Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Haley Reading Group: Jourdan Imani Keith’s “At Risk” and “Desegregating Wilderness”

Cynthia A. Campbell and Howard Rambsy II

[Best American Science and Nature Writing]

Jourdan Imani Keith’s article “At Risk” focuses the term “at risk” as it applies to humans, endangered species (chinook salmon), and the ecosystem. Keith’s article “Desegregating Wilderness” highlights the contrast of the Civil Rights Act and the Wilderness Act.

In “At Risk,” Keith highlights the intersectional identity of being “at risk” as it pertains to race, gender, endangered species and physical location. The article speaks to the “at risk” label—protection or limitation/judgment. Keith notes that “Protecting an endangered species means changing the practices in an entire ecosystem to safeguard their survival” (150). This point indicates the dangers of ignoring the destruction of the ecosystem whether through climate change or ineffective safety precautions.

In “Desegregating Wilderness,” Keith illustrates the types of inequities associated with access to wilderness areas. The article addresses the problematic issues of the Wilderness Act. At one point, Keith notes that “people accessing recreation in the wilderness are still predominately white, and de facto segregation exists instead of a legal one” (152). This point indicates that divisiveness is associated with the lack of access.

After reading both articles, which one did you find most useful? Why?

69 comments:

Rodrick Robins said...

I found "At Risk" most useful, because intersectional identities are often over looked, and the already marginalized become further marginalized. An example of this phenomena is the plight of the black female, who's problems have been pushed away by both Black Rights activists and Feminist activists, both claiming that the plight of the black female is an issue of the other.

Jazsmine Towner said...

I found "At Risk" most useful because the article highlights the misconception of the phrase "at risk." To further explain the narrator of the story shares a story about a woman who sterotypes "at risk" children as just Black,Latino, and urban, she does not understand that "All youths are at risk- the risk are just different." This is more useful to me because this article addresses the misconception of at risk teenagers and how they are viewed in society while also comparing human beings to endangered specials in the world. The article gives insight on using the phrase "at risk" and how it can be used to describe both humans and animals.

Jazsmine Towner

Aliyah Johnson said...

T think that "At risk" was most useful because I never realized how unfair it is to label urban children at risk but not look at them as having the same types of endangerment and threats as animals that are at risk in the wild. "at risk" is looked at as a label and people don't look deeper into the term, and thus urban and minority children are endangered because of this. Aliyah J.

Kyla Tinsley said...

I found that "At Risk" was the most useful out of the two articles as it made me realize how the term "at risk" could be negative. One can use the term to protect animals that may go instinct, but they can also use it to degrade and judge children and teens who don't live a stable lifestyle.

Kyla T.

Anonymous said...

I think that "At Risk" was most useful. I say this because I like how it addresses the different perspectives that can come along with people using the term "at risk". It is interesting to think about that what may be considered at risk to one person is not to the next person. I like how Keith mentioned that the connotation of at risk when used to label "urban" youth is a limitation but when referring to salmon it is a protection. This point shows readers how easily people/animals can be looked over or helped based solely on a label.

Sydnee T.

Victoria Wright said...

After reading both articles, I found "At Risk" more useful because it interested me in how Keith used the terms "at-risk" in the context of people. This article shows how people use just what they see on the outside as limitations to whom a person or group of people really are. Just because an animal or person is "at-risk" doesn't necessarily mean that they cannot strive for excellence. It doesn't mean that that species cannot be helped.

Lucas Reincke said...

After reading both articles, I found "At Risk" more useful in understanding this issue because of how the narrative is constructed. The reader sees the perspective of the author who is volunteering with "at-risk" children, and the reader can see the harmful affects of labels in how it now stereotypes these children. The symbolism between the at-risk and the endangered species is interesting as well. I did like " Desegregating Wilderness" because of its focus on the historical expository of the Civil Rights Movement and other events in American history that preceded or was a result of. However, the first article was an issue that I have heard before, but a different perspective that I had not heard before. That is why I would say "At Risk" is more helpful when understanding this social issue.

Asher said...

I think after reading both articles, "At Risk" was the one that stood out to me. I think it showcased good points and very relevant points, about the duality of using the term to mean two different things. I've never really noticed that "at risk" can mean two different things, because I'm so used to hearing and seeing it used as something negative or dangerous, when it pertains to "urban" youth. Labels are something that run our world, in ever capacity. Sometimes, labels are helpful to categorize, but a lot of the times, they can be harmful.

