There were a few lines from the movie Bidder 70 that stuck with me when reflecting on the activist Tim DeChristopher and his story. DeChristopher frustrated me as a character when I was watching the film, as at many times I felt as though he was a bit of a martyr. The beginning seemed irritatingly centered around him rather than the cause or the circumstance, which was probably the intention of the director. Still, something felt off about this presentation. Despite the few nuanced things that frustrated me through close inspection, the overall movie drove me to feel empowered and intrigued in environmental activism work. At the end of the movie, it is noted that while none of the business owners that participated in the unlawful auction were reprimanded, whereas, a “kid” (DeChristopher) was sent to prison for standing up for what he believed in. This line resonated with me greatly, and I felt anger towards our system and the way people with money and resources can escape the demands of the law. Even thinking of how much worse this would have been if DeChristopher was a person is even more frustrating. His action came from love, which is different than the action that came from industrial, monetary intentions which is just for personal and business gain. That is the most frustrating aspect for me; our society places more value on superficial and corrupt intentions and actions than it does actions that come from an honest and genuine intention. As questioned in the movie, since when did a desire and action for hope become a crime?

Another point stressed in the film is the fact that DeChristopher’s action was for the sake of humanity, not even for the planet or environment necessarily. Even those who don’t care about the environment and preserving it should pay attention and care because it’s important for our future generations. DeChristopher states this simply: it is not about the planet… it is about saving human lives. While I feel a little unsettled by this statement because I think we should act for the state of our planet because we are guests on this earth, I think that this is a tough statement that even the most adamant people against climate change should listen to. It’s for our children, for their children, and for all the children after them.

As stated in my previous blog post, the definition of activist that I have derived over the course of this class is one of empowerment. An activist is someone who sees something wrong with their society and seeks to change it not through one individual act but rather through inspiring others to continue to further this change. This is exactly what Ama did. Throughout Linda Hogan’s novel Power, we constantly see this fight to understand why Ama, a devoted Taiga leader and one so knowledgeable in their ways, has decided to stalk and kill a sacred panther. Through the perspective of Omishto, who clearly witnessed this act and understood the consequences, this act seemed irrational and even crazy, but not horrendous, as a result through the whole endeavor, Omishto continued to stand by Ama both during her trial and even after her banishment.

In fact, because of Ama’s actions, Omishto in a way grew to replace Ama as the gatekeeper between the tribal world and the white world. She bridged the gap between the two different cultures in order to rejuvenate the dwindling Taiga tribe.

The banishment of Ama mirrors the journey of both Hayduke and Tim (Bidder 7) in that the progress tha their actions inspired came at a personal cost. Ama was banished from the very community that she was trying to save while both Hayduke and Tim met with similar fates with Hayduke nearly killed and Tim imprisoned. Each of them have in a way become a sacrifice for the cause, a sort of martyr and as a result, they have earned the title of activist.

Linda Hogan’s “Power” touched upon a number of issues that it would be possible to write entire books about. We discussed some of those issues in class, including the struggle to define identity when you find yourself stuck between two cultures, the rights of indigenous peoples on their own land, and the power struggles that we can see all the characters grappling with throughout the novels. Each of these issues deserves time taken to understand them deeply, but the conflict that most affected me was our discussion of the rights of indigenous peoples concerning environmental changes. In the novel, this is most dramatically confronted when Ama choses that it is the most humane action to kill the panther, as she can see how much it is suffering. The community rebels against her, many for reasons that most environmentalists would quickly agree with it. It’s wrong to kill an endangered species, isn’t it?

