If a Tree Falls was a really interesting look into a very wild period in the environmental movement. Especially revisiting it having read more of Dowie, it is an interesting end to a century of environmentalism he marked as concluding with backsliding, elitism, and centrism. While this may be an unpopular opinion, I completely sympathize with what the ELF did. In the face of the willful destruction of our only home, it was really nothing. What I fail to understand is why they did it. They had so much passion and ability, but they completely failed to pair it with any semblance of an effective agenda. The members seemed committed and sincere, but seemed to lack any kind of vision or end goal. I think that their actions will nonetheless be very informative to future generations of environmental radicals as popular support for drastic action grows and time runs out. However, it will serve in that capacity as a lesson in what not to do, rather than a positive guide.
@ccstein said:
I had heard of many of these groups prior to reading these chapters, such as the Audubon Society, Green Peace, and a few others. The fact that many of the major players in the environmental movement stemmed from conservationist roots was very telling as the future direction of the movement. As many of the leaders of these organizations were privileged, well educated, white men, there was an immediate inclination to continue driving forward into the power structure that has historically yielded to them, the legislative branch of the federal government. Due to early successes in federal government, passing legislation such as the Clean Water and Clean Air acts, these leaders were confident that they were headed in the right direction. However, as the judicial and legislative systems became further polarized, and influenced by industry, the environmental voices were muted, unable to compete with big money. This is when their funding choices come into question. Continuing to be funded by private donors, and trying to compete with big oil money, simply left the movement in a losing race of legislator face time. This is where the strategies of grassroots organizations in creating social movements, and a general atmosphere for larger political change, seems to make far more sense to me. By creating a coalition in the public, you can motivate law makers, instead of continuing to fight a rigged battle. I think that radical groups like ELF fall somewhere in the middle of this spectrum. While they are not trying to lobby they are continue to target the political system, and further isolating themselves from the rest of the public, instead of sparking a wider social movement.
I agree that they isolate themselves, but it is not the role of the radical wing of a movement to appeal to the majority of people. I think the role of the ELF was to show what was actually at stake and call into question whose side ineffectual moderate groups are even on. I don't think it was particularly effective, as it came at a time when there was not enough popular support for real environmentalism to serve in that role, but it was certainly not irrelevant.
@elle said:
In terms of the ELF, I think the film did a good job of showcasing how the ELF moved towards the arsons as a means of proving their point. While I don’t think the tactic is very effective in achieving the groups’ goals given societal norms of what protest can look like and what is acceptable, I can understand the frustrations with the ineffectiveness of non-violent protest when it is only met with violence by the police. I don’t think I consider groups like the ELF as terrorist organizations.
I hold similar views of ELF and like-organizations. I have heard of ELF before but have never been exposed to such a specific account of the organization. I think the filmmaker, in interviewing individual members of ELF, did a wonderful job personalizing the topic at hand. I also really appreciated the critique of language and titles (ecoterrorist/ecoterrorism) and the way the documentary highlighted associations with the term 'terrorism' or 'terrorist' which were completely antithetical to the intentions and actions the members of ELF engaged in. ELF would not be considered a terrorist group to me and I did not see any individual prtrayed in the film as a criminal, let alone terrorist. Although when documentary mentioned people whose goals were aligned with ELF saw their actions as justifiable while people who had dissimilar enviromental intentions saw what they did as an act of terrorism. I am no exception to this rule and would love to hear form someone who wanted radical environmental justice but considers ELF a terrorist organization. I am sure this combination of ideology is not hard to come by, it is just not a position I hold.
Responding first to @elle, your comment reminds me of Franz Fanon's critique of the US Civil Rights Movement, saying that for oppressed people non-violence can be an effective tactic, but is but one. He argued that in the face of overwhelming violence, a violent struggle against it is perfectly justifiable. Furthermore, making non-violence the bar to which movements must rise to be considered legitimate and acceptable by the existing power structure allows that power structure to cripple its adversaries and is just another tool of oppression. Responding to @cara, if you are looking for a radical environmentalist who would label the ELF as a terrorist organization, I think you will have a long search ahead of you. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. "Terrorist" has never been an objective label, only one used by the powerful to delegitimize their enemies. (This is not, however, to say that all terrorists are good or justified.) I doubt there are any radical environmentalists who would label the ELF terrorists, because radicals are not part of the establishment, and dolling out the label "terrorist" is an establishment tactic.
Funding plays such a huge role in environmental organizations and the most funded organizations are often the most well known and sometimes the most corrupt. I think an effective organization should get its money from donations from people and organizations that actually believe in their mission so that corruption is not as common. There could be a funding system for environmental organizations that forced big oil and other corporations that are hurting the environment to donate money that is then divided between good organizations. This should have to be done relatively anonymously by the corporations so that there is less room for corruption.
