Hello. I've posted here once or twice before, but am not a regular. Nevertheless, I thought I might suggest a topic for discussion.
I've been watching a few Ray Mears repeats on cable recently. Now and then, something jars, whether it's the three or four wagon-loads of modern kitchen wear he took into the forest to cook like a prehistoric aboriginal in the Wildfood series, or as it is today, the need for special permission, which is a fairly common occurrence throughout his programmes.
Today he went into a hunting reserve that is closed most of the year, but the specifics don't matter. He's been to other places that are never open to the public under any circumstances. These parts of the programmes are usually heralded by mention of needing "special permission."
Now, surely this is not the point? Surely the principle goal of the work of people like Ray Mears is to widen participation by showing what you, as an individual, can do to experience the world from a completely new perspective through the skills of survival granted by bushcraft.
If, however, Ray is busy doing this sort of thing in idyllic surroundings on reserved or private lands, and that he has gone to these locations because these are the only places where he can find the needed natural resources in sufficient abundance in order to practice these skills convincingly, then this is not educational, it's merely informative in the sense of any other documentary. The message is not "this is what you can do." The message becomes "this is what you can do if you're Ray Mears and you're making a TV programme."
Have I grasped the wrong end of the pointy stick?
I've been watching a few Ray Mears repeats on cable recently. Now and then, something jars, whether it's the three or four wagon-loads of modern kitchen wear he took into the forest to cook like a prehistoric aboriginal in the Wildfood series, or as it is today, the need for special permission, which is a fairly common occurrence throughout his programmes.
Today he went into a hunting reserve that is closed most of the year, but the specifics don't matter. He's been to other places that are never open to the public under any circumstances. These parts of the programmes are usually heralded by mention of needing "special permission."
Now, surely this is not the point? Surely the principle goal of the work of people like Ray Mears is to widen participation by showing what you, as an individual, can do to experience the world from a completely new perspective through the skills of survival granted by bushcraft.
If, however, Ray is busy doing this sort of thing in idyllic surroundings on reserved or private lands, and that he has gone to these locations because these are the only places where he can find the needed natural resources in sufficient abundance in order to practice these skills convincingly, then this is not educational, it's merely informative in the sense of any other documentary. The message is not "this is what you can do." The message becomes "this is what you can do if you're Ray Mears and you're making a TV programme."
Have I grasped the wrong end of the pointy stick?
