Charles Carretti

Dr. Losi
Expository Writing (CMP-120)
23 November 2015
The Non-Differing Views of Nature Writers
The one common theme present in all environmentalists writings, whether they be a Native
American leader, an author, or an activist, is their praise of nature and their desire for its preservation.
Though those ideas are slightly different, they meld smoothly in the works of many nature writers. One of
these to be discussed, Chief Seattle, the namesake of where he lived his life, was a Duwamish leader who
converted to Christianity and became an advocate for peace. He wrote (or didnt write, according to some
historians) a letter to President Pierce expressing discontent for the white mans actions towards nature
and the red mans love for nature as well as their inability to understand said actions. Another writer,
who can indeed be attributed as a writer, was Aldo Leopold. He was an author and scientist who wrote a
book titled A Sand County Almanac, where he explores his ideas of ethics on land. One passage,
Thinking Like a Mountain, personifies multiple creatures of nature and clarifies the invisible forces that
puppet them. Lastly, the Declaration of Interdependence was not written by Thomas Jeffersons son, but
by David Suzuki, a Canadian environmental activist. Almost formatted like a poem, the declaration states
our old mistakes and new responsibility to preserve nature. No matter how you write it, the quintessential
message of environmentalism is clear: dont let our humanistic inclinations kill the Earth. In fewer words:
dont kill the Earth.
Before contrasting each authors main points, it would make sense to introduce them first.
Retelling their major ideas is simpler if you focus more on how they are written. Chief Seattles letter
revolves around the despicable destruction of natures soft, peaceful and rural origins in favor of a more
edgy, loud, and urban future for land. From his point of view, the white man thinks its the natural
development of the Earth, but the red man foresees its disastrous consequences. In a good use of irony, he
describes his people as savages for not being able to understand the white mans obvious wrongdoings.
Most of all, he all-around prefers the former (soft, peaceful, and rural). Seattle has a personal love and

content for nature. Moving forward, Leopolds writings are more focused on fauna, with an emphasis on
us meddling with the natural order, an order that shouldnt be meddled with. Being an author, he uses a
couple of short stories containing his own experiences to sauce up his message, as well as a great
metaphor stating how a mountain, unmoving and ignorant to the powerful hand of the human, is the only
thing that can hear the true, deeper meaning in the cry of a wolf. The cry of the wolf here meaning the
start of the river that branches out to every living thing, giving everything its own purpose. Analyzing the
passage says that our world has evolved for some odd billions of years, and its foolish to become selfaware of our ability to tarnish that evolution and go ahead and do it just because we can. Leopold has a
slight fear and concern of our intervening with nature. The last writing, by Suzuki, lays out very clearly in
an almost listed format our knowledge, our beliefs, and our resolution to our bruising and healing of
nature. Interdependence in the title means dependence between things, or the idea that our human race is
capable of living in harmony with nature without destroying it. No personal love or personal fear is
shown. It is merely a pledge, however it is a pledge that has more to it than the previous writings. Suzuki
puts forward an actual call to action for the preservation of nature.
Seattle, Leopold, and Suzuki all say fundamentally the same thing about their care for nature, just
in their own style. Putting it that way would make it seem like the topic of environmentalism is firmly
broad and inelastic, unable to be stretched out. Though that may be true for its main message (dont kill
the Earth), the common themes in the nature writers works shows that we are all together in our
admiration for nature, whether if its for the straight cool breeze in peaceful silence, the game living
without interruption, or the still trees of the forests. All of the three writers also express their thoughts to
some or ample extent on the future of our environment. Their worries and worships mirror one another
and show progressiveness. For example, Leopolds message about interfering with the order of the fauna
can be inferred as a stepping stone to Suzukis message of connecting with fauna as well as flora instead
of fragmenting it. Truly, the only differences between the three writings are the style and format in which
they are written, and their common points are only amplified when looked at together.

A letter to the President, a couple of short stories, and a written declaration all share the same
general ideas of love for nature and provocations of our massacring of nature, with some presented lightly
than others. A major element that was hidden up until this point is the dates of which the writings were
published. The span of time in which they were concepted, from two decades ago (Suzuki), to six and a
half decades ago (Leopold), to a century and a half ago (Seattle), really shows how not much has
changed. The Declaration of Interdependence mostly recaps thoughts that have already been presented
in Seattles letter and Leopolds passage. Not much has changed besides our new willingness to
reverse our past detriments. Its simply the new paradigm in our ever-evolving world culture.
Environmentalism has always existed, it just took for the term to be coined for us to finally realize our
long-time responsibility to protect said environment. If the history of our active humanity went from
loving nature to loving and caring about nature, then hopefully next century it will turn into loving, caring
about, and saving nature. Then nature writers can go right back to expressing just their love.