-Asher Denkyirah

Nia Piggott said...

After reading both of the articles; I found that "At Risk" caught my attention and was the most useful. I say this because of the author's ability to contrast the meaning of at risk in the terms of animals and humans. She showed how "at risks" was the way to protect the animals, while "at risk" for humans was used to describe those causing trouble. This made me as the reader want to change the term in reference to human into a more positive connotation. "At Risk" for humans should include protection and help for people as well.

Shervonti N. said...

I found "At Risk" to be more useful because at this point in time for me, it is more relatable. It was interesting (and almost a little irritating) to learn the difference of the words "at risk" when applied to different subjects. When applied to youth (at risk youth), the words have such a negative connotation and it takes a special person to want to help and it is easy for people to turn their backs at times. While reading though the essay, when "at risk" was used to describe the salmon, it was seen as more of an intricate and maybe even sad thing. It's not a subject to cower away from, in my opinion.

So, overall this article was more useful for me because it aided in bringing my awareness to something that I have not exactly thought about but is evidently prominent.

Jordan Robinson said...

The article I found the most useful is the article Jourdan Keith wrote on "Desegregating Wilderness", because the article had points that I can find relation to in today's society. He depicted how the people in that age thought the best way to keep national parks safe and clean was to restrict from people of color; "wilderness must be 'segregated and preserved,'" (152). It is useful today to understand the meaning of de facto laws utilized to separate any group of people is something that is hurting us as a country rather than helping.

Deborrah Blackburn said...

I found the "At Risk" article to be more useful. This is because the author gave a better comparison as to how the same term can be seen differently between different groups. When "at risk" was used to describe the chinook salmon, it meant that they were endangered and needed protection for the sake of their species and other species' survival. However, when describing people, the term "at risk" has a more negative tone. As stated in the article, "at risk" in this since is treated as a "limitation, a judgment, and an assumption." It's interesting how the same term can be interpreted differently in this situation.
Deborrah B.

Anonymous said...

Although both articles were interesting had interesting points, the most useful one to me was the "At Risk". The quote "The "at-risk label is different for youth than it is for salmon. "At-risk" isn't a protection but a limitation, a judgment, an assumption" (Keith 150), really go me thinking. I had never compared the name association difference between youth and animals. It was very interesting to me to see this point of view. I think this knowledge is useful to me because now I too will see this topic through a different lens and I can spread this idea to others.

Naomi A Olsson

JaLeah M . said...

I thought the "At Risk" article was more useful. It was intriguing to read how the black, latino and urban children's form of being at risk was compared to an "at risk" endangered species. While reading I couldn't help but to somewhat go off a tangent and think about black men in today's society also being "at risk". With the various incidents of police brutality that has occurred in recent times black men have gained that label. I think these situations and with all types of racism can be related to Keith's statement, "Protecting an endangered species means changing the practices in an entire ecosystem" meaning to bring justice or defy racism there has to be worldwide changes.

Erica K. said...

The chapter, "At Risk" was more useful to me because it shows that the term could be more than a negative description. It could be a protection phrase from animals to inform people of the possible danger.

Alexandra J said...

"At Risk" was most useful in my opinion because of the relatedness. When the author stated that risk varies by context felt like that truly applied to multiple issues. This new "definition" of risk also made me reflect on certain risks I see on a day to day basis that I once overlooked. Also I enjoyed the comparison of human and animals because that made the meaning more clear cut and stand out even more as a reader.

Brianna R. said...

Although I felt that both articles made a phenomenal connection between the plight of preserving nature and the difficulties of being a marginalized or minority population in society today, I related more with "At Risk". I say this because "At risk" talked specifically about the categories which I fall into, African American and youth. The last two paragraphs on page 150 really resonated with me, and after reading it I realized the power in the words that were written. "All youth are at risk-the risks are just different", and this could not be any more true. People always associate "risk" or danger with the upbringings of minority groups,trying to depict it as an ugly and negative thing, but we are not the only ones who face risk or danger or negativity, that is something unbound by race, weather it is realized or not.

Jasmine Williams said...

I think that "At Risk" is more useful. The ideas and concepts in "At Risk" are more applicable to out actual lives. In my own experience, I've heard the term "at risk" to refer to people that are underprivileged or lack the necessary guidance/education/motivation to be successful in life. This term definitely has a negative connotation in society and its meaning even varies between individuals.

