11- Alanis Obomsawin

Entry written by Jacklyn, Serena, and Philippe

Introduction

The three films we will present (Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance, The People of Kattawapiskak River and Le Peuple Invisible) are all about the lives of First Nations in Canada and how each community feels invisible in the eyes of the government. They each show in their own way how isolation to rights have impacted their lives and how little they get in retrospect to the average Canadian. One would think that in light of being the first people to discover and live in Canada, these communities would at least be treated equally in comparison to other Canadians . However, as shown in the three films, this is most definitely not the case.

Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance

Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance (1993,119 min 15s, Canada) is a film about a native community’s struggle with rights to their land. Directed by Alanis Obomsawin, this film brings light on the issues that many native communities struggle with throughout our country. The film documents the Oka crisis that occurred in 1990 where a Mohawk community fought for the land that the town of Oka attempted to claim for developmental plans where the Mohawks pines and burial grounds were located. Before the Oka crisis occurred, the Mohawk community attempted to legally claim the pines and the graveyard but the town refused. Which explains how the town of Oka was able to expand the golf course in the first place.  There was also no democracy involved in making the decision to invade the pines and the Mohawks had no say in the choices made. There was no answers or explanations given from the mayor of Oka and he was not open to hearing what the Mohawks had to say. Obviously, this way of governing a town is not subsequent to the idea of democracy. It is very hard to say, in light of the issue, that people (mainly the town council) are viewing the Native community as equals.

The film shows mainly the native community’s experience with slight glimpses at the town councils, the media’s and the military’s perspectives. Alanis Obomsawin narrates the film and follows the native community while capturing their opinions and emotional responses throughout the crisis . We see shocking scenes in the film like the Canadian military and the Mohawk’s men being forceful and intimidating towards one another. One can see great opposition between the two especially when the Mohawks blockade the bridge and the pines. The most shocking scenes are seeing the harm that this dispute caused to the community. We see children and women being aggressively handled by the SQ, as well as seeing a middle aged man suffer such serious physical harm from military soldiers that he’s rushed to the hospital. The film also shows home owners of the town being detained by police officers due to speaking out about the unjust decisions they are faced with. The film shows a very subjective view towards the indigenous people by making the authoritative figures (military commanders and SQ officers) seem ignorant and impractical. This film documents many signs of discrimination towards the Mohawk community by the military and SQ forces, such as having no rights to contact a lawyer, not allowing them to have access to medication unless they surrender and by damaging the Mohawks food that is delivered by the military. All of these scenes allow the audience to further comprehend how unfair it is for the native community to have to go to such extremes to have their rights protected and even in these extremes, they are not treated as equals regardless.

        The movement resulted in many Mohawks being detained by the SQ and with the town of Oka dropping the golf course expansion. This rebellion was one of the most publicized First Nations disputes to occur in the 20th century. Thus sparking many other native communities to end this “270 years of resistance”. Meaning it influenced other first nation communities to take a stand and give themselves a voice. One can say that governments throughout history have viewed native people with much ethnocentricity, meaning they have viewed their lives in terms of their own. This 270 years of resistance refers to many years of an attitude towards the indigenous people that included little respect and understanding of their rights as first nations.

The People of Kattawapiskak River

In The People of the Kattawapiskak River (Alanis Obomsawin 2012, 78 min Canada), the community reached out to the government because many were living in tents, trailer and temporary shelters (for example sheds). Attempts to get assistance in their community were dismissed by the governments and these attempts go as far back as 2007. By 2011, the First Nations chief Theresa Spence had already called three times Kattawapiskak as in a state of emergency. It is only in 2012 that new trailers were rushed to the community and needs were beginning to be met. The time it took for the federal government only further proves the discrimination that the Native community is still facing, even on a legal level. It is devastating to see how long the government took to handle the housing crisis up North. Furthermore, the First Nation’s community was criticized for spending a large sum of money on a new Zamboni. To many youth, the local arena was a safe refuge both emotionally and physically. In The People of Kattawapiskak, the criticism about buying a new Zamboni was not justified in this situation. In fact, the high suicide rates in the First Nation communities are just as important to resolve and consider as the poor living conditions.

The most touching parts of the documentary are the interviews where Ms. Obomsawin reaches out to the people of the community. Through these individual stories, we are made aware of the crisis on a very up close and personal level. Ms. Obomsawin films them in their homes doing simple everyday activities such as taking care of their children. As a member of the First Nations community, Ms. Obomsawin was able to create a bridge of trust and sincerity between herself those she was interviewing.  Thus she was able to share with us true and first-hand experiences of what happened during the housing crisis.  One of the interviewee’s houses looked to be in third world conditions; unequipped to handle the sub-arctic weather of northern Ontario.  In some instances it was seen that over 90 people were staying in one mobile trailer with only few bathrooms.  These trailers were hand-me downs from a neighboring industrial plant.  This trailer was not even the worst of its kind; there were some homes with holes in the floors and ceilings.  The community was not receiving proper housing seeing that the government sent in quick fixes, with mobile homes. Do to the arctic weather, these homes could not withstand freezing and defrosting and were literally falling apart at the seams.

