top
Santa Cruz IMC
Santa Cruz IMC
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Words of a Tree Sitter

by Stop UCSC Expansion
Read at the October 7 Gathering
Hello, hello and thanks for coming out here! Since we’re all gathered together to celebrate the 11 month anniversary of the Tree Sit, and since I have a lot of time on my hands, I thought I might write a few words to share with you all what I’ve been thinking about, why I’m up here and what it means to me to be involved in resisting the LRDP.

Like most of you, I’m sure, I love this forest and these mountains, especially the part I’m most familiar with which is called “upper campus.” If you haven’t been up there yet, go exploring for a while! It is a beautiful community full of amazing plants and animals that the indigenous people of this area knew as food, medicine, teachers, neighbors and relatives. Too many wild places like this have been destroyed and too many are facing destruction now. So why make a stand here?

Let me ask you to consider first that to have the idea of “wild places” we must have “tame” or “civilized” places. The native people of this area had no such concepts. They spoke an Ohlonean language and most of the year they lived in villages of houses made of tule reeds from the marshes by the shore. Around this time of year, they would trek up to the mountains to gather acorns, which they stored and ate year round. When they came back down, they set fire to the meadows so that in spring, grass shoots would bear more seeds and attract more animals to hunt.

This way of life sustained their culture for thousands of years. The way of life brought by Spanish colonialism and, later, the industrialized U.S., enslaved and destroyed most of the Ohlone and much of their world, replacing it with lime kilns, railroads, highways, strip malls, suburbs and universities. There are the tame places. Henry Cowell cut down this forest once already to get rich and the UC Regents want to do it again for the same reason.

So this is why the forest is not the whole issue. The destruction of upper campus’ diverse ecosystem and endangered species habitat, as well as the genetic manipulations and the torture of our animal cousins they want this new lab for, result from the same source: a culture that regards the world and its inhabitants not as a sacred living community, but as resources to be used in its ever-expanding system of technological controls. UCSC is also involved in a project at Moffett Field in San Jose to blend biotechnology, nanotechnology and advanced computing. Who knows what horrors will be possible if they can penetrate our very cells with their machines?

We have a choice. We do not have to accept this. In 1792, native resisters burned down the mission of Santa Cruz, freeing hundreds of slaves. On Nov. 7, 2007, hundreds of Tree Sit supporters fought back effectively against police using batons and pepper spray to try to stop supplies from reaching the Tree Sit. Over the winter, police attacked and arrested a number of people they accused of supporting the Tree Sit… but here we are! Not just because a few people climbed some trees, but because a whole bunch of people stuck together. We don’t have to settle for alientated roles in this society and its institutions like so many gears in a machine. It’s true that this is a fight against the force of progress, but what they call progress is fighting a still more powerful force; the rhythms and cycles of the earth, of life itself and of living communities. We want to live in sustainable balance, like the Ohlone.

Even if you don’t agree with everything I’ve said I hope it’s obvious that the occupation of these trees has created a space for people to come together, not just to fight the LRDP, but to have this dialogue. What is progress? Do we really want it? why exactly is the LRDP unacceptable to me or to you? Those who rule us and who profit from the destruction of tribes, forests and other communities, who would bend and shape us all into parts in their machine, do not want people to have these kinds of gatherings and conversations.

This is a struggle for the kinds of relationships we want to have among people, and between people and the land. This didn’t start with the LRDP and it won’t end with it. Even if they tear down the Tree Sit, we’ll do something else. Let’s keep organizing ourselves and keep getting in their way!
Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by Klimber
I want to send me deepest thanks, gratitude and love for the UCSC tree-sitters and their ground supporters. Although I can't be there in person to help you all out, I understand the courage, the integrity, the dedication, and the perseverance it takes to stand up against the UC Regents and their Police Force. The dominating forces of the economic industrial state will stop at nothing to get their way, as we have seen time and time again. But that does not mean we should yield or cease to defend that which is sacred and true. Through your actions you honor your ancestors, the Ohlone nation, and all those who have fought and suffered for a better world.
by Susan Kipping
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. It would be heartbreaking to lose the beauty of the Redwoods and the peaceful setting of the forest. Your selfless actions to protect this area is amazing. I commmend you and all that have made it possible to keep the tree sit going for this long. I hope you can save the trees.

UCSC has hooked up with the military and NASA. Nanotechnology can be very dangerous. I do not trust the university or their police department. There is a great deal of money and involved and powerful people are pulling the strings. People have no idea what they will be making up there, nor were they meant to know.