Naomi Olsson said...

Although I found both articles to be interesting, "At Risk" really got me thinking. There are many ways to look at a situation, and this article really opened my eyes on the use of at risk in today's world. "The “at-risk” label is different for youth than it is for salmon. “At-risk” isn’t a protection but a limitation, a judgment, an assumption. Even when the threats to their survival are the same as to an endangered species — an unstable habitat, lack of nutrition, and a damaged social and natural ecosystem — the label leaves them at a deficit, offers no promise for protection."( Keith). This quote more than anything really stood out to me. In my opinion this quote is useful because it can be used to explain the situation that today's youth is experiencing. moreover, it highlights that fact that we do more to protect animals that are at risk than our youth which one day will become our future.

Naomi Olsson

Jamesha M, said...

I found Keith's "At Risk" article the most useful. "Desegregating Wilderness" feels like it just states facts throughout the article, some we are even familiar with. "At Risk" gives us more insight. "At Risk" has more details and personal experience expressed in the article and because of this I find it easier to relate to.

J'kolbe Kelly said...

I Found the Article at risk to be the most useful of the two. I believe it really puts into perspective how little people are willing to do for their fellow man. Contrasting at risk animals to at risk humans one is definitely viewed more favorably than the other.

kenneth Tolliver said...

"At Risk" highlighted the differences between the term when using it to describe wildlife and humans to a degree that I connected with more than "Desegregating Wilderness". "At Risk" connected to me on a more personal level since I am someone of color and have been around at risk youths. The term does give a more negative connotation to humans than it does to wildlife. However, I believe that should not be the case. Just like how wildlife that are at risk have their habitats cared for and their situations adjusted to better their life, The same should be done for at risk youths.

Jaleelah Muhammad said...

I agree with the "At Risk" piece the most. As a young, black female, I am always aware that I am at risk because of my race and my gender in areas like safety and employment. I think many members of the young minority communities can account to the fact that white people in various professions have referred to them as "at risk" individuals, even if they are respectable citizens that volunteer, have a job, or are going to school. The "at-risk" phenomenon is definitely more relatable than the "desegregating wilderness" one.

Sierra E said...

Much like my peers, I found "At Risk" to be a more beneficial article. My sentiments can be summarized in one quote from the text, '"At Risk" isn't a protection but a limitation, a judgment, an assumption. Even when their threats are the same as to an endangered species-- an unstable habitat, lack of nutrition, and a damaged social and natural ecosystem-- the label leaves them at a deficit, offers no promise for protection.'

To me, this speaks volumes about the way we value human lives, and the way we assign characteristics to people without also assigning compassion toward their situations.

Great text.

Sierra Taylor said...

"At Risk" to me is more useful than "Desegregating Wilderness." The fact that "at risk" when applied to people versus species is way different is fascinating. The text says,"The "at risk" label is different for youth than it is for salmon. "At-risk" isn't a protection but a limitation, a judgment, an assumption." There shouldn't be a difference in definition whether the term is applied to humans or a certain species. Like the "at-risk" salmon who needs protection, the teenagers in the youth crew deserve the same treatment. This article provoked me - but in a good way.
Sierra Taylor

Trion T. said...

The article "At Risk" proved more useful to me because I would never have thought to apply such a term to people. Now that this term has been used to describe the lives of people, it adds another level of understanding, for me, to the changes that need to be made in today's society. When using "at risk" for a species of animal, it follows that something needs to be done differently to preserve that species.
Following this logic, you would think that applying this term to people should, more or less, mean the same thing. If a group of people are considered "at risk" then changes should be implicated to ensure their survival and success. However the term is merely degraded to something negative in most cases.

Jasmin Smoot said...

Seeing the title "At Risks" brought so many ideas to my mind. Initially, I thought it was about someone who was going to lose their life, but it was not. To my surprise the passage made the most interesting comparison; one between urban and minority children and endangered animals. Keith stated that although they wore the same "at risk" label, they were treated completely different. The animals had people to protect them, while the volunteers were viewed as a danger to others. The second article made me wonder, "Does segregation still exist?" On page 152, Keith points out the fact that it is not common for people in the lower class to visit places like national forest preserves. It makes you wonder why, why the issue even exists?

Jade Huerta said...

"Desegregating Wilderness" is the article I found most useful because it really pertains to major issues going on in the United States. The comparison between the Wilderness Act and the Civil Rights Act really grasps onto you; one was made to protect, the other for equality, yet in the end there is still separation due to power the white man has.