When Alanis Obomsawim spoke, everybody listened. It is amazing to think that despite her easygoing and level tone, she projected so much passion about what she was talking about. Ms. Obomsawin told of her travels to various Native reserves and how they are always happy and willing to see and speak with her. Essentially she brings their stories and struggles to the general public’s attention. It is really interesting to note that she said that the best way we could help the cause was to write letters to the government. By saying this, it reinforces the fact that the situation the Native community faced and is still facing is extremely serious; serious enough that the only way to make a difference is to appeal to the government. 

Le Peuple Invisible

“Once so vast, the land of the Quebec Algonquin has shrunk dramatically. This hard-hitting documentary provides a sympathetic glimpse of a nation of 9,000 people who suffer in silence as the rest of us look the other way.” –National Film Board of Canada

Le Peuple Invisible, directed by Richard Desjardins and Robert Monderie (2007, 93 min 19 sec, Canada) is a documentary that explains how Algonquians have been treated since the beginning of their colonization. In the beginning, the First Nations were allied with the French colonists. Iroquoians were allied with English colonists from New York. Between these two big clans, there was a total war zone for the control of the fur trade. The English were greater in number than the French and consequently won the war. The British King decided to split the colony into three regions: the first one being the English colonies, the second one was the colony of Quebec and the last one was the Natives’ territory. No one was allowed to cross into the Natives’ territory, unless the person who wished to go through it had been granted special permission from the authorities. However, after a couple of years, the King decided to take the Natives and put them all together, thus, the first reserves were established. At this time, they did not know that they lived in a new country, Canada. Their lands was property of the province of Quebec, as well as the property of federal government. Every time they tried to extend their territory, the government refused. The province of Quebec reduced the territory allotted for the reserves numerous times. The First Nations were treated like animals; they were not given the rights to do anything on the land unless the government approved it. It remained that way until today.

The First Nations are still living in small reserves such as Kanawhake and Kanehsatake. Their life conditions are horrible. In some reserves they do not have running water. Instead they have to take use a boiler and go to the river if they want to drink and wash themselves. In Grand Lac Victoria's reserve, the community is very little and isolated. 90% of children living in this village are cousins because they are so few people who immigrate to these places, therefore there isn’t any new blood in the village, and they simply marry each other. The community does not know how long they will be able to live like this because of the consanguinity in the reserve. Furthermore, 80 % to 85% of people are living on welfare and 60% of them are the youth of the community. Many couples have children because they like to continue the tradition of having a large family. A lot of young men would like to go to Cégep or University but they do not have enough money to pay for their studies, thus they abandon their ambitions for education and depend on welfare. They know that their prospects for the future are not bright and it brings down their strive for ambition and confidence in their lives. They begin to use drugs and alcohol much younger than Caucasians would on average. In Rapid Lake's reserve, it is easier to find cocaine, cigarettes and weapons than flour and it is not the only reserve like this, there are many in similar situations. All these things lead young people to commit suicide. Half of the young boys in almost each reserve try at least once to commit suicide because they feel they do not have any future.

The Canadian government doesn’t offer assistance for their situation. Each time the First Nations ask for a subvention, they are refused. Subventions would help to construct decent schools and create jobs, which would contribute to a healthier development for the community. People outside the Native community complain when a protest occurs but what these people do not comprehend is they have really valid reasons to doing so, because even prisoners are treated much better than they are. 

A Reflection

Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance, The People of Kattawapiskak River and Le Peuple Invisible are each proper examples of how a democratic country that is known for being multicultural and diverse, is not fully abiding by its own policies which instate freedom and especially equality. 

We know from meeting with Alanis Obomsawin, that her goal is to get people's stories heard. She is much more in tuned with the sound, story and voice rather than the image itself.  In this short interview, we again get to see and understand how important vocalizing people's perspectives are to Alanis Obomsawin. She speaks about how the National Film Board of Canada allows her to films to be very open and diverse, rather than being limited or having boundaries. 

In both documentaries, it became obvious that the First Nations communities were being discriminated against. In Kanehsatake, the land clearly belonged to the Natives; in fact it was their burial ground and therefore already being used. It is terrible to think that the mayor of Oka was so ignorant as to think that this was not a good enough reason to not use the land. Currently, years after Europeans have immigrated to North America these First Nations are still being treated the way they are. Unfortunately, it was only in the 1980s that they even became recognized as citizens of Canada. It’s unnerving to think that in a liberated country like Canada we could be taking one-step forward but two steps back. In The People of Kattawapiskak, the criticism about buying a new Zamboni was not justified in this situation. In fact, the high suicide rates in the First Nation communities are just as important to resolve and consider as the poor living conditions.

