Diversity: Critical Analysis, Interpretation, & Enlightenment > An Artistic Journey

Critical Analysis, Interpretation, and Enlightenment

A Study of Two Articles Relating to the Alaskan Experience

The history of Alaska is often neglected during the survey of U.S. history curriculums provided to most students throughout the United States. At best, the highlights of the acquisition of the territory from the Russians, the great gold-rush of the Klondike and the eventual recognition of statehood are just about the summation of the pertinent references made in historical texts. Therefore, a certain aura of mystery envelopes Alaska and most of the American population is left to their own imaginations to fill the gaps created by this lack of information. To rectify the situation somewhat, scholars have written articles to present data and their interpretations of these facts to enlighten those with interest in the subject. However, the articles presented are also subject to critical analysis and interpretation to answer the vital question of so what. In other words, what makes their contribution important? To illustrate this process, two articles, Unmasking the Dead Hero by Stephen Haycox and The Wilderness and Alaska by Morgan Sherwood, will be examined and compared.

The first article, Unmasking the Dead Hero, has a thesis stating that history is highly malleable which is not certain or absolute. Interpretation of the facts is the key to unlocking the meaning of past human actions that teach us about life and reality. In addition, the careful study of historical realities may destroy myths thought of as fact. To support his thesis, Haycox draws upon two prevailing myths of the conquest and victimization of Alaska. He then presents evidence to sustain his interpretations.

A marked episode in the history of Alaska concerns the purchase of the territory from the Russians, generally known as Seward's Folly. The purchase was supposed to be unpopular in the United States and is regarded in the history books as a foolish mistake by William H. Seward, the Secretary of State at the time. However, Haycox points out that not all the facts were taken into account and the fuller nature of the purchase has been grossly misunderstood. He argues that although the Alaska purchase was superficially unpopular for a time, this attitude changed when people had a chance to get better informed about the matter and realized it was a good deal. The Senate voted twice for the purchase. On both the procedural vote of 27-12 and the final formal vote of 37-2, more than the required two-thirds majority approved Alaska's purchase. In addition, the findings of a scholar who investigated the purchase by reading the editorials of forty-eight newspapers of the time are cited. This scholar found that forty-four of them supported the purchase editorially. Obviously, the purchase was not as unpopular as we were led to believe by the previous data available to history students.

Haycox then continues and describes how the myth obscuring the facts of the acquisition or conquest of Alaska serves to feed another myth of the victimization of Alaska. The standard interpretation is that the federal government has often misunderstood and mismanaged Alaska rather than letting Alaskans run their own affairs. He maintains that this myth has a rich history in Alaska where it is a significant aspect of regional identity and serves important political agendas effectively in the present. Whereas, an impressive argument is enumerated to show how Alaska has been aided by the federal government far more than any of the other western states, which provides the evidence that Alaska is not a victim of the federal government at all. By that, the reader must come to the conclusion that history is not absolute. It is dependent on the available data and the interpretation of the individual that is placed upon it.

The second article, The Wilderness and Alaska, is concerned with how the Alaskan wilderness may be a thing of the past. Sherwood states, we are in the wilderness about wilderness (436). He contends that technologies that provide easy access have threatened natural environments. To present his argument and support his thesis Sherwood provides several definitions of wilderness. He then cites how technology is a crucial factor to rendering the term meaningless.

The first definition of wilderness is somewhat vague, probably because it was the author's attempt to point out the very fact that wilderness has become a vague concept over time. However, Sherwood depicts a frontiersman that he borrowed from the work entitled, Coming Into the Country, by John McPhee to illustrate his central theme and give his first definition. This frontiersman characterizes another as more frontiersman-like because he hand-loads his ammunition. Obviously, the reader is told, the hand-loader thinks that how much technology employed in the environment is the issue and correctly so. The second definition deals with how much solitude is experienced in an area. Sherwood quotes Frederick Jackson Turner's criterion, which states that the man-land ratio determines whether an area is still a frontier region or not. As of 1980, Alaska as a whole still qualified. Yet, Sherwood argues that the method is arbitrary and fails to account for the distribution of population. Next, Sherwood quotes the Wilderness Act of 1964 to procure his third definition of wilderness, which refers to the biological integrity of an area and the absence of man and his works. Lastly, a final characteristic of wilderness is considered. Wilderness is measured by the presence or lack of wildlife. Sherwood states, the abundance and variety of wild creatures in a natural environment defines the wilderness condition (442).