The last two lines caught my attention the most, "' ...Freedom would be secure only if each generation fought to renew and enlarge its meaning.' I think the same is true for wilderness." Those lines are so powerful and exposes what is the world we live in, whether people choose to see or not.

Jade H.

Mikaela S said...

I found "At Risk" to be more useful. The very last line states that "All youth are at risk - the risks are just different" (Keith pg. 150). When I thought about this line, it put a lot of things into perspective. Whether it is a person or a wildlife habituate, all individuals can be "at risk" for something. Some youth may be at risk for being exposed to drugs and violence at a young age, while others may be at risk for developing a genetic linked disorder. An animal that is apart of wildlife may be at risk for being eaten or being endangered because of environmental factors. Overall, "At Risk" allowed me to open my eyes and see the more broad spectrum of the issue.

Nia Oke-Famakinde said...

I found the article "At Risk" to be more helpful. I found this more helpful because it gave a clear view into how the narrator felt as if her life was in danger due to being Black. I also found the article more helpful because of the comparison between at-risk species and at-risk youth. The comparison shows how the term "at-risk" is not taken seriously when given to the youth because people do not try to help the youth or try to understand them.
Nia O.

Xavier J. said...

I like the concepts portrayed in both of the articles but I found "At Risk" to be most influential to me. I took a liking to the way the term 'at risk' evolved in such a short passage. Furthermore, I found the central or main idea very interesting. Initially I thought the story was going to be about the 7-hour journey to pick up the teenagers from their camping grounds, but towards the end I realized a much deeper idea of society`s mental construct towards specific groups of youth was being conveyed.

Xavier J.

Tameah F said...

I found the "At-Risk" article more useful because it shows the automatic prejudice against minority, urban youth, yet when the term is used for endangered species, people are more sympathetic. I thought this article was very powerful, even though it was short. It opened my eyes to how a word associated with two different things can have two different meanings in most people's eyes.

Jeremiah T said...

I found "At Risk" the most useful because it highlights the issues for young minorities that are seen as "at-risk" but don't get any help. The part that spoke to me the most is when Keith said, "Even when the threats to their survival are the same as to an endangered species- an unstable habitat, lack of nutrition, and a damaged social and natural ecosystem- the label leaves them at a deficit, offers no promise for protection."
Jeremiah T.

Anitra B. said...

After reading both articles, I found "At Risk" to be the most useful, as I found this one to be more relatable than the other. I thought that it was interesting and liked how the author used a comparison to help the reader understand how the phrase "at risk" can be used and have different connotation in different situations. I've never thought how the term can be interpreted differently and thought that the author showcased it in an interesting way.

Ashia Kent said...

After reading, "At Risk" was the most useful because it was the most relatable. Minorities commonly get the "look over the shoulder" from those outside of their race. So when the narrator made the comment that people at the gatherings she attends see her volunteers as "at risk teens" even without the details and just by her stating their race says a lot of how people think of people that age, and that race. The article was very upfront and truthful and that's what I found the most useful of it.

Tiera Williams said...

I found "At Risk" more interesting because of the points it makes about the associations of being at risk. I like how they break down the dynamics of what it can mean to be at risk versus what society believes is considered to be acceptable a risk. I think it's interesting how if we associate at risk with an animal we do what we can to improve its living conditions, just based off of it being an animal. However, when we tend to talk about real world problems and apply at risk to the equation .
- Tiera Williams

Bman L said...

I find "Desegregating Wilderness" most useful because it successfully shows similarities between the Civil Rights Act and the Wilderness Act. Just because the Civil Rights Act (1964) was signed does not mean that everyone is willing to accept. If black people were to quit fighting for what was right, then the treatment would have just been the same for them. This is the problem with the Wilderness Act. The Act was made, but no further actions were taken to reinforce the Act, causing people not to care as much.

Brandon N

Roland Wooters said...

The article "At Risk" was far more useful to me since it created a better and more clear intertrepation on how our environment is at risk.It is always amazing when I learn something I did not even think to put together. For example, I never knew that back in the day the "majority" thought that the best way to preserve national parks where to keep black people, and other minority groups, out of them. It really opens your eyes to the progression that the United States of America has experienced, even though we have a long way to go.

Andrea R. said...

