Women are leading the struggle for climate justice and ushering in a new approach to creating a sustainable future for our planet. Restoring balance in climate leadership produces equity that fundamentally transforms our relationship with culture, identity, humanity, and the Earth. Creating a livable world without pollution and systemic violence depends on our ability not only to dismantle but to nurture and restore relations with ourselves and each other.
This week, we share wisdom from brilliant women leaders as they discuss their visions for a more equitable climate movement.
This article contains the content from the Bioneers Pulse newsletter. Sign up here to get the newsletter straight to your inbox!
The Power of Matriarchy: Intergenerational Indigenous Women’s Leadership
In these especially challenging times, the coming together of Indigenous women in leadership is more critical than ever for all people and all cultures to re-evaluate their responsibilities to respect and protect the sacredness of Mother Earth. In this video conversation, hear four inspiring Indigenous women discuss how matriarchy, the sacred feminine, and Indigenous ways play an important part in their leadership.
Women’s leadership fundamentally transforms our relationship with the world to produce equity in justice movements. As feminine resurgence continues to shape the struggle for change, we must move with it to sustain a committed vision of a future for all. In this panel discussion hosted by Sahana Dharmapuri, we hear from leaders Vanessa Daniel, Tia Oros Peters, and Jensine Larsen as they share their visions and challenge us to reckon with the violence of years of imbalanced decision-making.
Ayana Elizabeth Johnson – The Feminist Climate Renaissance: Truth, Courage, and Solutions for the Climate Crisis
A Feminist Climate Renaissance is emerging in the movement for climate justice as women––specifically women of color––are transforming how we approach creating a life-giving future for all. In this keynote address, Ayana Elizabeth Johnson talks about the emerging Feminist Climate Renaissance and draws on wisdom from a brand new anthology by women climate leaders.
Everywoman’s Leadership emboldens and strengthens the leadership effectiveness of women who are diverse in every way and who are reinventing organizations, institutions, and systems while protecting and defending the web of life. Inspiring, strengthening, and connecting women’s leadership is essential to facilitating the systemic transformation needed to shift our societies.
Nature, Culture and the Sacred: Integration and Congruence through Practical Magic
In this excerpt from her new book, Nature, Culture and the Sacred, Bioneers co-founder Nina Simons shares moving stories of women around the world joining together to reconnect people, nature, and the land.
Medicine of the Feminine | In this panel from the Global Sisterhood Medicine of the Feminine Retreat, Bioneers co-founder, Nina Simons, shares the wisdom she gained from her experience as a woman.
Women are innovating our leadership approach by challenging people to think beyond representation and access to power. Women leadership fundamentally transforms our relationship with the world to produce equity in justice movements. Philanthropy must prioritize funding women-led movements to sustain this transformational shift in community building. As feminine resurgence continues to shape the struggle for change, we must move with it to sustain a committed vision of a life-giving future for all.
In this conversation hosted by Sahana Dharmapuri, we hear from leaders Vanessa Daniel, Tia Oros Peters, and Jensine Larsen as they share their visions and challenge us to reckon with the violence of years of imbalanced decision-making.
This is an edited transcript of a panel discussion from the Bioneers 2020 Conference.
SAHANA: My question to all of you is what do you find affirming in your work? Where do you find hope in the midst of this challenging environment?
VANESSA: There is brilliant leadership in Georgia working for over a decade to build the possibility of the voter turnout around the Senate runoff. Groups like New Virginia Majority led a 10-year campaign to re-enfranchise 150,000 people with felony convictions in that state and then registered 20,000 of them to vote back in 2016. After having their voting rights restored, they turned out at a 79% rate to the ballot box during that election. They created the margin of victory necessary to bring in more progressive leadership in the governor’s office. The state has now flipped, and now we see many progressive pieces of legislation moving through Virginia. That ongoing work is why grassroots relationship-building is so critical.
We are in a moment in history where we can turn toward what we have only previously been able to conceive of as impossible. Before COVID, we couldn’t have imagined creating the access kids have to computers they have now. Many people did not think it was possible to defund the police; however, a significant number of school districts have gotten rid of cops in schools following many uprisings. Philanthropy and movements have focused their work inside the beltway rather than collaborating with communities. Transforming our approach to work from the ground up is necessary and critical in creating a new future.
TIA: I agree with Vanessa. We’re not saying that we must forgo men because we are in a time of women; instead, we must restore balance to produce equity in our work. Equity does not simply come when we gather people with different skin colors into the same room. Equity is a balance that comes when we fundamentally transform our relationship with culture, identity, humanity, and the planet. We must dismantle the systems built to devour, colonize, destroy, enslave and hold people captive while stealing our right to things like healthcare. We can’t assume anything’s coming to save us. No policy or law will save us or fundamentally transform our relationship with the world. It is our responsibility to create the world we envision. The call now is to trust Indigenous leaders and women who built those grassroots movements that philanthropy must prioritize.
JENSINE: Something that brings me hope is seeing how feminist movements create spaces that allow people to breathe. They develop these self-sustaining spaces through intersectionalism which makes them able to celebrate everyone’s strength. These spaces create people who––not only can challenge existing systems of oppression––but envision a better future.
Technology propels social justice movements. Today, some of the most significant mass political movements began with little resources, imagination, and fire, so I shiver thinking about an investment in sustaining these movements and fortifying their online connectivity.
SAHANA: That’s terrific. What’s fascinating about what you’re all saying is that the examples you’re giving are very concrete. They’re very tangible, and they are very relatable to the everyday person. I’m hearing and valuing what you all are saying about the role women can play when people listen to us as leaders and when women take action in a valued society and move things forward.
I think one of the things that would be interesting to hear is, if you could wave a magic wand over our world now, what would you like to see be different?
TIA: Change is not some utopian dream we arrive at perfectly without struggle. No magic exists that will suddenly change the violence that ravages our planet and communities. We can dream about that world and, in that dreaming, begin to make it so.
With the new administration, people believe that the struggle is over and Black and Indigenous people no longer need to fight for justice. Some people think that a few women in the cabinet signal an end to the struggle. We cannot lie to each other because there is still a long way to go. We must stay rooted in mindfulness, ceremony, and integrity to sustain a determined commitment to change.
VANESSA: As my great colleague and friend Maurice Mitchell of the Working Families Party and the movement for Black lives says so beautifully: “Biden is a doorway, not a destination.” Progressives made the mistake of thinking representation, and access to power meant we could take our foot off the gas when Obama was elected. We have no more time to continue to make this same mistake, and philanthropy needs to show up to ensure we have the resources to move forward. Of the $75 billion in philanthropy, only .06% go to women-of-color-led work. Progressive organizing led by People of Color must be the recipient of the majority of philanthropic giving. The single most significant force that prevents this from happening is white supremacy, with its tenacious unwillingness to share power and resources. Relinquishing systemic dominance and control is not the same thing as being marginalized.
Let’s be clear about something: white women voted in a more significant majority for Trump after seeing what he was capable of for four years than they did the first time around. Although many white women worked alongside communities of color, we have to be frank about how white liberal women continue to advocate for gradualism around dismantling white supremacy. It would be best if white people were to risk the privileges afforded to them to benefit communities of color and actively dismantle the system that benefits them. We are building a multi-racial movement, and everyone has a place in it.
JENSINE: One of the things I would like to see is for grassroots movements to be supercharged with resources and technology. I want to see a digital mobilization fund, a global women’s mobilization fund, and a digital mobilization fund owned and governed by a participatory parliament representing the world’s women.
A quote I like from Brene Brown goes, “This is not an issue of giving voice to the voiceless. It’s about forcing ears for the earless.” I want people who hold power to listen and relinquish their control and get behind women of color. The Indigenous disability movements at the global level are the most extraordinary yet unheard movements that we must regard with significant consideration. World Pulse is building an alliance with sister organizations and networks across the world to create a resource for these movements to be heard to accelerate the building of bridges.
SAHANA: I have one last question for everyone. Some scholars believe that gender bias is the deepest bias in the human psyche. What in your work informs how we might respond to that? How do we change it?
VANESSA: It’s essential to look at it all together, and that’s why I like the brilliance of black feminists like Kimberly Crenshaw. She brought us the intersectionality framework that allows us to look at race, class, gender within the context of capitalism, colonialism.
The challenge is if gender is the primary organizing force, particularly in the United States, why is it that so many white women voted for a misogynist? We have to look at how gender intersects with white supremacy in this country, which has a powerful primary function.
Many poor white women in this country are losing their homes because they voted against universal healthcare and can’t pay their medical bills because they didn’t want people of color to get a handout. White supremacy trumps gender in significant ways because that is how it operates. We can’t get to liberation by just solving for gender. We have to put white supremacy at the center of that equation and destroy that as well.
____
Jensine Larsen is an award-winning digital impact entrepreneur, international journalist, and expert on using technology to strengthen global women’s power. She is the founder of World Pulse, an independent, women-powered global social network connecting tens of thousands of women from 190 countries and bringing them a greater global voice.
Vanessa Daniel is the Founder and Executive Director of Groundswell Fund, the largest funder of the U.S. reproductive justice movement, and Groundswell Action Fund, the largest U.S. institution helping fund women of color-led 501c4 organizations. Groundswell, among other achievements, is the country’s only fund dedicated to supporting access to midwifery and doula care for women of color, low-income women, and transgender people.
