National Parks: Nature’S Gift
Nature’s GiftA humid breeze flows through my hair as I take a stroll in the summer heat. Time flies by and autumn approaches. The crunch of the colorful leaves motivates me to gaze upon the bright red, yellow, and orange scenery. When winter comes around, the snowflakes and ice are wonderfully majestic. As I walk close with friends to keep warm, or stay home cozied in blankets while drinking tea, watching the snowfall entertains me. Spring is a wonderful experience. Expectedly, the rain pours and is beautiful. Rain produces life on the earth; which we all appreciate the bright colors of plants. Flowers start to arise from the earth, and beauty seems to simply appear. When the seasons change, it is apparent that nature serves a purpose of providing tranquility and beauty.
Terry Tempest Williams believes the youth of America should be more invested in the outcome of national parks: the lack of shared warrants, backing, and their inability to appeal to ethos ultimately is unsuccessful. Nonetheless, her ability to use pathos and logos keeps the audience engaged. In the article, Williams speaks of herself and her background with national parks. She paints a vivid image of a group of 12 foreigners gathered together at sunset in McLean, Virginia. The strangers of the land met in an American national park where the breathtaking views mesmerized all the visitors. Couples from all around the world, such as Rwanda, Pakistan, India, and Saudi Arabia, met a couple from Washington D. C. who regularly frequents the infamous spot. To support her claim, the couple states, “D. C. would be intolerable in the summer without Great Falls. It is our refuge. ” Through her article, it becomes apparent that she is speaking to a strong-minded, liberal youth. Carinne Rolfs, an expert on this article, stated that the target audience is “liberal and affluent millennials to fight for the preservation of America’s national parks”. The article is intended to persuade young adults to be more passionate about keeping national parks relevant in society. By creating a discussion about the subject, Williams intends to get people motivated to make a change. She also wants to keep the youth invested in the government through activism and physically making a difference in the United States.
The article informs the audience to strive to keep parks relevant, because if in the future if we lose national parks, we will lose tranquility and beauty in the world. Due to her lack of warrants, the article is not a success in persuading the audience of her opinion. Opinion needs to be supported by statistics and research, but instead the article is not supported by facts or any counter-arguments. Williams does provide her own opinions and experiences, which is unsuccessful for the use of logos as it does not persuade the audience by using logical arguments and supporting evidence. As an author being published in the LA Times, it could be assumed that she is going to follow her claims with evidence that either the national parks will or will not survive. However, Williams does not answer the most important question she asks, the question that her whole article is based on. She shares that people are taking advantage of natural resources and nature itself. She fails to support how this will affect the future negatively, apart from her claim that we must leave a “legacy of care”. A reason for her claim is that the future will not understand the power of natural beauty and how it is vital for survival. This was a claim she made but did not support it with any facts or evidence.
Despite her lack of logos, she follows up with a great emotional connection with her audience. Williams sparks a sense of homeyness for the audience in the article by saying that it is our home. She mentions the future and how upcoming generations won’t be able to appreciate national parks and how catastrophic the outcome of that will be. She makes the youth of America sympathize with the cause by using the future as a tool to get the audience engaged and invested. Williams emphasizes the importance to make an impactful change. She gives the impression that all humans are worthy of appreciating the earth by saying, “privilege is what we are granted as homo sapiens, privilege to think, to choose, to imagine, and consider what our responsibility is to the generations who will survive us. ” In the article, the use of imagery is vital. Williams paints a picture for the audience and makes them feel as though she wrote it for the individual reading. She states that national parks must be preserved and cherished for our own future and the future of our future family. Williams does a great job of expressing the issue she is passionate about and thus convincing the audience that there is indeed an issue to discuss. She does this by sharing her opinions of the importance of national parks and the effects that they have on people.
However, she does not support her claims with any credible sources. Instead she focuses mainly on her own experiences which adds credibility to the author’s ethos. In her own experience, she lived in Utah and had a sense of dominion of national parks such as Zion, Bryce, Capital Reef, Arches, and Canyonlands as “an extension of {her} own backyard. ”
There was a community of close to a million people who would visit these parks as well. Her whole life was surrounded by nature, or “breathing space” as she refers to it in her article. Through her extensive time spent in nature, Williams recognized that “we are not the only species who lives and dreams on this planet”. This sense of ownership gave her a responsibility to keep the tradition of nature alive. Her “backyard” was her safe haven throughout her life, and she is preserving this idea not only herself but for future generations.
With her experience, Williams is well involved in the topic of nature. Being immersed in the national parks from a young age gives her a taste of dominion that few have. Her warrants are her memories and knowledge that humans are a part of nature, instead of it being a part of humanity. As she states in the article, national parks are “breathing spaces in a society increasingly holding its breath. ” Due to her familiarity with the cause, she recognizes that society doesn’t appreciate nature as much as it should, and targets millennials to change this. In the article, despite her extensive familiarity with nature, there are no outside sources or proof of the information she provides being accurate. All the information is her opinion and never was backed up or argued.
Williams wrote this peace in LA, where the people are infamous for being conscious of nature and the eco-footprint humanity creates. Since the youthful target audience is primarily on the west coast, the author has a great use of Kairos, she does a great job of addressing important issues in today’s society. Williams targets the media sharing what she sees in the newspapers headlines contrasting what she wants to see politically. Instead of reading of the government endorsing the selling of federal lands (national parks), she’d rather read about a respect for the land which we all benefit from.
In conclusion, the ethos of the article “Will Our National Parks Survive the Next 100 Years? ” makes the piece unsuccessful in the argument to make young adults more invested in the outcome of national parks. The author, however, has a great sense of pathos, logos, and kairos. With her use of colorful vocabulary and passion for the topic, her words demand to be read. Williams is clearly passionate as she mentions her history with national parks and lists reasons why people should be more interactive with nature. She states the importance that being one with nature brings. Supporting her claims with her own history and experience in “breathing spaces”.
Despite all her experience, the article would improve immensely and become more credible with the use of other sources backing her claims. Her claim is that humans need to take charge and be more responsive to nature. Taking care of the spaces that have been there for humanity from the beginning of time, is vital for the sanity that we have, along with securing the sanity of future generations. She made a convincing argument to save the little bits of nature that are left in America by appealing to the emotions of the audience.
Nonetheless, without the support of facts to prove her point, William’s claims are not enough to make this article successful. The seasons change and we depend on the transition of weather to create harmony with the universe. As humans, it must not be taken for granted and it should be appreciated and cared after while the parks are still available. We must use science, and not just emotions to do so.
