A response to "Amazonia as Edenic Narrative"

I remember watching nature videos in elementary school class about the colorful diversity of the rainforest and the threat humans posed to its survival. I didn't know anything about the story of Eden back then, but the video portrayal gave the name "rainforest" the similar connotation of "Eden" in my mind. It also inspired a group of my classmates to make a "Save the Rainforest" petition to the president, to which I speedily added my signature. The media encouraged the idea that it was our responsibility to protect and care for the gifts of Earth, especially the rainforest, a most amazing kind of forest. I especially felt the pressure when I saw maps of the dwindling rainforests of the world, endangered by the civilians who cut down trees to make a living. Now when reading Slater's "Amazonia as Edenic Narrative," I pay particular attention her observations of the ideas carried by the term "rainforest." Slater proposes that "the region's biodiversity, for instance, may foster a quasi-Edenic vision of a new garden to which the entire human race lays claim" (116). The color, noises, and activities of the deciduous biome pale in comparison variety of colors, noises, and activities attributed to the tropical rainforest. The fact that North America has no tropical rainforest for real-life experience increases the southerly glow of Amazon's Edenic aura. And there certainly is international interest in saving the rainforest. Not too long ago I noticed a "Rescue the Rainforest" label on a carton of Tropicana orange juice I was drinking. For every carton code entered on their site, Tropicana would protect 100 square feet of endangered rainforest for at least three years. Of course, I entered in the number and felt good about myself for the rest of the day. I realize, however, after reading Slater's essay, that if Tropicana had used the word "jungle" instead of "rainforest" there would probably have been less eager participation. Though jungles and rainforests are the same thing, the word "jungle" does not work. The word "jungle" would clash against the the clean, simple design of the Tropicana carton and "Rescue the Jungle" doesn't have the alliterative appeal of "Rescue the Rainforest." If even just the name makes a difference, I wonder how environmental campaigns for less Edenic places have managed. I have never seen a "Save the Swamps" campaign brought into such proximity as my refrigerator. If my OJ carton had promoted a "Save the Swamps," instead, I may have just put down my cup because swamps are muddy, and mud shouldn't associate with my "Lots of Pulp" OJ carton. I imagine the same difficulty obstructs the rescue of ugly endangered animals.

Another point Slater made was the general attitude towards natives. As Slater says, the article does sound like a debate over protecting an endangered species because 1. it is assumed that, as natives, the Yanomami are most at home among the flora and fauna, and don't want to partake in human civilization nor its publications. Therefore, modern civilization organizes the Yanomami's affairs without the Yanomami's input, as is done with endangered animals. And 2. the Yanomami are "untouched by modern civilization" (Brooke "Brazil Creates Reserve for Imperiled Amazon Tribe") so to preserve their rare culture (which goes without description, Slater notes) Brazil must allot land on which the Yanomami can freely go about their eco-friendly traditional activities. An endangered species is not the same as an endangered people, however. People are people as the Kayapo tribe proves with their more monetary oriented activities. It was intended that nobody should sell the resources of the tribal land for profit, but the people living on the land were considered the least likely culprits. Environmentalists who champion a nature untouched by humans forget that any human interaction with nature is human interaction with nature, even by people who traditionally have a smaller carbon footprint. Like Cronon said before, the idea that the best nature is one untouched by mankind implies that we should either commit suicide or continue guiltily living our sordid lives in the polluted cities. It seems best to just accept that all humans, like animals, are residents of the biosphere, and as members of the community of nature, everyone affects nature whether as hunter-gatherers, farmers, capitalists, communists, etc.