Tia Oros Peters (Shiwi) is CEO of the Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous Peoples, which supports Native Peoples’ community-generated strategies for cultural revitalization, movement building, self-determination, and Re-Indigenization.
Sahana Dharmapuri is the Director of Our Secure Future, a One Earth Future Foundation program, and was previously an independent advisor on gender, peace, and security issues to many major international organizations, including USAID and NATO, The Swedish Armed Forces, and the International Peace Institute.
Bioneers is thrilled to see Congresswoman Deb Haaland (Laguna) appointed as the first Native American Secretary of the Interior. We met with Deb Halaand in 2019 to share our Rights of Nature in Indian Country initiative that she pledged support and interest. As the Secretary of the Interior, Congresswoman Halaand’s responsibilities will involve the conservation and management of 500 million acres of federal lands, most of which are adjacent to tribal reservations, some of which we are collaborating in our Rights of Nature initiative. This potential support from the Secretary of the Interior, who deeply understands issues in Indian Country, is an absolute game-changer for protecting wild spaces for all Americans.
Deb Haaland is a member of the Pueblo of Laguna in New Mexico. In 2019, her appointment as the U.S. Representative from New Mexico’s 1st congressional district was celebrated across Indian Country. We cheered collectively for her and Rep. Sharice Davids (Ho Chunk) from Kansas, as they had finally shattered the glass ceiling for Native people — especially Native women — to see themselves represented for the first time in the history of the U.S. government. To see a Native woman dressed in traditional regalia while taking the oath of office was a moment that took our breath away.
It’s a lesser known and shameful fact that, in 1924, Native Americans were the last minority group to be granted U.S. citizenship as a group. Let that sink in. It was less than 100 years ago that our nation’s First Peoples were the last of the minorities to become legally recognized as citizens of this land.
And there’s more to know. When Deb Haaland was born in 1960, Native Americans still did not have the right to vote in New Mexico, despite being granted full U.S. citizenship by the federal government in 1924. They got the right to vote in New Mexico in 1962, making the Southwestern state the last in the nation to extend it.
Her confirmation as a Cabinet Secretary on the heels of her appointment to US Congress is no less than extraordinary for our community. She is the first-ever congressperson openly committed to working on the epidemic of missing and murdered indigenous women. Haaland would like Congress to hold additional oversight hearings on the issue and ensure tribal justice systems have the resources they need to conduct proper investigations. Also at the top of her list is combating climate change, including the big oil and energy industries, which continues to threaten fragile tribal lands and ecosystems. As Interior Secretary, she will oversee the conservation and management of 500 million acres of federal lands, most of which are adjacent to tribal reservations, including tribes we are collaborating with in our Rights of Nature initiative. The Department of the Interior includes supervision of the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, among other responsibilities. Given the initial goals of resource extraction and exploitation that created many of these agencies there are certainly deep structural and bureaucratic hurdles that Secretary Haaland will face, but the reality of having a progressive, caring and earth-supporting Indigenous woman running the show is certainly a reason for hope.
During a moment in time where so much is happening so quickly, it is important to recognize and celebrate major achievements. There are enormous hills still to climb as we work to heal and restore landscapes — and the confirmation of the first ever Indigenous Secretary of the Interior is a significant step in the right direction. Bioneers extends our deepest congratulations to Secretary Haaland and look forward to her leadership and support as we work alongside so many other incredible Native organizations and movement activists towards repairing and renewing our collective relationship with the earth.
This article contains the content from the 3/11/2021 Bioneers Pulse newsletter. Sign up here to get the newsletter straight to your inbox!
It has been a full year since the World Health Organization declared a global pandemic due to the spread of COVID-19 and it has been an immensely challenging time for everyone The impacts have been staggering. As we wrote last March in the introduction to Bioneers collection of content on the pandemic, “While the virus itself is considered “novel,” its emergence, spread and the varied global response has unmasked systemic realities that are certainly less than “novel,” including issues that many in this community have been working on for decades.” Even for those who have never contracted the virus, the anxiety of struggling to make ends meet has been on the minds of thousands of people. The disproportionate impact of the pandemic that communities of color are forced to endure highlights deep structural injustices.
As much as the past 12 months have represented unprecedented hardship and loss, it has also been a time of unforeseen solidarity, care, and growth. The virus has illuminated the interconnected relationship between public health and planetary health by virtue of the virus having originated in non-human animals. Political theater aside, one thing has become clear in the year since the start of the pandemic: Our future as a species depends on the health of the planet we share.
This week, we highlight the voices of some of the people on the frontlines of struggle for human and planetary health in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Public Health – Planetary Health – One Health
The current global pandemic has revealed stark structural injustices embedded deep in our society. Our approach to health has neglected the relationship between socio-economic conditions, planetary health, and public health. As a virus that was transmitted from non-human animals to humans has placed the entire world on high-alert and has disproportionately affected communities of color, it is time we reevaluate the relationship between planetary health and public health. This enlightening conversation features leading experts in the public health arena.
COVID Near the Congo: Our Conversation with a Disease Ecologist Caught Abroad
“Our approach is an attempt to work toward health for humans, animals and the environment holistically because you cannot disconnect these things.”
On her way to the Congo, Belgian disease ecologist and wildlife biologist Anne Laudisoit got stuck in Uganda during their COVID-19 shutdowns. In this interview from May 2020, she chats with Bioneers Senior Producer J.P. Harpignies about zoonotic diseases and how scientists around the world are managing outbreaks.
Planetary Health: Protecting Nature to Protect Ourselves
“These are, indeed, the best of times and the worst of times. But at the heart of the field of planetary health is recognition that the wellbeing of humanity and the degradation of the rest of the biosphere cannot remain disconnected for much longer.”
Planetary health is an emerging field that honors the interdependence of human and environmental health. The book Planetary Health: Protecting Nature to Protect Ourselves provides an overview of this approach — which considers threats to our ecosystems as threats to our own wellbeing, with an emphasis on solutions — and serves as a guide on how to respond. Here’s an excerpt from the first chapter.
The Coronavirus Pandemic and the Invisibility of Nature
As rampant urbanization increasingly severs humanity from the living world, naturalist Michael McCarthy explores the ways in which the “anthropause,” ushered in by the coronavirus, has—on an unprecedented scale—made nature visible again.
Grief, Sacred Rage, Reckoning, and Revolutionary Love | Terry Tempest Williams, Eve Ensler, Valarie Kaur & Nina Simons discuss the power of women reclaiming emotions in service to a greater reckoning with the power of personal and political transformation.
A Keynote Conversation with Chloe Maxmin | Bioneers Co-founder and CEO, Kenny Ausubel, speaks with Chloe Maxmin about her work on Green New Deal legislation, political organizing and building bridges between rural and urban communities through the power of listening and shared values.
The Coming Net-Zero Backlash | This article from GreenBiz highlights the flaws in how net-zero carbon emissions commitments assume that corporations will continue to emit greenhouse gases long into the future forcing us to rely on offsetting the effects of that pollution rather than reduce it.
Some key turning points in human history are not taught in schools, and here’s one. You could reasonably say it was with the invention of farming twelve thousand years ago that we began to separate ourselves from the natural world. Previously we had been an integral part of it: as hunter-gatherers we were wildlife, we were animals, like all the other animals around us—albeit with larger brains and language—as the cave painters of Chauvet and other prehistoric caverns so grippingly make clear. The rhythms and sounds and smells of nature were the only ones we knew; our delights were the delights of nature; our problems and our perils were the ones that nature threw up. But with farming came food surpluses, and with surpluses came settlements, and settlements became towns and then cities; and now towns and cities hold more than four billion people, where we are so far separated from the natural world that nature is not only forgotten but increasingly invisible.
The growing invisibility of nature is a topic that is little regarded by the general public, since such public concern as there is focuses—understandably—on nature’s degradation and destruction. This year we have seen the most drastic estimate yet of the damage human society is causing to the web of life across the globe: the biennial Living Planet Report, published in September by the World Wildlife Fund and the Zoological Society of London, estimated that between 1970 and 2016, global populations of mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, and reptiles plunged on average by 68 percent. It is scarcely to be believed: in less than a human lifetime, more than two-thirds of the vertebrate wildlife of the world has been wiped out. (The condition of invertebrates is probably even worse, but we do not have the same sort of comprehensive figures.)
This is such a monstrous situation, so demanding of our attention, it is no surprise that outside the specialized area of ecological writing, there is little interest in the seemingly lesser question of nature disappearing from view, for much of humanity; and yet it is happening, and it matters just as much. The natural world is not only being destroyed but is also becoming lost to us—we who were formed by it over immensely long periods of time and still carry from it, within us, great and vital inheritances. For although we have been farmers, and subsequently citizens, for about five hundred generations, we were hunter-gatherers for perhaps fifty thousand generations or more, and in recent years we have begun to understand that the earlier period—when we lived as one with nature—is more important for us and for our psyches, even now, than the more recent one.
This understanding has been one of the great advances in human knowledge. Many of the insights about it have come from genetics, from evolutionary biology and the late twentieth-century flowering of neo-Darwinism. In particular they have come from the relatively new discipline of evolutionary psychology, which examines the ways in which the human mind adapted itself to the issues that early members of the species Homo sapiens faced in their daily lives as, over thousands of generations, they evolved inherent traits and instinctive reactions, which are with us still.