Take care and know that there are people who care about you and appreciate what you are doing. I agree with your goal of protecting that precious forest.
by Keep it Real
That's a charming but entirely unrealistic comparison you've drawn between yourself and the native Ohlone. And yes, wouldn't it be nice to return to that way of life? But can or will we?

....not unless your proposing that 95% of the people in the state move away or drop dead.

There is no comparison between a sustainable lifestyle practiced by a few or tens of thousands of natives with unlimited resources then vs. 30 million Californians now.

And while you've highlighted the romantic idealism of Ohlone life, you've ignored all the wonderful advancements that modern times and yes, science and technology, have given us. For just a short list?:

Dental care.
Increased life expectancy.
Antibiotics.
Improved infant suvival rates.
Electricity.

..the list is endless. I'm sorry, but I find your comparison infantile and self-serving. Keep it real. Give me a realistic alternative that can be employed in my real world. Going back to bark houses and using fish traps to catch salmon in the San Lorenzo is not gonna cut it. You want to live in sustainable balance, then you'll probably need to consider moving to the interior of B.C.; that's about the closest place that has the open spaces and resources to support such a venture.
by Jon
AMEN! You summed it up well!
by ....
"Keeping it Real," you forgot the biggest advancements science and technology have brought us:

-An overblown human population that can and is only resulting in unprecedented misery for humans and non-humans
-The wholesale massacre of the planet's life support systems

http://www.DerrickJensen.org
by Keep it Real
I don't deny nor try to hide the reality that technology and science have allowed the world population to exapnd beyond comfortably sustainable levels.

But what do you propose; a large scale die off?

Dreaming of going back to the Ohlone way and model of life is a fantasy. It's an escape from reality. It's a denial of taking on the real challenges.

IMO, it's as effective as sitting in a tree. Not very. More a self-congratulatory indulgence.
by Ron
A mass scale die-off is going to happen, one way or another. That's just the way it is when a species exceeds carrying capacity. You can do it for awhile, but eventually population returns to sustainable levels. The only question are:

how many species are going to be left when our population returns to sustainable levels?
how much biodiversity will be left?
how polluted will the air be?
how poisoned will the water be?

We're in the midst of a MASS EXTINCTION of plants and animals--anywhere from a few dozen to several HUNDRED species go extinct every single day because of industrial civilization. This rate of extinction is between 100 and 1,000 times greater than the normal "background" rate of extinction. More species will die out from the years 1980-2045--that's 65 years--than in the 65 MILLION years before that. Nothing could be more horrendous than this.

My suggestion? Dismantle civilization. Smash the global economy. Bring down the petroleum empire. Return to communities with a local, bioregional base. If you'd like to look at discussions of how/why this could/should happen, check out the website to which I linked, or better yet run to your nearest library/book store and get Derrick Jensen's Endgame.

It's very, very easy for you to sit comfortably inside behind your computer screen and talk about treesitters not being effective. I sure the hell hope you're doing something damn worthwhile if you're going to be talking shit on them!
by Ron
Btw, my utmost gratitude and love goes out to the brave treesitters!
by Keep it Real
I'm not going to apologize for disagreeing with tree sitter tactics or methodology; if you consider that to be talking shit about them, then so be it. I think it's a balanced level of response to people who are basically telling me to agree with them or piss off if I don't. And if I think that their message is over simplified and unrealistic, I say so.

I disagree with you that your questions are the only ones. I think you left out an important one: "How many humans are you willing to watch die in order to achieve the balance you speak of?".

In neither the tree sitter manifestos nor in your analysis do I see you addressing that difficult question. So tell me, how many people are you willing to see die as you dismantle civilization and return to regional economies? Or do you think you can return to that balance/lifestyle at the current population levels?

(And not that it's your business, but I do quite a bit of work that I believe benefits my community and my planet. Beach cleanup, volunteering time with several charities, making cash donations to same, etc. I also do a lot of cleaning up of the Pogonip and campus when I come across the frequent abandoned camps that leave lots of their garbage behind. IMO, I'm getting as much or more done in a real/tangible way than is a treesitter making a statement by sitting for a year. To each their own.)
by ex-resident
Okay, I'm confused on your logic.

In order to safeguard life in all its forms, humanity has to engage in a regression that will see millions (if not billions) die?

