User:Laurenyh/sandbox

This is my Sandbox. I will use it to draft the section of "Philosophy" on the James B. Harkin article. PLEASE NOTE that references are forthcoming --Laurenyh (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy
On the one hand, Harkin’s success and longevity as Parks Commissioner can be measured in economic terms, namely in touristm profits. However, Harkin’s philosophy of preserving Canada’s landscape for the sake of patriotic pride and physical, moral, and mental well-being is also evident and well-documented in his writings and departmental reports. In fact, some historians argue that it is in great part his ability to have both his commercial and preservationist goals merge and play off each other that determines his success as Commissioner. But whether Harkin used commercial reasons of building national parks to justify the humanitarian reasons or vice versa is an open-ended question that some Harkin biographers continue to debate.

Economic value of parks
Harkin’s success in securing appropriations to finance the building and expansion of national parks was largely due to his ability to convey the commercial value of dominion parks to Parliament. At the onset of his Parks Branch career, Harkin and his staff had sought to find out how much revenue was generated by tourism in both American states and European countries. His findings, which included tens of millions of dollars for just the American state of Maine, were astounding and he went on to publish a compiled report of tourist revenue figures for distribution to members of the House of Commons and Senate in 1913. It was in that context, Harkin believed, that the economic value of Canada’s national parks was established and would come to later justify his many large expenditures for park development.

Humanitarian value of parks
In addition to Harkin's philosophy on the economic value of parks, Harkin also saw parks as being a way for Canadians to imbue the beauty of Canadian scenery in an accessible manner, be it by car or train to reach park grounds. But, as his annual reports as Commissioner show, he also felt there was a higher purpose to exposing more individuals to Canada’s scenic beauty beyond mere aesthetics. In Harkin’s earlier years as Parks Commissioner, he expressed on many occasions that parks allowed for the fostering of what he coins the “play spirit”, which is the rejuvenation of the human spirit from the daily stresses of life through outdoor recreation. This need not be physical recreational activity; however, breathing in fresh air and being within close proximity of nature is an important part of this rejuvenation process. This aspect of Harkin's philosophy in viewing parks as national recreational grounds for therapeutic and rejuvenating effects was in part due to the influence of American wilderness preservationists, John Muir and Henry David Thoreau, both of whom Harkin has quoted in his departmental reports.

With the onset of the First World War, Harkin’s rejuvenation theory took on a more relevant form. In those years, Harkin wrote that parks were a medium through which Canadians could be in touch with their patriotic feelings, and that parks promoted the “virile and efficient manhood so noticeable in Canadian military training camps."

Also, in post-war years, Harkin’s philosophy again shifted slightly to adapt to the context in which he felt national parks were most needed. For many at the time, life consisted of long hours of laborious work in factories and living in big cities, which according to Harkin brought out the animal in man and deteriorated both the body and mind of the modern Canadian subject. But a feasible way to counteract these oppressive effects, Harkin wrote, was through the almost mystical rejuvenation that national park lands offered on a physical, mental, and even moral level. Despite appearing so though, Harkin’s philosophy was not a critique of industrial life and urbanism. Rather, it was his belief that national parks were a way for civilization and economic growth in Canada to continue “with the worker escaping periodically to nature to be recharged” but with every intention of returning as a productive member of society.

Feedback from
Hey Lauren, looks good! I made some minor revisions regarding word choice and grammar. I also wanted to link you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Editorializing -- I made a note in an above paragraph that we may be expressing a slight POV with the phrasing.

What are your thoughts about adding a few sentences about his influences into the humanitarian value of parks? The Janet Foster book cited Muir and Thoreau as a major influence in the beginning of Harkin's commissioner role. Maybe something along the lines of this: "This was due to Harkin's influence by American wilderness preservationists, John Muir and Henry David Thoreau. Harkin often quoted Muir in his departmental reports(Foster, 80). Some critics viewed Harkin's stance on wilderness preservation as both a personal commitment and professional preoccupation (Foster). This influence was embedded into his belief that national parks were reservations of wilderness for people to escape to become in touch with their "play spirit" (Foster, 81)." I placed this in your draft article so you could see where it might fit in your article. "In 1914, Harkin's view shifted to a wildlife conservationist approach. These were shaped by Maxwell Graham (Head of the Parks Branch's animal division), Ernest Thompson Seton (a naturalist and author), and William Hornaday. Hornaday inspired Harkin's call for creating game sanctuaries as a distinct type of national park."(This was in the Hart biography... can't remember exactly what page -- maybe not that important to embed) --Allisontheresa (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Allison, thanks for your comments! They were very helpful - especially the part regarding my use of biased phrasing. Also, I like the first addition regarding where Harkin's wilderness preservationist sentiments came from. I think the second addition might be more suited for Tina's part that speaks more specifically about wildlife conservation, and less in general terms as my section "Philosophy" does. We can discuss this more after we've put together a rough version of everyone's parts tomorrow. Thanks again! --Laurenyh (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)