You may well be familiar with these developments, but if you’re not, let me give an example. Small children like to hide. If you have children, or if you have observed children closely, you are aware that this is so. If you asked me why, I would say I do not know—yet it might be the case that, tens of thousands of years ago, when predators or enemies attacked early groups of humans, the small children who didn’t hide didn’t survive to pass on their genes to future generations. They were killed—eaten, whatever—and the only genes that were passed on were from children who hid; and so the hiding gene became universal, and now all little kids possess it.
I do not actually know this. But it seems to me a fairly plausible explanation for such an inherited instinct. We possess many of these deep feelings, which go back to our time in the Pleistocene, the pre-agricultural epoch of the ice ages—these sometimes-curious likes, dislikes, and tendencies, ranging from our fondness for sweet foods to our fear of snakes and spiders; from our acute sensitivity to falseness in others to our love of panoramic views. They helped us survive, remain within us, and are known as “human universals.” Taken together, they indicate that the psychological legacy from our hunter-gatherer forebears—from the hundreds of thousands of years when we lived as an integral part of nature and were not separate from it—is formidable, even today. But another development has shown that it is more than formidable: it is the key to who we are.
This is the establishment of the connection between nature and human well-being, physical and mental; I mean the establishment of it as empirically real, even in an era that demands scientific evidence. It, too, is recent. The idea of the consoling power of nature is of course very old, and the regenerative benefits to us of exposure to the natural world had long been supposed, though often in a sort of obvious, generalized, slightly patronizing way: of course a walk in the park will do you good, like a nice cup of tea. It was not until 1984 that we began to open our eyes to the true dynamic character of the link between nature and our psyches, with the publication of Roger Ulrich’s groundbreaking paper in the journal Science, “View Through a Window May Influence Recovery from Surgery.”
Ulrich was an architect specializing in hospital design, and while working at a hospital in Pennsylvania, he discovered something uncanny: over a period of nine years, patients who underwent gallbladder surgery made substantially quicker and better recoveries if they had a natural view from their beds. Some of the windows of the hospital wing looked out onto a group of trees and some onto a brick wall, and those patients lucky enough to have the tree view, Ulrich found, recovered faster, spent less time in hospital, required fewer painkillers, had better evaluations from nurses, and experienced fewer postoperative complications than those who had only the wall to look at. The data were indisputable: they showed that contact with nature, even if only visual, clearly had a measurable effect on people’s well-being.
Ulrich’s remarkable finding sparked an explosion of research into the human-nature connection, and there is now a vast literature illustrating the effects of exposure to the natural world on our physical and, especially, our mental health, which is increasingly becoming part of clinical practice. Nature, it has become clear, is the biggest reliever of stress because the natural world is where we originated, and for our psyches, it remains our home. William Wordsworth may have understood that instinctively, but we now know it explicitly, and our recent understanding of it is a significant historical moment. So it is an awful irony of history that just when we are at last starting to unlock the deep reasons why the natural world matters to us so very much, we are losing sight of it; it is becoming invisible, in every country.
Two great forces are driving this. The first is urbanization, which is rapidly increasing all around the globe. According to the demographers of the United Nations, at some unknown point between July 2006 and July 2007, a momentous milestone was passed: the percentage of the world’s population living in towns and cities exceeded 50 percent for the first time. The latest UN figure, for 2018, is 55 percent, representing 4.2 billion people; it is expected to increase to 68 percent by 2050. So from now on, most people on the planet—indeed, two-thirds of them in thirty years’ time, six billion out of an anticipated nine billion souls—will live urban rather than rural lives.
It may seem a truism to say so, but in terms of contact with nature, to live an urban life in the twenty-first century is something very different from life in towns and cities in earlier ages, when, as Jeremy Mynott points out in his fascinating book Birds in the Ancient World, “Nightingales could be heard singing in the suburbs of Athens and Rome; there were cuckoos, wrynecks, and hoopoes within city limits.” Despite the famous song, there are no nightingales singing in London’s Berkeley Square; and New York’s Central Park, a true haven for bird watchers, is a sort of wonderful exception that proves the rule about cities: in them, nature can be very hard to find. An urban life, especially if you are poor and your town or city is big, means that you are much less likely to have access to the rhythms of the growth cycle; to quiet; to the visibility of the stars; to clean air; to nonindustrialized rivers and natural forests; and to wildlife—to birds and wild mammals, to insects and wild flowers. Instead, you must march to other rhythms, such as the inconvenient working shift, and the snatched lunch break. Neon lighting, taking garishness to new heights, in many cities replaces the stars; smog replaces clean air; and traffic replaces biodiversity, which becomes a folk memory of wild plants and creatures freely existing, seen merely in visual representations. Perhaps the biggest loss of all in living an urban life is the intimate feel for the natural calendar, a feel that was one of the key attributes of our prehistoric ancestors and that has persisted among people living in the countryside. Not entirely lost, perhaps: even in a world of high-rise blocks you know it is warmer and sunnier in summer than in winter—but something subtler has gone. I mean the feel for the switches and the transformations, for the tiny signs, easily stifled by traffic noise and electronic music or submerged by pollution, that changes are underway with the Earth, above all in the great rebirth of spring—signs that have produced intense pleasure, excitement, and indeed reverence in us since we began to be human, and that even today can be among the greatest generators of happiness and of hope.
That’s what gets lost with urbanization. Nearly all of the expected increase in it between now and 2050—90 percent—is expected to take place in Africa and Asia, much of it in their “megacities,” the mushrooming metropolises of ten, twenty, thirty, going on forty million people that will be one of the most notable facets of human geography in the twenty-first century. By 2030 the world is expected to have forty-three megacities, alongside hundreds of “smaller” cities that will unstoppably expand to a million-plus, three, five, seven million people and more. However, in the developed countries of the West, we are largely there already. Our nations are predominantly urbanized, increasingly so since the end of World War II, with the United Kingdom and the United States now having a remarkably similar urban-rural split, with about 82–83 percent of the population in towns and cities and 17–18 percent in the countryside. What is driving the even further distancing of nature for those of us who have left behind the fields and woods is the second great force: the influence of the electronic screen.
It began in the 1950s with the increasing popularity of television, but then, starting in the 1980s with the advent of the personal computer and the computer game, our lives became increasingly dominated by the screen; and this process was given an enormous boost with the arrival of the internet in the 1990s. The great turning away from nature that the screen has helped bring about has been best illustrated with children, especially by the author Richard Louv in his landmark book Last Child in the Woods. Louv documented vividly—and much subsequent research has confirmed—how young people were leaving the world of outside, no longer playing in the fields and woods and parks where their parents played; for their leisure time, they were retreating to the world of the screens, back inside the house. Even in the ’80s it was starting to happen: Louv quotes a boy from San Diego, who said, “I like to play indoors better ‘cause that’s where all the electrical outlets are.” By the turn of the century, the results of children’s consequent alienation from the natural world, Louv said, included diminished use of the senses, attention difficulties, and higher rates of physical and emotional illnesses; and he gave the syndrome an unforgettable name, which really is applicable to us all: “nature-deficit disorder.” But Louv published his book in 2005, when Facebook was in its infancy, and a full two years before Steve Jobs launched the iPhone and, with it, the full-blooded addiction to social media and electronic devices that has become the defining feature of our age. By 2019, 96 percent of Americans owned a cell phone of some sort, and more than 80 percent owned a smartphone, as did nearly 75 percent of the population of the top ten developed countries. That’s where people look now—at their screens. That’s where they direct their gaze. How many look at the natural world? Nature’s invisibility is intensifying far beyond what Louv documented among children fifteen years ago.
In nature, 2020 was not a lost year. Just the opposite.
It is in this context that the coronavirus pandemic of 2020, this great world-historical event, assumes a significance other than that of destroyer of countless lives and demolisher of national economies; for across the globe, directly or indirectly, it has frequently made the natural world visible again, and led people to look upon it, and reflect. It is hard, and to some it may well seem inappropriate, to draw positive conclusions from such a tragic set of circumstances, which have produced such heartache for countless families in country after country, with more than a million dead across the world. Yet with the environment, it is simply the case that the impact of COVID-19 has in many ways, albeit bizarrely and incongruously, been constructive.
The main reason, of course, is the “anthropause,” as it has quickly become known: the great hiatus in human activity resulting from the pandemic-inspired lockdowns in many nations in the first half of the year, which are thought to have involved nearly four billion people in total. In environmental terms, the 2020 anthropause is a colossal event, one of the biggest and most significant ever to have happened to the natural world, certainly since human society began despoiling it on a large scale after World War II. It is a planet-sized breathing space. We have seen something similar before in lesser terms, for example, with the complete withdrawal of human activity from a wide exclusion zone around the damaged nuclear power plant in Chernobyl in Ukraine, leading to the area being reoccupied by wildlife. But the COVID-19 anthropause involves the entire globe; it involves large parts of the gargantuan nature-destroying human enterprise, worth more than $80 trillion, slowing down and coming, if only temporarily, to a halt. Before it happened, it was unthinkable that it might. Now that it has, we look upon it openmouthed. We can get a sense of the gigantic scale of this event from a study released in October on the resultant fall in global emissions of carbon dioxide: in the first six months of this year, the total was an 8.8 percent decrease from the same period in 2019, a drop of more than 1.5 billion tonnes of CO2. Would that we could combat climate change by doing that on an annual basis! The study proclaims, “The magnitude of this decrease is larger than during previous economic downturns of World War II.” In April, at the height of the lockdowns, the fall was 16.9 percent.
