harder to build a real connection with the land when most of those trips are very high paced and time-crunched. The biggest problem that most of the trips the land has been changed to accommodate people so is it really wilderness? Comparing to our ESCI class when we go outside and find a quiet space. In that time you notice things that you did not before when you use your senses: seeing and sound in particular it is easier to make a connection and an understanding. Comparing to treaties and historical events First Nations and settlers had different opinions on what wilderness was. For First Nations people the land was their home, therefore, they did not classify it as wilderness. It was always deemed normal to First Nations people to live off the land and respect it meaning only taking what you need and when you take; you give back something in exchange. As for settlers, the land was their resource where they can take as much as they want and not give anything back. That the sole purpose of the land was to use. With settlers idea, they deemed it was okay to continue this practice and take what they wanted even if it was already being used by someone or something else. Which them continues into treaties being made and land being changed.
Comparing to Braiding sweetgrass by Robin Wall Kimmerer I took a quote from the chapter: Epiphany in the Bean to Canadian commonsense wilderness. The quote I chose was ” you wouldn’t harm what gives you love” pg.124. Recalling on talking about school field trips I stated that it isn’t wilderness if it is human-made, for example, most ski hills are human-made to accommodate our recreation. Our Earth is giving us resources and home yet we decide to destroy it. If we loved the Earth, we would give back more then what we take. In every other sense if someone or something loves us; our mother the commonsense thing would be to love her back. Whats the difference between our mother and our Earth? They both give us shelter, love, home and support us. Why cant we love them the same?