I agree that our current lifestyles are unsustainable, but the solution isn't to forsake technology or research, but to divert it into minimizing our ecological impact and improving sustainability. Therefore, if your intentions are to PRESERVE life and nature, wouldn't the solution be to increase education and research rather than forsake it and return to a primitivist existence?
by a being on earth
you speak as if it is your duty to control the way that the earth functions. you speak as if you are a god on this earth. as if it is your duty to arrange and eliminate the systems that the earth has been going through for billions of years. death is a natural part of life on earth. the length of a life is not a measure of how well our society has developed. it is the quality of life that is important. it is impossible for us now to interact with each other and the earth as we once did but that is no reason to look back and be inspired. the question is not how many people will we watch die during the collapse of civilization but where do we go from there?
by Keep it real
I speak as if I'm in control and a god? I'd disagree. I'd say I'm speaking and acting as part of a community, and voicing my opinion as one of those members. I'd argue that it's the tree sitters trying to play god. They're the ones saying screw the rules and forget what the majority wants. They're the ones forcing their opinions and actions upon others. I don't see that I'm doing either of those activities via my actions.

And yes, death is a natural part of life. But apparently to the tree sitters, not if that death is to an animal due to a human?

And no, I disagree with your assesment that the question is not how many will die. I think that is EXACTLY the question, that needs to both be asked and answered. I think that the scientists are having to do a pretty well-watched analysis of how many animals are they hurting to come up with their new vaccines and such. I think the University is being required to offer rigorous analysis and data to show that the environmental damage and impact they're going to effect will have an equal or greater benefit in return.

Why is it that none of you who want to return to sustainable levels, a simpler life, etc...seem willing to give me the hard answers?

Tell me how many people you're willing to watch die. I'll not only have more respect for you, but I'll also have an ability to make a reasoned decision as to which viewpoint I support.

At present, I hear lots of information from the other side, but only idealism and "wouldn't it be cool" from your side.

I mean:pony up. Are you willing to lead the way and check out of planet earth to save the tree or squirrel or rabbit? I'm not. And I don't think most of you are either. Instead, I think you guys envision some construct where all the people who disagree with your utopian vision will be the ones who die off, and you'll be the ones left to enjoy Garden of Eden Vs. 2.

....but that aint reality. So let's hear it. What would you view as acceptable collateral damage, in terms of human life, to restore the balance? Inquiring minds want to know.

by Ron
However many it takes. Because if we carry on present course, not only are all those humans going to die anyway (it's hard to breathe carbon monoxide, even harder to eat dioxin, hardest of all to live on a dead, poisoned planet), but we're going to ensure that future generations of plants, nonhumans, and humans can't live either.

Using high technology to get us out of a mess technology brought us into--good idea.
by Keeping It In Context
Where do you suppode this population boom that has been spoken of here and is to blame for all the worlds woes is taking place? In undeveloped countries that do not utilize a lot of the high tech you depsise. Infant mortality rates are sky high, poverty rampant, abuse of women, and hunger an everyday fact in these undevelpoed parts of the world. Populations in the developed parts of the world have pretty much leveled off (if you account for immigration). Returning to the Ohlone way of life here is not going to take care of the problem in China, India, Africa, etc. Fighting to stop research that might find a cure for AIDs that could stop the dessimation of Africans by that disease, or any other diesease that is ravaging undeveloped nations is very selfish. Lack of vitamin A is a major problem in many Asian countries. It was research at a university that managed to develop golden rice. A rice that has been altered to be high in vitamin A. Short sighted fear mongers decried the end of the world should anyone use the rice in their fields. I don't know the status of the rice at this time. My point is that, while we share some blame, pointing at the researchers and university for wanting to cut 120 acres when those 120 acres could provide the support to solve some of the worlds problems is quite short sghted. 120 acres is a small price for coming up with answers to questions that are killing the world.
by D
Yeah, an AIDS treatment funded by pharmaceutical corporations is really going to be handed out for free to everyone in Africa.

As far as Genetic Engineering goes, people from India to South America to France are in revolt against the social and ecological havoc this technology is wreaking. Farmers in Paraguay are rioting against a wave of paramilitary violence linked to the expansion of genetically-modified soy biofuel monocultures in the countryside.
by Ron
Actually the population explosion has occurred all over the world. First World, Third World, you name it. It spiked with the advent of agriculture about 10,000 years ago and it spiked again with the so-called "Green Revolution" with the widespread use of petrochemicals in agriculture after World War II. The technological advances reached the Third World as well. And you cannot divorce population from consumption, they're intricately intertwined.
by Me Again
I think you will find that the actual birth rate of many of your industrialized countries has gone down. Last I remember reading was the birth rate was declining of the citizens but the population was going up due to immigration.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$220.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network