The effects on the natural world have, in some cases, been spectacular, and nowhere more so than in the city of Jalandhar in India, whose inhabitants awoke one morning in April to find that their northern horizon had been transformed into something white and shimmering and ghostly—almost a vision, but nonetheless real. It was the snowcapped Himalayas, more than a hundred miles away.
Such has been India’s load of air pollution—from transport, energy generation, and industry—that the more than 850,000 inhabitants of this city in the Punjab had not seen the distant peaks for more than thirty years, yet two weeks after the Indian coronavirus lockdown began, the air pollution had plunged so much that they were suddenly discernible, in all their shining majesty. The citizens of Jalandhar tweeted their astonishment. They tweeted their delight. Lest others elsewhere should doubt what they were gazing at, they tweeted the pictures. And if you look at them, you see the natural world, in the most striking way possible, made visible once more.
There have been many other ways in which nature came to people’s notice once again during the anthropause—largely cases of the natural world prospering, of natural processes resuming, when pressure from the mammoth human enterprise was lessened. Birdsong, drowned out by the noise of modern life, became audible again in many places in many countries. In Venice the canals, no longer churned up by tourist boats, were clear enough to see fish again. Wild boar and deer came back into car-free European cities; in Llandudno in North Wales, wild goats roamed the streets. Jackals appeared in broad daylight in the urban parks of Tel Aviv; pumas were sighted in the center of Chile’s capital, Santiago; and baby sea turtles made it safely to the water on Brazilian beaches empty of sunbathers, joggers, and dogs. Some of these instances were in the nature of temporary novelties, but others were significant and suggested possibilities for the future: to give an example from my own experience, the historic landscape of Richmond Park in outer London was reintegrated and rewilded by the absence of the motor-vehicle traffic that had previously cut it into pieces, and no one who saw it that April, May, and June will ever forget it.
Yet perhaps the most significant way of all in which nature has come back to us during the pandemic is that people have turned to it themselves. This was very noticeable in Britain, where, in a remarkable conjunction, the first lockdown coincided with the loveliest spring that has ever been recorded in the UK. The British spring of 2020 had more hours of sunshine, by a very substantial margin, than any previous recorded spring; indeed, it was sunnier than any previously recorded British summer except for three. It meant that, just as working life in the human world was hitting the buffers, life in the natural world was flourishing as never before, and this almost certainly intensified the renewed interest in nature from people seeking lockdown diversions. Their numbers, it is clear, were substantial.
Let us take just one astonishing figure: the increase in page views for the webcams run by the forty-six Wildlife Trusts that look after nature on a county-by-county basis across the UK. Many people enjoy watching wildlife via webcams, which often show surprising and intimate moments at the nest or in the burrow. In the period from March 23 to May 31, 2019, there were 20,407 page views of the trusts’ webcams; but in the period from March 23 to May 31, 2020, the period of the first British lockdown, there were 433,632 views, an increase of 2,024 percent.
Why such numbers? Because in the coronavirus spring, people turned to the natural world for solace at a time of quite unprecedented stress. Let us remember the colossal size of the event. The British environmentalist and political analyst Tom Burke says: “The COVID pandemic is the first time all eight billion people on the planet have had the same thing happen to them at the same time.” There have been three shocks from it, he says: the health shock, which we will hopefully get over soon; the economic shock, which will take much longer; but also the psychological shock, which will be lasting. With whole populations confined to home, stress was one of the pandemic’s principal effects, the level of which to some extent depended on your circumstances. It was greater if you were poor than if you were rich: it was substantially harder to self-isolate in a small apartment on the fifteenth floor than in a mansion. It was greater if you were self-isolating with people who were difficult, such as demanding children or abusive partners; indeed, with the latter, it could be dangerous or even fatal. It was greater if you were on your own, without support networks. But for millions of people around the world, there was some level of strain and anxiety brought about by the abrupt ending of normal social intercourse, and the very real fear of infection.
Those who turned to nature for consolation found nature up to the task. I was one of them. In the spring lockdown, I walked out every day during my permitted period of exercise, as many people did, seeking the nearest greenery to my home in the London suburbs; in my case, it was the towpath of the River Thames and Richmond Park, the largest of the royal parks, as well as the leafy suburban streets themselves and our small but well-loved garden. The springtime itself was magnificent, with every week bringing wondrous transformations in the natural world, in its trees and wild flowers, in its butterflies and its birdlife; but for it all to be happening against a backdrop of such widespread illness, heartache, and death seemed so tragically incongruous that I thought it required memorializing—it was a unique event. When I found that two friends of mine—Jeremy Mynott and Peter Marren, both accomplished naturalists who lived in the countryside—were quite by chance noting down the spring in detail themselves, we decided to work together and turn our recording of it into a book, which became The Consolation of Nature: Spring in the Time of Coronavirus.
In writing it with them, I did indeed feel that the coronavirus spring was unique, but I also felt that it was not just paradoxical in its character but important, somehow. It seemed to matter greatly for our relations with the environment, in some way even beyond its cherished ability to console, which at first I couldn’t quite put my finger on. But gradually I began to see it, and it was so simple, so obvious, that you were likely to miss it. It was the fact that it was there. The natural world was available to us, even at such a traumatic time. It had not been thrown off course, it had not been knocked out by the pandemic, by this enormous event that was knocking out everything else, which was making 2020 a lost year in human affairs. At this time of chaos in the world of people, nature was a constant, as it has always been. COVID-19 had wrecked, if only temporarily, so many human artifacts; it had stopped business, trade, travel, sports, education, entertainment, and social gatherings of all kinds—but it hadn’t stopped the spring. In nature, 2020 was not a lost year. Just the opposite.
If you saw it like this, you suddenly saw once again the unique worth of the natural world, which produced us and shaped us, which holds our origins, and which remains the true home of our psyches, as Roger Ulrich began to discover—and which, even today, when so many have turned their backs on it, continues to give us everything, from the air we breathe to the water we drink and the food we eat. You saw anew its fantastic power and resilience. You saw the wonder of it. And let me say, you also saw the need for its benefits to be available to everyone, and for the issue of equitable access to nature to rise up the political agenda. Because if we examine the consolation of nature in the coronavirus pandemic, it is only right that we should ask, Who could obtain it? Not everyone, though it was available for more people than implied by the 83–17 percent urban-rural split in Britain: gardens, for example, may have a big influence on people’s lives, and it is estimated that 87 percent of British households have access to a garden. But to state the obvious once more, nature is much harder to find in cities, and the issue of urban green space needs to take on a much greater relevance in the postpandemic era as we try to rebuild our shattered economies in an environmentally sound way—if legislators can deliver that. Legislators everywhere could start by following the example of the Green Party member of the British Parliament, Caroline Lucas, who suggested last year that no new housing development should be sanctioned more than one kilometer from a public park.
I am writing this in November, in the middle of the second British lockdown (hopefully the last). I am still seeking out the natural world each day from my suburban-London home and am now enjoying the autumn colors and the winter bird populations, just as Americans can do with different species from snowy owls to sandhill cranes; and in December, pandemic or no pandemic, the winter solstice comes to us all, which I think of as an immensely happy day, because then the light begins to come back, and nothing can stop it. This sense of nature as an unstoppable force has been strongly impressed on me (and doubtless on many others) by the great world-historical event of the coronavirus, tragic paradox though that may be; nature, which has been lost to sight so widely, has suddenly been made visible once again by the pandemic, by the extraordinary circumstance of the anthropause, and most of all, by people’s own need to seek out nature as a relief from unprecedented stress. Those who have sought it have not been disappointed in the natural world, in its ability to console us, repair us, and recharge us; most of all, in its ability simply to be there, often unrecognized and unacknowledged, but giving life to every one of us, even as human artifacts are crumbling all around.
Writer
Michael McCarthy
Michael McCarthy is a journalist, naturalist, and the author of The Moth Snowstorm: Nature and Joy and The Consolation of Nature: Spring in the Time of Coronavirus, chosen by The Guardian as one of the best nature books of 2020. He is the recipient of the RSPB Medal from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Silver Medal from the Zoological Society of London. He has previously served as the environment editor of The Independent and environment correspondent of The Times.
Artist
Sophia Baraschi-Ehrlich
Sophia Baraschi-Ehrlich is a painter, illustrator, animator, and graphic designer based in upstate New York. She holds a BA in studio art from Skidmore College and works as the assistant art director for Emergence Magazine.
Reprinted with permission of GreenBiz Group. This originally appeared in GreenBuzz, a free weekly newsletter. Subscribe here.
By: Joel Makower, Chairman and Executive Editor of GreenBiz
What, exactly, is “zero”? If that sounds like a Zen koan, it’s not. It’s a foundational question behind what appears to be a coming onslaught by environmental advocacy groups to name and shame net-zero greenwashers. For the past two years, and especially the past 12 months, hundreds of companies and governments around the world have made net-zero carbon emissions their sustainability North Star. It’s a positive step, to be sure: an ambitious, aspirational, even audacious goal, usually made at the highest organizational level, to drastically reduce or eliminate its contribution to the climate crisis. These net-zero commitments align with the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement as well as a 2018 finding by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: In order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the world must halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions by mid-century. The urgency ratcheted up last week with a report from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change stating that even with increased efforts by some countries, the combined impact falls far short of what is needed to reach the 1.5 degree goal. The UN called it “a red alert for our planet.”