What most struck me about this was how ready the community was to punish Ama for her actions. How ready the world was to understand that killing an endangered species is wrong, and therefore is a punishable offense. But we don’t see any equal anger towards the individuals and organizations that made the species endangered in the first place. The police were quick to come to Ama’s house with their lights blazing to cart her away for putting one bullet into one panther, but do we see any similar action to the CEOs of the oil companies pumping dangerous chemicals into our water and land all in the pursuit of oil? Their actions are undoubtedly leading to the death and destruction of countless more animals than Ama’s single gun shot, but we see no action on the part of the government to hold them accountable. Those companies are polluting our land, air, and water all for the sake of what has been dubbed “economic growth,” and therefore must be good. But when Ama chooses to put an animal out of the misery that those very companies have wrought, she deserves the harshest of punishments. Why is it that our country is so focused on punishing the symptoms of the system, rather than ever looking to the system itself?

In her article It’s Not Climate Change, It’s Everything Change, Margaret Atwood discusses major issues in today’s environmental movement and actions that continue to revolve back on a few major powers: businesses and governments. She rightly argues that with “no clear benefit” to changing their consumption of resources to conserve energy, businesses and corporations driven by capital have zero incentive to limit their extraction of resources, an example of the economic “tragedy of the commons”. Although industrial corporations have greatly increased global carbon emissions and waste, their profits seem to somehow outweigh these negative impacts on the globe. Even more detrimental than passing on the responsibility of acting sustainably is the way that certain governments and politicians still refuse to accept the reality and gravity of our environmental condition, which depends hugely on their actions and policies.

The government actions that Margaret Atwood exposes are simply laughable. Rick Scott forbidding the use of terms like “climate change” and “global warming” and Canada “tricking” its citizens with maps of the increasing size of icecaps are only two examples of such foolish acts. After Trump entered office, many US government sites similarly deleted such terms from their search engines. By doing so, our government is only encouraging ignorance by suppressing conversation and education on pressing matters for current and future generations. These actions also illuminate our privilege as country, since many poorer and less fortunate areas of the world already experience the “picture 2” effects Atwood discusses. For example, Atwood imagines a world where people must “fill their bathtubs with water” and where “their toilets would no longer flush” beneath a picture of long lines where people wait to buy food in bulk. This so-called imagined water shortage and inefficient lines are a reality in Cape Town, caused by a combination of factors: wealthier people failing to limit their water usage even after multiple warning, a growing 4 million population, and a 3 year drought no one expected to last this long.

I would argue that politicians and people who resist the facts of climate change merely have not seen or lived through the effects. They do not realize that their words, policies, and actions affect people around the world. Yet, I do not understand how people can see the increase of flooding, forest fires, droughts, sea levels, etc and still refuse to accept these occurrences as evidence for climate change and global warming.

On a final and different note, I would like to share an artist whose chalk pastel drawings, inspired by photographs of real ice caps and oceans, inspires to share the threatened beauty of nature. I was reminded of this artist,  Zaria Forman, after reading Barry Lord’s theory on society’s relationship between art and energy.

Name: Jessie Zhao

Hometown: Princeton, NJ

Major: Environmental Science

Three topics that interest me:  Framing of climate change / environmental issues to the public, environmental activism through visual art, and sustainable food systems.

Interesting exciting bit of news I read today:  Indonesian entrepreneur Kevin Kumala invented a plant-based, biodegradable plastic made from a common Indonesian vegetable, and has made rain ponchos, bags, and food containers.

This past December, I spent two weeks in South Africa, where I experienced their staunch water conservation efforts and learned about the environmental hazards threatening Kruger National Park. Something drew me in and struck with me here. I saw the effects right in front of me. When traveling through the park,  it took a while to come across an animal that was not a kudu or impala. There was nothing like the excitement I felt when we spotted a lion and its cub or a herd of grazing elephants. It was like a drop in my heart. Coming into contact with the wild all on my own. I was no longer in the man-made parks within New York City’s concrete jungle but face to face with a wild animal. When I learned about the wide scale rhino poaching threatening the rhino population of Kruger, it all made sense. Not only had I saw the void in the park but I actually felt their absence. Every time we went out on a drive, we would wait patiently for the rhino. Though, I did not get to experience the same excitement. This is what searching for endangered species is like.