I think social movements that operate with no outside funding can be one of the most impact actions. People involved in these social movements are donating their own time, resources, and money which when made clear really shows their passion and can increase the impact of what they are doing. Thinking about this in respect to ELF, climbing a tree or laying in front of a bulldozer and spending your time or risking your life has been very impactful in calling people to action. I feel like I've seen pictures or videos of people doing that when I was a kid. The fires could be looked at the same way, these people risked their freedom and spent time and money planning this, but because of the action the media was quick to label them as terrorists. I think there has to be a balance to make a full positive impact, but the fires made a statement that couldn't be ignored.
@fionaw said:
I think social movements that operate with no outside funding can be one of the most impact actions. People involved in these social movements are donating their own time, resources, and money which when made clear really shows their passion and can increase the impact of what they are doing. Thinking about this in respect to ELF, climbing a tree or laying in front of a bulldozer and spending your time or risking your life has been very impactful in calling people to action. I feel like I've seen pictures or videos of people doing that when I was a kid. The fires could be looked at the same way, these people risked their freedom and spent time and money planning this, but because of the action the media was quick to label them as terrorists. I think there has to be a balance to make a full positive impact, but the fires made a statement that couldn't be ignored.
I think there's definitely a better way to economically maintain social movements and organizations than currently exists. I agree funding from within would be impactful, I just question the tangibility of it. Outside funding fuels most organizations and movements. The reality is that the capitalistic pathways many groups feel necessary to go through for change and to be heard, require money. Many people who dedicate their lives to social movements do not get paid well, and do not have much money.
Comments
If a Tree Falls was a really interesting look into a very wild period in the environmental movement. Especially revisiting it having read more of Dowie, it is an interesting end to a century of environmentalism he marked as concluding with backsliding, elitism, and centrism. While this may be an unpopular opinion, I completely sympathize with what the ELF did. In the face of the willful destruction of our only home, it was really nothing. What I fail to understand is why they did it. They had so much passion and ability, but they completely failed to pair it with any semblance of an effective agenda. The members seemed committed and sincere, but seemed to lack any kind of vision or end goal. I think that their actions will nonetheless be very informative to future generations of environmental radicals as popular support for drastic action grows and time runs out. However, it will serve in that capacity as a lesson in what not to do, rather than a positive guide.
I agree that they isolate themselves, but it is not the role of the radical wing of a movement to appeal to the majority of people. I think the role of the ELF was to show what was actually at stake and call into question whose side ineffectual moderate groups are even on. I don't think it was particularly effective, as it came at a time when there was not enough popular support for real environmentalism to serve in that role, but it was certainly not irrelevant.
Responding first to @elle, your comment reminds me of Franz Fanon's critique of the US Civil Rights Movement, saying that for oppressed people non-violence can be an effective tactic, but is but one. He argued that in the face of overwhelming violence, a violent struggle against it is perfectly justifiable. Furthermore, making non-violence the bar to which movements must rise to be considered legitimate and acceptable by the existing power structure allows that power structure to cripple its adversaries and is just another tool of oppression. Responding to @cara, if you are looking for a radical environmentalist who would label the ELF as a terrorist organization, I think you will have a long search ahead of you. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. "Terrorist" has never been an objective label, only one used by the powerful to delegitimize their enemies. (This is not, however, to say that all terrorists are good or justified.) I doubt there are any radical environmentalists who would label the ELF terrorists, because radicals are not part of the establishment, and dolling out the label "terrorist" is an establishment tactic.
Funding plays such a huge role in environmental organizations and the most funded organizations are often the most well known and sometimes the most corrupt. I think an effective organization should get its money from donations from people and organizations that actually believe in their mission so that corruption is not as common. There could be a funding system for environmental organizations that forced big oil and other corporations that are hurting the environment to donate money that is then divided between good organizations. This should have to be done relatively anonymously by the corporations so that there is less room for corruption.
I think social movements that operate with no outside funding can be one of the most impact actions. People involved in these social movements are donating their own time, resources, and money which when made clear really shows their passion and can increase the impact of what they are doing. Thinking about this in respect to ELF, climbing a tree or laying in front of a bulldozer and spending your time or risking your life has been very impactful in calling people to action. I feel like I've seen pictures or videos of people doing that when I was a kid. The fires could be looked at the same way, these people risked their freedom and spent time and money planning this, but because of the action the media was quick to label them as terrorists. I think there has to be a balance to make a full positive impact, but the fires made a statement that couldn't be ignored.
I think there's definitely a better way to economically maintain social movements and organizations than currently exists. I agree funding from within would be impactful, I just question the tangibility of it. Outside funding fuels most organizations and movements. The reality is that the capitalistic pathways many groups feel necessary to go through for change and to be heard, require money. Many people who dedicate their lives to social movements do not get paid well, and do not have much money.