At least, that’s the intention. The reality is far more complex — and sometimes far less impressive. And, based on recent reports and my conversations with environmental advocacy groups, efforts to call out companies on their subpar net-zero commitments are just now ramping up. Consider a new report from Friends of the Earth International, which calls net-zero “a smokescreen, a conveniently invented concept that is both dangerous and problematic because of how effectively it hides inaction.”
Fake zero?
One problem, the authors suggest, is that many net-zero commitments assume that a company will continue to emit greenhouse gases long into the future, relying largely on offsets to negate its climate impacts.
“Fake zero strategies rely on offsets, rather than real emission reductions,” say the authors. “Real zero strategies require emissions to really go to zero, or as close to zero as possible.”
But reducing vs. offsetting is only part of the problem.
I’ve been perusing the recent reports and, though I read them with the same journalistic skepticism that I bring to corporate and governmental documents, the advocacy groups make a lot of sense — and do so without the gauzy verbiage often used by companies. Among other things, the activists explain the concept of net-zero in a way that is clear and concise and based in science, not CSR or ESG.
A sampling from Friends of the Earth:
“The basic concept of “net zero” can be captured in an equation: greenhouse gas emissions minus removals of greenhouse gases, balancing out to zero. To reach zero, emissions over a period of time cannot be greater than the amount of CO2 that can be taken out of the atmosphere over that same period of time. “
It continues: “Whether or not we can get to zero is not all that matters in thinking about the implications of this equation,” noting that “100 minus 100” and “10 minus 10” both equal zero. Thus, “The first element in the equation is obviously more important than the second.” The fewer tons emitted, the better.
The problems with many net-zero strategies are well-known: They assume that still-unproven carbon-removal technologies will be operating cost-efficiently at scale by some future date. They can require “devastating land grabs” from Indigenous peoples and local communities, mainly in the Global South, to plant trees and enable other nature-based solutions. Because ecosystems can be cut down or lost to wildfire, drought and other things, their carbon-storage potential can be impermanent, thereby undermining a company’s offset calculations. Some commitments rely primarily on a firm’s own emissions and purchased energy — Scope 1 and 2, in carbon-speak — and not enough on their supply chains — Scope 3. And the time horizons — net-zero by 2050 is typical — may put off accountability until it’s too late to change course.
And, not least: Such strategies can shift the burden from emissions reductions to offsets, effectively giving license to companies to pollute endlessly well into the future during a time when emissions should be quickly ramping down.
Put another way, companies may be relying far too much on “net” and far too little on “zero.”
Beyond Pretty Pix
Activists don’t seem to care much for nature-based solutions, a key component of corporate net-zero strategies. “Right now, the only approaches to deliver real carbon removal are based in nature: ecosystem restoration and ecological management of working forests, croplands and grasslands,” noted Friends of the Earth. This, it says, enables companies to “continue to emit at scale, hiding their inaction behind nice-sounding ‘net zero’ pledges and beautiful photos of ‘nature-based’ offset projects. ‘Nature’ is called on to provide a ‘solution’ to their desire to continue with emissions as usual.”
It concludes: “This house of cards will go up in flames, with all of us in it.”
Help may be on the way. Last fall, the Science-Based Targets initiative proposed a framework for “science-based net-zero target setting” and last week completed a five-month public comment period. The final criteria are expected to cover such issues as boundary setting, transparency, timeframes, accountability and other factors.
But net-zero may not even be the be-all, end-all it’s thought to be. “Hitting net-zero is not enough,” wrote the international youth activist organization Worldward in a letter published in the Guardian last November. It advocated a more ambitious goal, “climate restoration,” proclaiming: “We urge activists to start including restoration in their campaigning.”
Advocacy groups, for their part, are honing their messaging. Expect to see growing campaigns to target companies whose net-zero commitments are deemed to be wanting.
I’ll give the last word here to another youth activist, Greta Thunberg (though, given that she’s now 18, we probably should all drop the “youth” moniker). As she admonished the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting last year in Davos, Switzerland:
“We’re not telling you to keep talking about reaching net-zero emissions or carbon neutrality by cheating and fiddling around with numbers. We’re not telling you to offset your emissions by just paying someone else to plant trees in places like Africa, while at the same time forests like the Amazon are being slaughtered at an infinitely higher rate…
And let’s be clear, we don’t need a low-carbon economy. We don’t need to lower emissions. Our emissions have to stop if we are to have a chance to stay below the 1.5-degree target. And until we have the technologies that at scale can put our emissions to minus, that we must forget about net zero. We need real zero.”
Will “real zero” become the next-next thing for climate leaders? If it’s up to some, that term will define what “zero” really means.
For too long women in general and women of color even more pointedly have been told to suppress their grief and rage in the name of love and forgiveness. No more. How do we reclaim our emotions in the labor of loving others? What might authentic reckoning, apology, and transformation look like, personally and politically, and where would they ultimately lead us?
With three of the most extraordinary writers, activists and thought leaders of our era: Terry Tempest Williams, V (formerly known as Eve Ensler), and Valarie Kaur.
Terry Tempest Williams, one of the greatest living authors from the American West, is also a longtime award-winning conservationist and activist, who has taken on, among other issues, nuclear testing, the Iraq War, the neglect of women’s health, and the destruction of nature, especially in her beloved “Red Rock” region of her native Utah and in Alaska.
V (formerly Eve Ensler), Tony Award-winning playwright, performer, and one of the world’s most important activists on behalf of women’s rights, is the author of many plays, including, most famously the extraordinarily influential and impactful The Vagina Monologues, which has been performed all over the globe in 50 or so languages.
Valarie Kaur, born into a family of Sikh farmers who settled in California in 1913, is a seasoned civil rights activist, award-winning filmmaker, lawyer, faith leader, and founder of the Revolutionary Love Project, which seeks to champion love as a public ethic and wellspring for social action.
Nina Simons, co-founder of Bioneers and its Chief Relationship Strategist, is also co-founder of Women Bridging Worlds and Connecting Women Leading Change.
The deep divisions between urban and rural America are becoming a defining force in American politics at the state and national levels. It is clear that we cannot achieve bold, long-lasting legislation without support from rural America.
In her keynote address to the Bioneers 2020 Conference, Chloe Maxmin, a young progressive from rural Maine, described how she was able to flip a Maine House Seat with a 16% Republican advantage in 2018, and in 2020 unseated a two-term Republican incumbent and (former) Senate Minority Leader.
After the conference, Bioneers Co-founder and CEO Kenny Ausubel spoke with Chloe about her experience building bridges between rural and urban communities through the power of listening and emphasizing shared values. Their conversation also covers Chloe’s work on the Green New Deal legislation, and the promise of a hyperlocal approach to organizing political movements in this transformational moment.
This article contains the content from the 2/25/2021 Bioneers Pulse newsletter. Sign up here to get the newsletter straight to your inbox!
As corporate food entities grow an insatiable appetite for ever-larger profits, hunger and malnutrition continues to increase in primarily Black and Indigenous communities, who also comprise the majority of exploited agricultural workers. The concentration of agricultural land, profits and labor into the hands of white ownership finds its roots in the legacy of colonialism.
Colonized people are leading the struggle to uproot the relationship of extractive violence against people and land that characterizes the agricultural industry. These leaders are paving the way for food justice and illuminating the stakes we all share in transforming how we relate to land and food production.
This week, we uplift some of the stories and teachings of leaders in regenerative agriculture and food sovereignty.
Leah Penniman – Farming While Black: Uprooting Racism and Seeding Sovereignty
Renowned longtime farmer, educator, author, and food sovereignty activist, Leah Penniman, explains the deep roots of this land loss and food injustice and shares the work she at Soul Fire Farm and others around the country in Black and Brown farming communities are doing to reclaim ancestral rights, renew ties to the land, achieve genuine agency in the food system, and advance food sovereignty.
Thanks to our friends at Chelsea Green, you can purchase Leah Penniman’s book Farming While Black (and others!) at a 35% discount. Simply visit the Chelsea Green website and check out using code PWEB35.
This discount code cannot be combined with any other offers (books on sale or multiple discount codes, for example). Sales and special offers are for online orders only. Free Shipping for orders over $100 occurs after the discount is applied (U.S. orders only).
A Keynote Conversation with Leah Penniman
After the Bioneers 2020 Conference, Bioneers Co-founder and Chief Relationship Strategist Nina Simons spoke with Leah Penniman about her background and work at Soul Fire Farm, and about the healing we can all experience from reconnecting to the land and each other.
Native American Food Sovereignty: An Interview with Filmmaker Sanjay Rawal
Arty Mangan of Bioneers spoke with Sanjay Rawal about his latest film Gather, the story of reclaiming food sovereignty in three North American Indigenous communities. Sanjay is a James Beard Award winning filmmaker who spent 15 years working on global human rights campaigns. His films include FOOD CHAINS about the battle of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers against the largest agribusiness conglomerates in the world and 3100: Run and Become about ultra-marathoners who value running as a spiritual exercise.