To each definition noted, Sherwood assigns a particular failure to define wilderness in Alaska due to the present technology available. First, the hand-loader has a gun. Therefore, industrial technology helps the man appreciate his wilderness. In addition, Sherwood points out that the man was carried there in airplanes and boats with outboard motors. Voices carried by the radio waves further reduce the isolation from urban environments. He also points out that isolation is another failed definition of wilderness because of the accessibility to previous isolated areas such as the slopes of Mt. McKinley. People are viewed, from the air, climbing the mountain all day long. Next, Sherwood argues that the biological integrity of remote areas is threatened by modern technology as radioactive debris from atmospheric testing of nuclear devices is carried by the air currents over the Arctic to settle and be absorbed in the plant and animal life. Lastly, even the apparent abundance of wildlife in Alaska is deceiving and is due to the rise of conservation efforts. Technology has invaded here too. Animals are routinely shot with tranquilizers, tagged, and equipped with radio transmitters. Sherwood then concludes that existing definitions of wilderness do not work because disruptive modern technologies are not taken into account.

In comparison of the two articles, it is apparent that both explore Alaska's history to some extent and relate tidbits of the Alaskan experience to the reader. Additionally, each article provides convincing evidence of collected data in support of their main objective. Both articles also present interpretations of the facts introduced in support of their respective themes that influence the reader to accept the author's view as the only correct conclusion. We are then brought to the question of so what, and this is where the two differentiate.

The article by Haycox is primarily focused on the student of history. His plan is to set the facts straight and fill the void left by the gaps in traditional historical texts of early education. This goal is accomplished admirably. In addition, the article teaches the reader to be aware of the danger of accepting information as is. We must analyze and assess the data received to understand better and acquire a more holistic approach to knowledge. The in-depth studies of the conquest and victimization myths clearly support this perspective and enlighten the reader to the value of critical thinking skills.

In contrast, Sherwood's article target audience is aimed at the general population. His goal is to bring attention to the disappearing wilderness of Alaska. Even in the most remote areas, signs of man are in evidence that would not be possible without the vast technology used today. Yet, there is room for argument especially in the realm of the definition of wilderness. Should the amount of technology found in a designated area define whether it is wilderness or not? In particular, should not technology have a direct impact on the taming of the environment before it is considered threatening or altering of the designation of wilderness? However, Sherwood has a commendable point that is worth noting. It is not too late to alleviate the damages to any natural environment that man's technology causes. This issue is definitely one that needs to be addressed and considered by all.

Therefore, it has been shown that both articles provide an important contribution of information concerning their respective themes. But, Haycox presents his evidence in a way that is not likely to be disputed. The evidence is sound and the interpretation makes sense. Whereas, Sherwood's argument is not quite so concrete. Perhaps, the reason is because he asks for the reader agree with his concept of wilderness. Whenever someone is asked to give, there is bound to be debate. Nevertheless, it is the careful contemplation and reflection of this information that gives the reader better understanding and where true knowledge is attained, thereby, answering the question of so what.

Evidence Rationale Statement
Critical Analysis, Interpretation, and Enlightenment:
A Study of Two Articles Relating to the Alaskan Experience

This formal paper submitted as evidence clearly demonstrates knowledge of Alaska history. The paper was originally written for the required Alaska history course for UAA. Analysis of the two authors' works also applies knowledge of Alaskan history and current issues affecting Alaska today.

Evidence meets standard: Diversity 3.3

© 2000 by Barbara L. Wilt (Schoolmarm). All written material is protected by United States copyright laws and is not to be reproduced by any means without documented reference & credit provided to the author. The only exclusion applies to Lesson Plans & Classroom materials which are freely available for use by all without restrictions.