There are many opinions voiced on this thread and elsewhere on the site about the difference between 'bushcraft' and 'survivalism'. Probably the most popular one that I have read is "Survival is what you have to do, Bushcraft is what you want to do". Bushcraft, it is said, is a lifestyle choice, whereas survival training is what we do in order to equip ouselves with the knowledge and skills that we might need if we want to survive some dangerous and unwanted situation. Really?. I don't think a survivalist would say "I'm only doing this just in case, and I truly hope that I am never in a situation where I have to use these skills" wether they secretly fantasise about heroically leading a bunch of plane crash survivors out of the Andies or not. Likewise, I'm not sure that a "bushcrafter" would say "I hope the whole of concrete civilisation would dissappear so that I can live in peace with my bivvy and bowdrill", although they may also fantasise about being lost on their very-own desert island with only RM and MK for company.
To add yet another configuration of this thread's much quoted saying: "Buddha points at the moon and everyone stares at his belly"
To be completely frank, I think the term 'Bushcraft' sucks (Gasp! Gawp! Blasphemer!!!). I also think the term "Survivalist" sucks too, because as many people on this thread have pointed out, the term has aquired too many unwanted connotations, and, lets face it, people don't really do it to survive, unless they are in an occupation where a survival situation is a significant possibility, or if they are particularly paranoid, in which case, a visit to the nurse might be more useful than a survival course.
If we're not too careful "Bushcraft" will aquire as many unwanted connotations as survivalism has, indeed, the process has already started in earnest, as a quite natural response to people's declared affilliation with one or other bushcrafting fraternity.
Although I am extremely interested in the skills of practical ecological living and enjoy the exchanges on these fora, and have enjoyed meeting some of the lovely people who attended the Bushmoot, I don't want to be known as a 'bushcrafter' thank you very much (To the burning-stake heretic!!).
Why is it that whenever something really cool happens, people have to go and turn it into a club complete with badges, leaders, heirachies (I don't even know how to spell the word) and t'shirts, and, instead of getting closer to the environment and everyone in it, marignialise themselves as a "lifestyle cult" where their valuable contribution and influence on the rest of society is significantly reduced?
Why? Because people like to feel that they belong to something, but in trying to identify with some group, people are in danger of limiting themselves by definition, and the whole deal is in danger of becomming very boring indeed (Incidentally haven't noticed that many ladies around the 'bushcraft' scene, and that is always a bad sign).
I think, as do others on this thread, that the important thing about survival/bushcraft/outdoorism/treehugging/bug-eating is that it get's us out into nature and in tune with it, and the experience is sublime and extremely rewarding, almost spiritual.
In answer to the question which heads this thread "are we still allowed to be survivalists", I would say, stop calling yourselves anything and allow what you really are to emerge quite naturally and declare itself. Stop putting labels on dynamic, mysterious, awe-inspiring life and admit that you don't quite know what you are. Stop adding to the already saturated list of subculture definitions which do nothing but assist in the process of cutural fragmentation. Start to realise that the obsessive aquisition of 'survival skills' is basically selfish and threrefore strongly influenced by the demands of the ego and 'proving oneself' (I know that a lot of people do survival courses for a lot of 'healthier' reasons than this as well)
With this in mind, should we realy be calling ourselves "Bushcrafters" either??