Seeding Food Sovereignty: Black and Indigenous Farming Leaders Share Their Strategies
A food sovereignty movement is sprouting on the trail of colonialism and white supremacy, which have unknowingly planted the seeds of their own unmaking. In this panel conversation from the Bioneers 2020 Conference, BIPOC leaders share food sovereignty strategies rooted in cultural knowledge, as well as the rematriation of land and dignity to colonized people who overwhelmingly represent the number of exploited laborers working on stolen land. Moderated by Naima Penniman, an artist-activist and educator, with: Rowen White, a Mohawk farmer and seed keeper; Reverend Heber Brown, a community organizer and social entrepreneur; and Leah Penniman, a farmer and food justice advocate.
Food Justice is not just about dismantling current systems of exploitation and violence but forging new ways of agricultural practice. Regenerative Agriculture seeks to redefine production and, in doing so, restore a reciprocal relationship with our planet.
This collection of Bioneers Media is an extensive resource on healing and justice through regenerative agriculture. This innovative media collection includes content on regenerative justice–not only land–but for agricultural workers who have formed a colonized class of an exploited labor force.
Decolonizing Regenerative Agriculture: An Indigenous Perspective
In this interview, Director of the Bioneers Restorative Food Systems Program, Arty Mangan, speaks with A-dae Romero-Briones. Citizen of the Cochiti and Kiowa Nations, A-dae is the Director of Agriculture and Food Systems Programs for the First Nations Development Institute, an organization that provides grants and technical assistance to strengthen Native communities and economies. A-dae is a compelling voice in illuminating the injustices that colonialism has inflicted on Native People and for the acknowledgment of Indigenous People’s land stewardship as a basis for regenerative agriculture.
Medicine of the Feminine: Virtual Retreat and Transformational Summit
In honor of International Women’s Day, you are invited to join Global Sisterhood in this three day virtual retreat and transformational summit dedicated to healing, meditation, activism, and harnessing the power of the feminine. From March 6-8, convene with various thought leaders and wisdom keepers to create a future for the next generation of feminine leaders.
Leah Penniman is a Black Kreyol farmer, mother, Vodun Manye (Queen Mother), and award-winning food justice activist who has been tending the soil and organizing for an anti-racist food system for over 20 years.
In her keynote address to the Bioneers 2020 Conference, Leah explained the deep roots of Black land loss and food injustice, and shared the work she at Soul Fire Farm and others around the country in Black and Brown farming communities are doing to reclaim ancestral rights, renew ties to the land, achieve genuine agency in the food system, and advance food sovereignty.
After the conference, Bioneers Co-founder and Chief Relationship Strategist Nina Simons spoke with Leah about her background and work at Soul Fire Farm, and about the healing we can all experience from reconnecting to the land and each other.
Sanjay Rawal is a James Beard Award winning filmmaker who spent 15 years working on global human rights campaigns. His films include FOOD CHAINS about the battle of the Coalition of Immokalee Workers against the largest agribusiness conglomerates in the world and 3100: Run and Become about ultra-marathoners who value running as a spiritual exercise. Arty Mangan of Bioneers talked to Sanjay about his latest film Gather, the story of reclaiming food sovereignty in three North American Indigenous communities.
ARTY: Your film Gather tells the stories of how young Yurok leaders, a Lakota high school scientist, and a White Mountain Apache chef are reclaiming indigenous foodways. What drew you to these particular people and their stories?
SANJAY: My first film, Food Chain, was on the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, the farmworkers who pick tomatoes in Southern Florida. As it happens, Spanish wasn’t the first language for any of them. They’re displaced migrant workers from indigenous communities in Oaxaca, Chiapas, and Guatemala.
After that film a funder reached out to me and asked me if I wanted to make a movie on Native American food sovereignty. The topic of native representation in media is a serious one, and I felt as a non-Native, even though I come from a country that has a horrific colonial past under the British, I didn’t have the frame of reference to address the topic. But the funder assured me that I would be working with one of their partners, the First Nations Development Institute and A-dae Romero-Briones who provided the indigeneity oversight that most, if not all, non-Natives in this space don’t have. That’s why there are a lot of tropes and mistakes that non-Natives make on these types of films.
The film looks at the effects of colonization and genocide on the Native American food system. Being in the form of visual media rather than a book, I’m limited by the access I have to visual media. I couldn’t look at East Coast tribes that experienced genocide in the 1860sand 1870s before there were photographs. So, I looked at tribal nations west of the Mississippi. By the time the US government began moving west of the Mississippi, it had consolidated its military might and focused on Native American extermination to a degree that it hadn’t before as an institution. There were probably no more heavily affected areas, as a whole, than the plains and the Apacheria [the area inhabited by Apache people] in the Southwest.
Sanjay Rawal
California Native history is not taught. The fact that California is seen as a progressive bastion shrouds the reality that there is a wild west spirit still in many areas of California. Many areas of California were settled by people from the confederacy, and those traditions of manifest destiny, colonial Christianity, and white supremacy created a kind of perfect genocidal storm that’s still affecting California Natives today in a way that progressive California is very much unaware of. That reality took us up to the Yurok and neighboring Hupa Nations.
ARTY: Years ago, I attended a farming event at the Gila River Reservation in Arizona. Before things started, a group of about 10 folks circled up for a conversation. Half of us were white, half were Native farmers, and out of the blue, one of the Native farmers said, “My parents always taught me that white people lie,” which of course is too often true. My question to you is how did you, as an outsider, gain trust of these folks to be able to capture their stories?
SANJAY: In all honesty, it was primarily because the characters in the film had either worked closely with the First Nations Development Institute or had known intimately of their work. There are 574 federally recognized tribes and hundreds more that haven’t gotten that political stamp of approval but are very much Native. It would have taken me years to develop relationships with any single Native tribe that’s featured in the film, but it was their trust in the folks from the First Nations Development Institute that opened the door.
I had a great crew of partners on the film, all of whom had worked as outsiders in indigenous communities before. Our tactic number 1 was to stay out of the way. What that meant was really treating our characters as the experts as they are. We didn’t even interview Native academics unless they were actually from the tribes we were speaking of, lived in those communities, or worked with our characters. We realized very quickly that the film had to be completely in the voices of our characters with nobody external to any of those stories, Native or not. So, I think that approach saved us from making 95% of the mistakes non-natives usually make.
That said, we made sure First Nations was very much part of the editing process. They pointed out a couple of things that I’m embarrassed about that were included in hindsight that were just such obvious mistakes from a non-native perspective. It was really their oversight that made the film kind of ring true for Indian Country.
ARTY: As the folks in the film revive and carry on traditional ways as part of a collective community healing, their work is also a way for them to heal personally from past traumas, addictions, incarceration or living in a food desert.
Gathering wild plants on the White Mountain Apache Reservation in Arizona
SANJAY: I can only speak peripherally to the effects of food sovereignty and food systems on healing from colonial trauma. I just don’t have the frame of reference for the historical trauma. What I observed for indigenous cultures all around the world, and really if we look back into our own family trees, human beings weren’t really nomadic. We had exceptionally close relationships with the immediate environment and understood that the immediate environment was absolutely essential to our survival. We developed not just an intimate knowledge of the plant life and the animal life in those ancestral areas, but we also developed a sense of gratitude and thus a whole series of spiritual practices to express that gratitude and to express the sacredness of the knowledge of survival.
Indigenous communities in North America still have those spiritual connections to a good degree, even though a lot of that was almost destroyed. That spiritual connection forms a foundation for what we consider food sovereignty.
When people, who are suffering from historical trauma of the devastation of capitalism on their communities, are reintroduced to their traditional foods by Nephi Craig from White Mountain Apache, and Twila Cassadore from San Carlos Apache, it wasn’t just here’s a squash, here’s some sage, it was an introduction or reintroduction to the lifestyle that their ancestors experienced pre-contact. That was a time when they were free from the yoke of continued occupation and colonization.
It’s not enough just to learn how to identify a squash, you end up learning how to love it by learning the songs and learning all of the spiritual traditions that their ancestors practiced around those foodways and lifestyles. Introducing people to traditional foods, essentially, is a first step to reintroducing them to their identity. That sense of self-discovery, as we know, is the key to happiness for anybody, whether they’re in the immediate grasp of suffering or whether they’re more in the space of just trying to develop themselves free from trauma.
ARTY: When I was formulating these questions, I tried to be careful to not ask you to be in a position to speak for anybody but yourself.
SANJAY: Folks involved with the film know that I always overstep, so they have a lot of forgiveness.
ARTY: Okay. Nephi Craig, the White Mountain Apache chef said in the film, “The food system has been colonized.” He also said that alcoholism, diabetes, homicides and suicides are the physical manifestations of colonialism, and that fighting for Native foodways is a human right. Can you talk about how you see Nephi Craig overcoming colonialism?
Nephri Craig
SANJAY: I think when Nephi is speaking about decolonization, he’s really speaking about economic justice and the right a person has to eat the way they want to eat. Indian Country is under an arcane system of governance. They’re governed effectively by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is under the Department of the Interior. There is a devastating set of policies that make it very difficult for Natives to farm, make it difficult to hunt, and make it very difficult to serve kids in schools traditional foods. When Nephi talks about decolonization, it’s about understanding the freedom that someone can experience when they’re able to gather and grow and hunt their own food and to cook that food and experience the change in identity that comes from connecting to your past.
I’m making it sound complex, but for Nephi I think it’s simple. Cook the food of our ancestors and then figure out how everybody in the tribal community has access to that food. There’s policy ramifications; there’s local economy ramifications; there’s ramifications around subsidies. Each of those limitations will vary from tribe to tribe.