Upon reading Linda Hogan’s novel, Power, I tried to understand Ama and the Taiga people’s fascination with the panther. My best attempt was relating it to my recent experience with the rhino while taking into consideration the Taiga people’s deeper spiritual connection. But in my attempt to best understand, I tried to relate my impatience and excitement to Ama. She had been searching for the panther her whole life and now it had come to her. But why then did she kill it?

Hunting, poaching, capturing an animal, you name the game-hunting practice, I will never understand it. When I saw the direct influences of the poachers that entered Kruger from the Mozambique boarder to poach rhinos and sell their horns for a living, I was very unsettled. Omishto’s original reaction to Ama’s actions was similar to mine. Bewildered and upset. How could she kill the innocent panther that was so important to her. “Oh Ama what have you gone and done,” as Omishto says (Hogan 67).  However, Hogan’s novel helped me to better understand how these practices can be intimately related to one’s religion and culture. Ama’s compassion for the animals and connection to her tribe sensitized me to the ways that hunting may be part of one’s religious traditions. The New York Times article regarding the court case of 1987 helped me to further differentiate between the practices of the Native American people and the poachers.

”if the white man had the same commitment to preserving wildlife as the Indians, there would be no endangered species.”

This was exactly it. The Florida panther is not endangered because the Taiga people have hunted it for thousands of years. In reality, the panther is on our endangered species list due to the construction of urban cities and infiltration of human beings in areas that once were home to the panther. Florida’s new shopping malls and highways are the cause of this danger. These are the costs of capitalism and a society that only wishes to see growth in its economy. This is true for the African poacher. Poor and helpless, he sacrifices his life entering into territories fenced in barbed wire. He is the product of a capitalist system that forces us to become wage-earners and exchange goods. Had it not been for his family, his government, and his society, he would not have to endanger the rhino.

Ama kills the panther when it is sick, old, and hungry. She preserves the integrity of her culture and willingly sacrifices herself for the her people. But her sacrifice is not like that of the poacher. She does not exchange the panther as a commodity. She uplifts his spirit to her people and follows the necessary rituals to save her nation from extinction. What the article makes clear on the surface level is that hunting and protecting the panther is part of the religious narrative of the  Native Americans, but the book supplements our understanding by exposing the nuances of this relationship and deep devotion. This type of “commitment” that Native Americans have is sufficient for them to hunt sustainably and follow their culture. While one may argue that killing animals will endanger the species, the Native Americans lived here long before us and sustained this lifestyle independently. It is the values within the capitalist system and behind modernization that lack this sensitivity and threaten the livelihood of the panther or just as equally, the black rhino. This is why Mr. Rogow refers to the hypothetical “if the white man had the same commitment.” The “white man’s” failing commitment is evident in the conflict between his values and actions like passing the Endangered Species Act. When passing this law, he fails to actually target the activity of illegal poachers, human pollution, and urban development. But instead he threatens the vitality of the Native American culture and their right to religious freedom.

Citations:

Margaret Atwood’s “It’s Not Climate Change, It’s Everything Change” left me in awe after feeling an array of emotions. I had goosebumps at the way she evoked such emotion through her words; I felt frustrated, angered, shocked, confused, hopeful and almost, at times, humored. She sets up the article in a way that makes the reader instantly feel the intensity of the gravity of our environmental future. I found the second scenario, where the world is basically falling apart, to be the most interesting. Atwood writes about food and water shortages, riots, robberies, and creates the picture of a dystopian hell which encumbers the entire population. This world is a result of humanity ignoring the three top warning signs Atwood describes later in the article.

This hypothetical world Atwood describes reminds me distinctly of a Wendell Berry book about the way food security and resources should be handled in the upcoming years as we face the Anthropocene. Berry explains that the culture of farming has reached a point in which individuals have lost touch with and understanding of the land and no longer know how to truly interact with our land in a healthy and sustainable manner. One of his strongest points is that the demand for farming has increased drastically, and that the culture of farming is decreasing, which leads to a gap in our food production and love of the land. This results in an instability with regards to the future of being able to feed our own bodies (and future generations) and therefore thrive.

