Divided New Yorkers

Divided New Yorkers

In the reading both "Contested Terrain: A New History of Nature and People in the Adirondacks," by Philip G. Terrie, and "Alfred E. Smith: The Happy Warrior," by Christopher M. Finan, there are some clear divisions among New Yorkers that become clearly evident. One division was what the Adirondacks were to be used for. Should they be used for commercial purposes or for people to live there? Another division evident was the view of the Adirondacks. Was it simply beautiful and should be left untouched or tapped for its resources. I will discuss these in the following pages as well as whether or not these divisions were ever solved.

I think one division that was seen among New Yorkers was the view on the Adirondacks about what it was used for. Some thought that the Adirondacks were a place to go on trips to and have a good time, while others viewed it as a permanent place to set up shop and live. In his book Terrie says "The same landscape that appealed to Emmons either as a recreational retreat for jaded professionals from the city or as a source of natural resources awaiting exploitation by downstate capital was simply a new home for settlers looking for cheap land and a fresh start on life" (Terrie 20). Richer businessmen I assume probably looked at the Adirondacks like huge piece of gold that needed to be mined. They saw money there and not much else. The only other thing they saw was a place for the rich people to go on trips and get away from city life. Poorer people on the other hand saw an opportunity to live in the wilderness. It was cheap land, probably because it would be very difficult to cultivate and do anything with it. It's interesting because they both are looking at ways to benefit from the land; the division is that there are looking at different ways to benefit. The rich wanted to gain profit and recreational land, and the poorer farmers and immigrants wanted simply a place to live for cheap.

The next division in Terrie's book that I would like to talk about has to deal with the beauty of the Adirondacks. The Adirondacks are a beautiful place. "The cult of sublime and beautiful scenery provided a ready-made vocabulary for tourists trying to convey their heartfelt response to the natural splendors of the Adirondacks," Terrie said (Terrie 51). Many poets and writers wrote about the immense scenery that was to be seen by many tourists to the area. The division however comes when businessmen and others seek to obtain natural resources from the area. The question is does this hurt the physical beauty of the area? Terrie talks about this division in his book. "Where these two ministers argued about whether farming was viable and disagreed about the sustainability of villages like Long Lake, neither's narrative accounted for what might happen to the Adirondacks once significant exploitation of natural resources financed by outside capital began," Terrie said (Terrie 59). He then brings up the issue of the logger (Terrie 59). The Adirondacks probably had immense forests. Logging was a huge industry and I could see how businessmen would be licking their chops to get into the Adirondacks and log. This would obviously conflict with those who wanted to simply enjoy the area for what it was. By bringing in all these machines and things of that nature, it then leads to a disruption of the beauty to the tourists. Basically the division here is the environmentalist and tourist versus the businessmen again. The issue at hand is the Adirondacks beauty versus its monetary value.

In the book, "Al Smith: The Happy Warrior," by Christopher M. Finan there are some similar divisions seen in comparison with the ones I discussed earlier in this book. I think the building of the Empire State Building represents these divisions. Al Smith seeing the possibility for some man-made