ARTY: Food sovereignty, the central theme of the film, is the paramount quest for the people in the film. When you met all of these great folks to tell their stories, what did you personally learn about food sovereignty?
SANJAY: Twila Cassadore started a project called the Western Apache Diet Project with a non-Native colleague named Seth Pilsk. They began by interviewing elders who were born in the 1920s. Their first memories were probably in the late 1920s. They asked them if they could remember what was in the pantries of their grandparents. If they were in those kitchens in the late 1920s, or 1930s, and their grandparents were 80, 90 years old, that means that they were coming of age in the 1850s, 1860s, pre-reservation. Their food system hadn’t been really devastated by contact with non-Natives yet. And so they began putting together lists of ingredients in the Apache language, and kind of cobbling together how those ingredients might be prepared.
My theory is that all of us at some stage 300, 500, 1,000 years ago, were pretty much rooted to particular communities, with the exception of certain ethnicities like Ashkenazi Jews who just kept getting kicked out of places generation after generation. For example, my mom’s side of the family has been in a particular place in South India for thousands of years. If you’re not acclimatized to the food in your immediate environment, you die. You can’t pass on your genes. If you’re born above the Arctic Circle and you can’t survive on a high fat diet, forget it.
Sammy Gensaw
So conversely, it would make sense to say that our ancestral genetics are very highly specialized to particular foods in particular environments. When Twila began looking at those ingredients and began serving them to people, there was an immediate health effect, not just physical, but kind of a psychological health effect as well. Those foods, in a sense, spoke to the genetic makeup of her people.
I went back and asked my mom, who’s now in her mid-80s, if she could remember what was in the pantry of her grandmother who lived in the village. My mom listed ingredients that were pretty much unintelligible when it comes to modern East Indian cuisine. In fact, none of those ingredients seemed familiar at all to me. At the same time, they’re the most familiar ingredients to my genetics that I could ever come across. But the supply chain system of agricultural economics basically took those ingredients out of the marketplace and replaced the really tough red rices with mass-produced white Basmati rice and substituted coconut oil, which was the fat in the South, with ghee and butter and other things that could be developed on farms and shipped around the country in India.
I realized there’s a food sovereignty aspect in every family. Ingredients and preparations don’t just connect you with your ancestors, but might hypothetically connect you with a deeper set of genetic knowledge and genetic memory.
ARTY: That reminds me of an experience that I had at that same farm conference at Gila River. At one point, everyone was sitting around roasting corn on an open fire. That traditional food triggered a memory of one of the O’odham elders. When he was a kid, he’d ride out into the desert on a horse with his friends and they would carry flatbread, bailing wire and matches. When the sun went down, they would catch flying insects, put them on the bailing wire, make a fire and pop-roast them, and eat them on the flatbread. That was their dinner. So, I have to ask you about the pack rat hunt scene. It’s a very visceral scene. I imagine a lot of people who watched that had a very strong reaction. Why was it important for you to put that in the film?
Twila Cassadore and her niece hunting pack rats
SANJAY: My weird academic fascination has always been with supply chains, and looking at the destruction of genetic variety and the destruction of genetic choice because of the economics of agriculture. None of us in the United States who shop at supermarkets eat any sort of diet that’s specific to our own genetics. Even at farmers’ markets, you pretty much get the same types of cherry tomatoes, mescaline lettuce, tubers, etc., in California as you would in the summer season at Union Square in Manhattan. It’s always been really interesting to me how many people’s global diets just morphed into the Costco, Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s diet once they moved to North America. Any control over local food systems is completely usurped by the power of these large supermarkets.
I live in New York City, and I eat a diet where pretty much nothing that I eat or buy at the stores was ever traditionally grown in New York City. I think most New Yorkers have no idea what the food system would have been like pre-New York City. Most likely it was heavy on shellfish, heavy on fowl, heavy on a lot of proteins and plants that would now seem or taste strange. What fascinates me is to understand how media, television normalcy dictates what we think is appropriate and what we think is inappropriate to eat.
When I first learned about Twila’s work trying to reintroduce pack rat as a protein source, it formed a microcosm of my own interest. The Spanish conquistadors, when they first started moving up from Mexico into what’s now Arizona in the 1500s and 1600s, were basically coming from gigantic European cities where rats were an anathema. When they saw Apaches roasting and eating rats, they were mortified. Through the process of Western education and conversion, they created a huge stigma around this source of protein, which is completely relevant, completely sustainable, completely clean according to the timelines when Apaches would traditionally hunt them. It was the first example I could think of in North America where an important food source was pushed out because of this European mode of thinking.
When Twila was trying to revive it, there was a stigma that the Apaches who were introduced to it had to overcome as Westernized Americans. Twila’s process of 1) taking people out into the desert, 2) teaching them how to hunt in this very unique way, and 3) feeding it to them (she cooked it in incredibly tasty ways; I had it in a tamale), and 4) how reclaiming this food was reclaiming their power over the food system, that to me was the meaning of the film.
There’s no ingredient that we came across in the film that typified that more than this little creature. Even though Americans destroyed the buffalo, there’s always been a mythic symbolism of the buffalo. But rats, from the Western standpoint, are not seen as romantic.
ARTY: That’s for sure. Speaking of buffalo, there’s a scene where Elsie DuBray, the young Lakota high school scientist standing in the field with her father, says, “I love the sound of the buffalo.” Talk about her journey. She is a bridge person blending her dual passions of traditional knowledge and science.
SANJAY: Elsie is now a junior at Stanford University. As anybody who was filmed in high school would reflect years later, she looks back at her confidence in wanting to combine Western science with Native American traditional knowledge with a little bit of, in her words, embarrassment. She actually spent the first two years of her university career staying as far away from science as possible, and trying to root herself in–what I understand as the true basis for Native science– a deepening connection to her people in a spiritual sense. She’s learning the Lakota language and immersing herself in Native American studies. As Dr. Gregory Cajete of Santa Ana Pueblo has written, it’s through the spiritual lens that first allowed a Native scientist to observe an environment with the correct perspective. Elsie recognized that, and I believe she’s pursuing that foundational element of Native science and Native ecology earnestly before she enters back into the field of molecular biology.
ARTY: In another scene, at the mouth of the Klamath River, Samuel, the young Yurok man, is with a younger boy who had experienced some trauma. They see a group of seals laying on the other shore, and Samuel says to the boy, “The seals are our people too. Say hello to them. Acknowledge them.” What does that scene mean to you?
SANJAY: Sammy, much more than any of our characters, typifies the youth in Indian Country. No one in his immediate group really has the academic potential of Elsie. They didn’t have the kind of ambition and talent of Nephi Craig who was able to cook in some great kitchens. They’re going to live on their tribal land for the rest of their lives whether it’s their choice or not. They’re seeing their people gradually disappear both culturally and civically. They have a tremendous burden of having to contemplate survival as teenagers and as young 20 year olds. They didn’t have access to any real economic or academic resources. They had to use their dedication and their determination at every step of the way. They literally started from scratch.
Now four or five years into their official project work, they’re building gardens all over the Yurok Nation to redevelop self-sustenance, particularly when COVID decimated food systems and food supplies in that far-off section of California. They’ve realized a deep integral appreciation of their environment in its entirety. They were witnessing it disappear, not just the salmon but the plant life, the other aquatic life, and because of that, people’s connections to the river and the outdoors. They began to understand that without the frame of reference with nature as a relative, that kind of appreciation wouldn’t develop.
So, I think when Sammy speaks to that young boy, Uriah, about understanding their place on their land, it really rings true in Uriah’s ears that they aren’t the apex inhabitants of their tribal land. I think this is a theme across Indian Country. They have been given the role by the Creator of being stewards of the land, and that requires hunting and environmental management, but at the root of it all is an understanding that every creature, big or small, in your environment is your relative and should be approached with love and gratitude. I think that’s the root of Sammy’s own environmental ethos.
That’s one of the reasons why the Yurok, the Hupa, the Karuk have been so successful at their campaign to remove the four dams on the Klamath River. But Sammy’s speech to the young Uriah is the nucleus to that ethos and environmental consciousness.
ARTY: The struggle has, at times, been violent as shown in archival footage where there was police brutality on the river in the 1970s and ‘80s against the local Native people who wanted to maintain their fishing rights.
SANJAY: There’s a whole series of issues in Indian Country that are the same as the issues of Black Lives Matter. It’s important to note that the economy on North America, or Turtle Island, from the early 1600s through the late 1800s was agricultural. Unlike the Spaniards who were looking for gold, Anglo-Europeans understood the value of North America was the topsoil. They very quickly formed a series of plantations up and down the East Coast, mainly in the Southeast, to grow cash crops. That was the way Mother England was going to benefit economically off of its investment in the 13 colonies.
Rather quickly, the American farmer’s monocropping exhausted the fertility of the soil, and they wanted to move west. The Royal Decree of 1763 by the British military forbade American farmers from crossing the Appalachian Mountains. American farmers needed the British military support because they were literally in search of native farmland to steal. To dispossess that land, they needed to kill Natives. They were in need of military support to protect them from Native incursions attempting to retake that land. That was the economic driver for the Revolution War.