Both Atwood’s hypothetical world and Berry’s historical tale leave me wondering how can I help? The golden question… What actions can possibly be enough to change our future? Atwood seems to believe that the answer lies in the way we view ourselves and the way we live. Empathy overload threatens my thoughts and heart as I ask these questions, and I feel lucky to be involved in a course that will encourage me to push past this overload and truly consider what environmental activism means. I feel that the first step to developing the way I think about activism is to consider Atwood’s words and begin encouraging myself and those around me to rethink ourselves and our lifestyles.

Berry, Wendell, and Michael Pollan. Bringing It to the Table: On Farming and Food. Counterpoint, 2009.

Linda Hogan’s Power reflects on many critical issues in today’s society, including climate change, ecology, and identity. However, considering Hogan’s deep roots in the Chickasaw tribe, I believe that the most important theme in Power is indigenous rights. The conflict between the Taiga tribe and the modern society in Florida is evident; over the past decades, the Taiga reserve has shrunk, making way for urbanization. Highways, shopping malls, and corporate buildings have overthrown nature. Even invasive species such as the kudzu are growing out of control in the Taiga reserve, once again symbolizing the modern society’s takeover.

With modern society expanding its land on the expense of indigenous people comes the issue of indigenous rights. And these issues can spark a lot of controversy, which is the case of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Standing Rock Sioux tribe, who are directly affected by the construction of the $3.8 billion pipeline argued that the project will contaminate their water supply, cross sacred land, and was approved without the consent of tribal leaders. What followed was a protest which spread to Washington D.C., and gained international media attention.

Dakota Access Pipeline protest in Washington D.C. Link: https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/jPFGVqjXk.WxHpbYe3gClQ–/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9MTI4MDtoPTk2MA–/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/f337a0e17b1f6fecc0cc41162909be1e

What I find particularly interesting about the protest is how it became an international rallying cry for both indigenous rights and climate change activism. The fact that protesters claimed that both issues were violated by the government goes to show how interconnected the issues are. I believe that this is what Linda Hogan was trying to illustrate. In Power, climate change and indigenous rights are not separable. The killing of the Florida panther illustrates this perfectly. On one hand, the killing could be justified as it is an act of spirituality and mercy, as the panther was weak and sick. On the other hand, the Florida panther is an endangered species, protected by the U.S. government. However, one could argue that the panther is endangered due to climate change, which in turn has been caused by modern civilization. Thus, Power and the Dakota Access Pipeline protests show that most issues are interconnected, and it is vital that we keep this in mind when addressing critical issues.

Bidder 70 was both incredibly inspiring and disheartening. It gave me hope to see someone like Matt DeChristopher risk 10 years in jail in an attempt to stand up for the planet and fight against the greedy gas and oil companies. When he told the story about how he made the decision right then to act in the name of climate change and how a feeling of calmness swept over him as he began bidding, I felt deeply motivated to to be just like him. I thought to myself, “There’s a true hero.”  The film’s emphasis on The Peaceful Uprising group that emerged in support of DeChristopher was also extremely uplifting. The very end of the film, when DeChristopher was found guilty and sentenced to two years in jail, DeChristopher and some of The Peaceful Uprising protesters shared some extraordinarily powerful words about the outcome and the movement as a whole. I found the ending of the film to be extremely poignant; it hit my heart and gut in a way that completely moved me. I felt myself fighting tears, and I was overcome with an overwhelming desire to go out and do something bold in the name of environmental justice, just like DeChristopher. The film was disheartening because of DeChristopher’s sentencing; I was really hoping that he would be found innocent, and when he was found guilty, I was hoping he would be let off with just community service hours. One of the people interviewed in the film said something along the lines of, “When you were faced with two evils, if you acted in a way that was normally against criminal law to fight a greater evil, that could be a defense.” I thought that this made perfect sense. It upsets me that our legal system and the jurors in Utah found his actions to be a crime, but the popularity of The Peaceful Uprising instilled hope in me nonetheless.