I found the article "At Risk" to be more useful, because despite hearing the phrase tons of times, it just hit me just how different the connotation is when people use it when referring to people as opposed to animals. Especially when the author mentions them by race, yet the "woman at the party" only hears youth that are supposedly at risk. It kind of reminds me of the term "inner city", which is also code for minorities to some.

Kytela Medearis said...

I too found " At Risk" to be the most useful. Especially at the point we are at now in the world I feel like African Americans are ' At risk'. I think it is important that we take his advice. The ecosystem that we are in needs to better protect minority groups. If we continue to ignore the treatment towards minority groups, the groups are going to start dwindling to the point they seem practically nonexistent.

Tiera Williams said...

I found the "At Risk" article to be more interesting. I say this because of the comparison of term usages across two separate topics. I think it's interesting how the term "at risk" can be interpreted differently depending on which group it's being directed towards. The label "at risk" for an endangered species serves as protection, while "at risk" in reference to youth is trouble. And when we specify that to black youth we are sometimes referring to being "at risk" to endangerment. Who would of thought that a ten could be savior in one scenario and a curse in another.

- Tiera Williams

Crystal Rice said...

I found Keith's article "At Risk" to be more useful. I say this because she connects the points of "at risk" races and "at risk" species both meaning the same thing but being interpreted in two different ways. In terms of the chinook salmon are protected, emphasizes on protected, under the endangered species act which calls for the change in the way an ecosystem is maintained/managed and what goes on in that habitat to preserve their existence. As for "at risk" human populations, in the beginning she begins by stating that she was at risk because she was "Black. Woman. Alone. Camping," (149). So in terms of humans, it has more of a negative outlook and is a "judgement" on youth. So I found this article very interesting because of the way at risk is seen as a negative thing to humans that gives them no protection or change in anything to help, whereas to animals the table of being at risk or an endangered species grants them some forms of protection.

Crystal R.

cassidy oliver said...

Both articles are useful but the "At Risk" article is more relatable for me. The american hierarchy, which labels individuals at the bottom of the hierarchy with accordance to gender, race and class, is comparable to the list of endangered species. As a black woman, I am in fact one of the most "endangered species". The meaning of endangered and at risk changes when describing youth and animals that we think of as endangered. In the case of the black and brown youth, at risk does not serve as a "protection but a limitation, a judgement, an assumption" (Keith 150). For species at risk is a label that protects them but for others it serves a s a label that has a negative connotation that ultimately hinder them. The general population is not concerned with preserving the environment or changing the infrastructure of at youth risk. The willingness to protect is what marks the difference between at risk youth and endangered species.

Anonymous said...

The point of the "Desegregating Wilderness" is lost on me. I'm more upset about the "nest" being destroyed (p. 151)than much else. The fact that nature is being forced into corners for the sake of people's convenience is irritating. I never run into this idea myself, however, because I live in an a rural area.

"At Risk" had a much stronger point to me. We use "at risk" to encourage heightened care and attention for the sake of other animals, but when we apply that phrase to humans, it is suddenly not the minority that is at risk, but the "white" person. It's an eye-opening comparison to how we pretty much view each other more harshly than we view other completely different species.

-Que'rra

Joey N. said...

The article I found most useful was the "At Risk" article. I found the usefulness of this mainly in the last line of the article. In this day age, risks are indeed every where, however due to media output or possibly factual statistics, it seems certain groups of people tend to be unjustly placed in situations of danger more often.

Natalie Thompson said...

I found the "At Risk" read more useful because it touches on the stereotypes that people have towards other races. The point that really caught my attention is that when a species is endangered they are protected, but people are unaware that our youth should be protected as well. I feel as an African American woman myself, people prejudge before really knowing the real meaning of things. All at risk youth should be protected, just like the salmon are protected.

Sandra Yokley said...

I found “At Risk” to be most helpful of the two articles that we have read so far. Learning about the dual meaning of “at risk” was new information to me and super helpful when attempting to understand the rest of the article; one meaning referring to animals being in danger, and the other referring to humans who are likely to cause trouble. It was something I had never thought about. I find it most helpful because it has given me a piece of information that intrigued me so much, I want to go and explain it to others, which starts conversations about topics that we don’t normally talk about it – which is a healthy thing!

Sandra Yokley

Sydney Oats said...

The article "At Risk" is relevent in today's issue. The media is constantly putting certain groups of people in the negative light. Making things harder to fix and move forward in a positive direction.