The history of agriculture in North America has always been a history of violence. When settlers were encouraged to go west of the Mississippi, they were going onto land that had been promised to Natives for time immemorial in perpetuity [although California had 18 treaties that were never ratified]. So everywhere we see a farm, everywhere we see a ranch, everywhere we see the farming economy, it’s literally built on genocide.
That’s not to say that anybody living today has responsibility for what their ancestors did. But that historical trauma is on both sides. Natives just recognize that there’s trauma in their lives from that genocide. People on the other side don’t recognize that trauma, or if they do recognize it, they refuse to deal with it. We’re in a time when Natives are still being policed for their traditional ways of hunting, for their traditional ways of fishing, or gathering traditionally on land. There has been an increased set of ramifications during COVID, and an increased set of policing policies to penalize Natives for use of their land.
This is back to that initial example. African American bodies are policed; their ability to gain economically is policed by institutions consciously or unconsciously. For Natives, the primary objective of the American economy has always been to separate them from their land. There’s a whole host of policies from the way Fish & Wildlife police Natives to the way the Bureau of Indian Affairs polices Native access to land and resources that continue to perpetuate a genocide.
That’s what folks like Sammy and his cohort, the Ancestral Guard, are dealing with day-by-day. There have been a number of Native youth that were fined during COVID for hunting more than their licenses allowed them to. But in essence, they were hunting and fishing to feed elders who couldn’t physically leave their house because of lockdown, who couldn’t safely go hunting on their own. It wasn’t like the Yurok were trying to decimate populations of elk or salmon, they were just trying to feed themselves in an environmentally and economically sustainable way. They were hit with penalties that could result in losing their gun licenses, which these young teenagers and 20 year olds would never be able to hunt again for the rest of their lives. That would separate them from their land, and that’s the end game.
ARTY: Colonization and oppression continue still.
SANJAY: In very concrete, very measured, very institutionalized ways.
ARTY: The totem species of the Lakota is the buffalo, and for the Yurok it’s the salmon, which obviously are living entities of the world. I would suggest that the icons of modern society are the iPhone, the car, and the computer, which obviously are machines. Samuel, the young Yurok leader, towards the end of the film says, “The Industrial Revolution is over now. If we want to survive, if we want to carry on living on the Earth, we need to be part of the restorative revolution.” He also said that if salmon disappear, the Yurok will follow. Elsie’s father Fred DuBray, the Lakota buffalo rancher, said, “By destroying the buffalo, they tried to destroy the Lakota.” These are deep expressions of the relationship that these indigenous people have with the natural world. What do you think industrial society is losing by its disconnection to the natural world?
SANJAY: That’s a great question. Industrial society and capitalism in essence are based on one principle, extraction. Extracting goods from one place and then shipping them, in some cases thousands of miles, to another place to combine those products– whether they’re petroleum products, minerals, food or water–with other inputs to create something that has value in the market. Extractive capitalism creates a tremendous amount of inequality. That inequality isn’t just economic. We know, from thousands of studies, that the elite don’t suffer from environmental issues. They haven’t suffered to the same degree from the pandemic as lower classes of people have.
At some point, there’s going to be a proverbial tipping point where life is just not sustainable for the non-elites. Before that happens, as Sammy suggests, we need to reframe our relationship with Mother Earth and begin to practice things that restore rather than extract.
I think what Sammy’s trying to say is that we can’t have the same level of consumption as we’ve had in the last 100 years. There needs to be a whole-scale shift in philosophy. He and his people have referred to that as the restorative revolution, as the bedrock principle of environmental justice.
ARTY: The film opens with a quote from Crazy Horse who lived in the 1800s: “The Red Nation will rise again and be a blessing for a sick world.” How do you think your film reflects on that prophecy?
SANJAY: That’s a personal wish. I wish that one day the Native ethos will permeate larger Western society. As an outsider, I see that as essential to survival. But the expansion of that philosophy isn’t going to happen unless Indian Country is allowed to redevelop itself on its own terms. There’s wishful thinking of having Native practices and Native approaches permeate all of Western industry, but, in the past, that has led to cultural appropriation and a dilution of the power of those philosophies and approaches.
The purpose of the movie was to make something that Indian Country could use as a tool. As a filmmaking team, we have been shocked by the interest of non-Natives in this film. One of the reasons why I think the film ended up being good was because we made it for Native audiences. We didn’t over-explain; we didn’t have to explain to Natives what genocide was; we didn’t have to go through colonial history; we didn’t have to really explain trauma; we just dove right into that topic. The idea was to prioritize Indian Country first, and Indian Country for its own sake. Let the individual communities grow and prosper and strengthen on their own terms. If there are partnerships to be made with the non-native world that further tribal nations, great, but if those tribal nations don’t want to have contact, don’t want to share with outside communities, that’s their choice.
The quote reflects my hope that one day Indian Country will be strong enough and will be back on its own feet to such a degree that their practice and their approach, their descendants can have a more powerful role in leadership in all of our industries. We’re beginning to see that with Deb Holland of the Laguna Pueblo tribe, nominated for the Secretary of the Department of Interior. Her position as the overseer for the Bureau of Indian Affairs [a branch of the US Department of Interior] would be quite monumental. The more Natives that we have in those positions of leadership, from politics to the economy, the stronger our own chance is of survival.
This article contains the content from the 2/16/2021 Bioneers Pulse newsletter. Sign up here to get the newsletter straight to your inbox!
“It is critically important that we have climate conversations through the lens of people who have lived these experiences. Because it doesn’t make a difference where you come from or what you look like, sometimes you just need things to be done in the language that you understand.” ~Heather McTeer Toney, internationally renowned leader in environmental and climate justice
Racial justice and environmental justice are inextricably linked. Communities of color are disproportionately affected by climate impacts — a symptom of an extractive system founded on White supremacy and exploitation. While there is no quick fix for these deep-seated issues, visionary leaders (especially those that are Black, Indigenous and People of Color) are working tirelessly to advance the movements toward justice for both people and the planet.
Vanessa Daniel on Funding Black and Indigenous Leadership
Women of color, and Black women in particular, are the most progressive voting block in the U.S. and the catalyst for the boldest movements of our time – from #MeToo, to #BlackLivesMatter, to the largest protest movement in the history of the country witnessed in this summer’s uprisings.
Vanessa Daniel is the founder and Executive Director of the Groundswell Action Fund, the largest U.S. institution helping fund women of color-led 501c4 organizations. In this Bioneers 2020 talk, she asks: What we can learn from the light they are shining on the path to freedom for all people? And how can philanthropy support their efforts?
P.S. Hear more from Vanessa Daniel in her video conversation with Nina Simons, co-founder of Bioneers! She shares more about her work with the Groundswell community, the importance of building cross-cultural and multi-racial coalitions, and where she sees the future of organizing.
Healing Across Divides: Building Bridges through Challenging Systemic Injustice
In recent years, political polarization and a sense of “othering” has been immensely apparent, both in ideology and physical manifestations, such as the border wall. It’s time for collective healing.
john a. powell is the Director of the Othering and Belonging Institute. In this keynote address from the Bioneers 2020 Conference, powell challenges us to think beyond individualized practices of bridging across differences, which ignore the structural injustices we live in, so we may build a more just society together.
P.S. Hear more from john powell in his video conversation with Kenny Ausubel, co-founder of Bioneers! They dive into how we can better understand the structures of “othering,” through the lenses of history, neuroscience, and philosophy, and how we can all contribute to changing these structures through new stories, new practices, and new intentions.
Live Online Workshop: Reclaiming Radical Rage and Ancestral Trauma
Our friends at the California Institute of Integral Studies are presenting this event on March 20-21. Join psychologist Dr. Jennifer Mullan, founder of Decolonizing Therapy for this experiential and interactive workshop on understanding, reclaiming, and healing our rage. Dr. Mullan guides participants through a mix of lecture, meditation, personal reflection, visualization, writing, and narrative therapeutic techniques to facilitate healing in a group shared format.
CIIS is currently hosting their Spring 2021 season of events. Browse their program brochure now to find virtual discussions and workshops around compassion, psychedelics, spirituality and more!
NEW PODCAST EPISODE! “Why Equity is Good for Everyone: Changing the Story, Changing the World” with john a. powell and Heather McGhee
How do we change the story of corrosive racial inequity? First, we have to understand the stories we tell ourselves. In this program, racial justice innovators john a. powell and Heather McGhee show how empathy, honesty and the recognition of our common humanity can change the story to bridge the racial divides tearing humanity and the Earth apart.
Too many injustices in U.S. history have remained unaddressed and unhealed. During the four years under the Trump administration, this tension has blatantly emerged in the forms of white supremacy, political polarization, and a monumental economic divide. But this moment in time has not been without mass resistance. Historically marginalized people — especially Black, Indigenous, and people of color — are leading the movement toward a democracy that works for everyone.
In this conversation, racial justice leaders discuss the movement as it predates and continues beyond Trump. Hosted by Bakari Kitwana, with LaTosha Brown, Mutale Nkonde, and Greisa Martínez Rosas.
As we work to topple systems of violence and oppression, we must come to terms with the racism and exploitation that is woven throughout U.S. history and continues today. We must also acknowledge the legacy of an economy built on genocide, enslavement and stolen land.
This collection of Bioneers media is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the resources available to get educated and get involved on these topics. We encourage you to visit the organizations listed below and those represented by these speakers, including Patrisse Cullors, LaTosha Brown, john a. powell, Fania Davis, and more.