In my opinion, Tim DeChristopher is a stellar example of an activist. Despite being found guilty of numerous charges, I don’t think he is considered a “bad activist” as he did not do anything violent, nor did he even disturb anyone’s property. His purpose was to give people hope, not to violate the law or fool anybody; it was an act of civil disobedience. He created an entire environmental group and movement that backed him, and he brought a ton of attention to an auction and issue that probably otherwise would have been largely unnoticed. He evoked passion for environmental justice in a wide group of people. I also think as a piece of work/art itself, Bidder 70 is an extremely effective form of activism. The film was very informative about the issue of selling natural land to oil and gas companies. It was also persuasive and inspiring — the fact that I considered Tim DeChristopher a tremendous role model whose actions I would love to mimic in some way (despite his sentencing to jail time) shows just how effective this film was as a form of activism. In addition to the main environmental justice values that the film advocated for, I also think it shed light on a few structural issues within our legal system. DeChristopher’s extended trial and abuse of his sixth amendment is one example.

“We only impose the law on people like Tim DeChristopher, we never impose the law on people who steal from poor people, destroy the earth, etc.” This was one of the last notes I have written from the film. I don’t remember who said it, but it struck me as one of the most powerful takeaways from the film all the same.

One of the aspects of the discussion that intrigued me this week was the idea of monkeywrenching portrayed by Edward Abbey and Dave Foreman and the contrast to that of Bidder 70 and Tim DeChristopher. Abbey and Foreman depict their type of activism as aggressive and unorganized attacks on the objects that they view as destroying the landscape, while DeChristopher went about it in a peaceful way and was able to galvanize support even though he ultimately went to jail for his actions.

However, one of the differences between Abbey and Foreman and the way they described monkeywrenching was fascinating to me. In The Monkey Wrench Gang, Abbey depicts monkeywrenching as a fun fictional activity that inspires the readers to connect with the characters. I think that by the end of the novel Abbey has created a connection with the readers and made the characters seem like ordinary people that just wanted to make a difference in the stoppage of environmental destruction. After reading chapter 12 of Foreman’s Confessions of an Eco-Warrior, it seemed as if they were describing two very different processes. In chapter 12, Foreman takes the stance of trying to rationalize why monkeywrenching is an acceptable practice by attacking the arguments against monkeywrenching. I found the language that he used during the chapter as self-promoting or downright controversial. One of the lines from the chapter that struck me was when he said: “Monkeywrenching is a proud American tradition, existing happily in the shadows while decorous American bow before the brightly lit Great God Private Property.” I found this statement to be a concerning one for the idea of his activism because it seemed to mock other people who were not participating in monkeywrenching and heap praise on to himself because he has been someone who had been monkeywrenching.

The contrast to monkeywrenching would be the activism shown by Tim DeChristopher. DeChristopher “bought” 2.5 million dollars’ worth of land in Utah that had been scheduled for oil drilling. DeChristopher had no intention of drilling or purchasing the property; instead, he wanted to stop the land from turning into an industrial area near national parks. His actions started a movement towards warning people about the effects of global warming. On the flip side, DeChristopher finds himself in a precarious situation of being prosecuted by the US government for disrupting the sale of land. He then uses that attention to convey a positive message and starts a group called Peaceful Uprising and supported a new candidate for the House of Representatives. DeChristopher wound up paying the price for his actions and was sentenced to two years in federal prison, but the movement that he had created was a positive one for change and remains a powerful message about what activism can create. We need to use the DeChristopher case as an example of what needs to be done in the future and how to be a disruptor, but one that brings a positive and meaningful movement forward.