-Sydney Oats

gabriel said...

I found the reading "At Risk" most useful, because I had recently watched the Netflix Documentary "The 13th" and both the article and the film talked about how powerful words are. In this article, Orion said that the words "at risk" or "endangered" when used to described animals; people come up in arms to protect and care for them. However, when talking about poc few come to their aid. In the documentary, the director showed examples of allegation made of poc and the public responded calling the suspects criminals. Then with the same allegation, people that were not black, hispanic, etc weren't called criminals but treated a lot better. I just found both the film and article very interesting.

Anonymous said...

I found At Risk most useful because it brings up the theme of always being aware of how others see you and the contrast that it may have with the way you see yourself. I clearly remember SOAR labeling its students 'at risk' at its info meeting my freshman year. I recall asking my mom 'at risk of what.'I looked around the room to notice that we were all black or of color. So, I quickly learned this term was used to categorize blacks/hispanics. According to SOAR, people of color were least likely to graduate and on time. However, the read stated so eloquently that ALL youth are at risk of SOMETHING, the risks are just different. (150)
-SHELBY WASHINGTON

Chris Uka said...

"At Risk" was more useful in my opinion. On one end the label "at risk" is used to protect salmon. Our government does more to protect salmon than minorities. But on the other hand at risk when referring to a black teen means something completely different. Its not a label that protects but instead helps outsiders jump to conclusions about children they never met. This label has been used by people who are scared of going in these "at risk" communities because they believe they'll be at risk of being robbed.

Christopher Ukachukwu said...

"At Risk" is more useful in my opinion. On one hand, at risk is a label that protects salmon from dangerous conditions. Our government cares more about salmon than it does minorities. On the other hand when at risk is being used to describe black teens its not used to help protect us from extinction. Its used as a judgement on the character of a person they have never met. In fact they wouldn't step foot in an "at risk" community because they think they'll be at risk of being robbed.

Belainesh Nigeda said...

I found "At Risk" most useful to me. I thought it was interesting when the author spoke about her acute risk factors: "black. woman. alone" (149). She related her being "at risk" while in the wilderness, but towards the end of the read, she was disagreeable to the term "at-risk" being associated with her youth crew who where also black...and I'm sure some were women too. I feel that I too would be offended if it was assumed that just because I am working with people in the black/latino/urban population, that I was automatically working with "at-risk" people. Just like the Presidential debate tonight, I was very offended how Donald Trump referred to "low-income, urban areas, people with no jobs, etc." as black and latino people. That is an assumption and even if there are a large numbered of "endangered" students that are black or latino in comparison to white people, then like the author states, we have to change the practices in an entire ecosystem to safeguard their survival in order to protect the species (150). To relate that to us, we have to change our mindset to avoid grouping just black/latino people as "at-risk," but rather look at the entire picture and realize that we are all at risk by living in the same world, but the risks are different for some people.

-B. Nigeda

Unknown said...

I found "At risk" to be more useful. I thought it was very interesting that the author compared being an endangered species like salmon, to the "at risk" youth. As a black, female,youth, I agree with her completely that instead of our "at risk" label protecting us as it does salmon, it puts us at a disadvantage. We are looked down upon, passed up, and not taken as seriously as other people in the population. In addition to that, I also like how the author ended it. Saying, "All youth are "at risk- the risks are just different." And some are endangered. I don't necessarily think she means endangered like at risk for death but I think she means endangered like if they continuously get shut down and passed up, that will take a toll. They will lose confidence and the motivation to keep trying. They will just grow tired.

-A. Robinson

YaQkeha Witherspoon said...

I found "At Risk" to be the most useful because it opened my eyes to how the phrase "at risk" could be used to negatively refer to people to mean poverty, and race. When the phrase is used to refer to animals, they are viewed as something to be rescued or saved. But, when it is used to refer to humans it is derogatory almost. As if they are not worth saving or they are less than human. "At risk" should be used as a phrase to refer to something or someone that needs help or saving, and that should be the only way the phrase is used.

Tashawna Nash said...

I thought that "At Risk" was the most useful as well as the most interesting of the two stories. "At Risk" gave a really good example of how youth are classified and ways that just two words make a difference between animals and people. How the words at risk were said to be thought of when referring to children, being a judgement rather than a call for protection is very heart breaking

~Tashawna Nash

Maya Searcy said...

I thought the "at risk" article was intresting because it compared how at risk could be applied to everyone. It made me think how people care for at risk kids as in humans, yet we dont do the same for other at risk populations. It brought to light how we dont take endangeted animals as seriously as we should.

Kelsey W said...

Both of the articles gave me something to think about. I do love the wilderness and feel as though everyone should have the chance to explore it and feel the need to protect it. I feel very strongly about labels though and what it does to the psyche, especially kids. I think it is important that we help kids to overcome their labels and realize they are more.

Andriana C. said...

I found "Desegregating Wilderness" most useful. It refers to land where people live as less valuable, while virgin land and preserved wilderness is thought of as glorious. The implication here is that people make the world dirty, so we have to set aside land where no one can be so that there are nice areas. Comparisons can be drawn here to historical laws that prevents certain neighborhoods from integrating with others, as it would decrease land value if one group existed in the same area as another. For this reason, I found this article more useful.

Xavier Morrison-Wallace said...

I found "At Risk" to be more useful because it highlights the different meanings of the label at risk with some wildlife needing to be preserved for the population to live longer and human minorities and youth needing support to live better. there is also a contrast between the at risk label for humans and wild life. For wild life, at risk means more concern for their well being and more alert. For humans, the at risk label keeps minorities and youth from advancing and lacks in protection.

Cody Osborne said...

In my opinion "At Risk" was the most useful because it broke down the term "At Risk" and placed it into multiple different lights, whether that is in biology or in sociology. We learn a little about the history, not as much as we did in "Desegregating Wilderness" when we were connected to the Civil Rights Act of the 1960's. In "At Risk" we also see how certain species are protected due to the ecosystem that they belong to. Which, in my opinion, can be seen in our society.

Laree Keys said...

I personally found "Desegregating Wilderness" to be very effective in showing the constant need and push for change in minorities around America. "Freedom would be secure only if each generation fought to renew and enlarge its meaning." This statement caught my attention because I believe it is and has always been the responsibility of any minority that has been suppressed or discriminated against to take charge and enhance their own personal rights. I believe that the suggestion of moving "wild places" closer to home shows that nothing can inhibit "us" as a people from getting and experiencing what we would like to experience.

Isaiah Blackburn said...

Jourdan Imani Keith's "At Risk" article was easier to resonate with because the analogy the importance of passing on learned information to the next generation. In Keith's "Desegregating Wilderness," she discusses an inequity in people interested in learning about nature because most urban areas are isolated from it. Since educating the next generation, even if it is just your own children, is something that most of us will end up doing as we get older, "At Risk" was the far easier read.

Curtis Tallie said...

I like both articles, but i found "At Risk" to be the most useful. I feel that this article is very relatable to what is going on in today's society.

Alicia Sears said...

I found the article "At Risk" to be the most interesting because the way they compared the two connotations of the term at risk was very compelling to me. This article to me pointed out how people literally care about animals more than we care about the lives of humans.

Quincy S said...

I think both articles had very well written points, but the "At Risk" seemed more useful because it highlights the different meanings that phrase brings with different perceptions. When I hear this phrase, I think of it as a description for those who have a higher chance of poor education, mediocre jobs, and substandard healthcare. I also associate this phrase with the idea that these people need help in order remain out of the before-mentioned areas, and that they should be safeguarded. This article reminded me, however, that many who hear the phrase "at risk youth", perceive it as a negative label and do not regard it as an urge to protect and safeguard those seen as "at risk".

Barry F. said...

After reading through both articles, "At Risk" seemed to be more useful than "Desegregating Wilderness". "At Risk" brings up the fact that that there is a different connotation for our children and animals. In this anthrocentric society, we are quick to label a population "at risk" but when it comes to animals and their environments, they are not given as much attention This is devastating because our negligence should not affect the survival of a species and it's surroundings.

Persephone C. said...

I found "At Risk" to be the most useful article. It discusses how the phrase "at risk" can mean different things. Children are labeled at risk if they are minorities or urbanized, and the phrase "at-risk" is used to limit and ostracize children. Animals are labeled "at-risk" if they are endangered and on the verge of being extinct, so they are protected. It is sad that "at-risk" animals are nurtured more than children are, but it is the world we live in.

Dakarai P. said...

I found "At Risk" to be the more useful because it made me realize that even though we use the same term when we define animals and children as "at risk" that it has different meaning. When animals are labeled endangered people want to help, but when children are labeled at risk people lend to look down on them.