We know from in doing the third assignment that there is a charter which claims: “by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right, freely and without external interference, to determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and that every State has the duty to respect that right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.” We also know after viewing these films that very little of claims are being respected. Especially the part of the resolution that states that every State has the duty to the respect that right in accordance with the Charter. It truly appears that the Canadian government is doing the complete polar opposite of what this Resolution demands. I personally feel that these means are not being met for the native communities because it is easy to ignore the people who (because of us) have much poverty, mental illnesses and basically no power. When the government holds and controls the money and our countries institutions. Luckily, the native communities have tons of integrity, strength and intelligence to not let this reality of being pushed away go on any longer.

A Final Thought

As a society, we have the moral responsibility to keep ourselves informed about social crises and be aware of what we can do to help. During this specific crisis, Idle No More, a campaign dedicated to “calling on all people to join in a revolution which honors and fulfills Indigenous sovereignty which protects the land and water” was started. It is campaigns like this that will truly make a difference to social injustices everywhere.

10 - Myth and Utopia

Myth, Utopia and "No Impact Man"

by Marc-André, Katherine and Shashi

Introduction

This week’s topic is about myths and utopia, and how to reach perfection through collectivity and actions that could be considered as belonging to myths.  So this blog is dedicated to the summary of the two screenings No Impact Man and Surviving Progress, which are related to the topic of the week, and also what do these two documentaries can teach to viewers.

Part 1: First screening

“No Impact Man,” an American documentary directed by Laura Gabbert and Justin Schein in 2009, is an interesting look at saving the planet. It shows the measures taken by the Beaven family to try and go for a year without negatively impacting the environment.  The family consists of Colin Beaven, a writer, Michelle, his wife and their toddler daughter Isabella. The purpose of the project was to see what things they really didn’t need to live normally in New York City. To see what things they could plausibly give up, not to necessarily live that way for the rest of their lives. The point was to see what changes they could make.

Their project was done in stages, and the stages got progressively extreme and difficult. Some of the first things they did included eating only local  foods, not buying anything new (used things or borrowed were okay), using only self-propelled transportation (no elevators), getting rid of their television and using a worm bin to compost. The later phases of their project included getting rid of things they didn’t need by donating them to second hand stores, making their own soaps, detergents and other cleaning products, learning how to grow vegetables in the city, volunteering with environmental groups and, for the last six months of their experiment, going without electricity. During their project, they were faced with much criticism. Other environmentalists said that it was this type of extreme action that gave them a bad name. The media made their project into a kind of joke by not focusing on the truly important or good things from their project. Co-workers began to think of them as dirty, refusing to even shake hands because they would not buy toilet paper. 

This film highlights individual actions in a big community, which makes it special. Often, individual action is seen as something that is pointless, because there are so many individuals in a community and you can’t force everybody to take the same actions and make the same changes in their lives. Often, people believe that they have to wait for governments and organizations to take action. While this is discussed and validated in the film, it is also shown that individual action is not something to be disregarded. The actions of one individual can inspire other individuals to act in a certain way, slowly changing the ways we live. This is really brought home when we see Colin talking to large groups about his experiment.

The topic discussed in class this week was utopia and myths. This film shows us a hero’s quest, the sender being that Colin Beaven wanted to write a new book, the subject being the Beaven family, the object being the project. There were also helpers and oppositions, the helpers being those who lent them things such as the solar panel, and the opposition being those who criticized the project. In the end, the receiver was the Beaven family themselves as well as the environment, because they grew closer as a family and became healthier overall. This was a myth based on an idea of utopia. A utopia is basically a perfect world. The term utopia was first used by Thomas More. A utopia is a world that is too good to be true. Such a world can never truly exist because utopia depends on an individual’s vision of the world. With so many individuals, not everyone will have the same vision of what a utopian world would look like; therefore in reality it is unattainable. The link below is to a video that expands on the idea of utopia.

The project presented in “No Impact Man” is based on a utopia. During their one year experiment, the Beavens take measures that even they decide not to take after that year, things like going without electricity and the worm bin. Very few people would be willing to change their lifestyles so dramatically, as we are all afraid of change even when the change is beneficial to us and our environment. We will always have some impact on our environment, so the idea of making no impact is utopian. It would be ideal, but it is in reality unachievable.

Part 2: Additional Screening

Firstly, the additional screening released in 2011, and lasting about 86 minutes in length, called Surviving Progress, accompanies the main documentary, No Impact Man. The filmmakers, Harold Crook and Mathieu Roy, say that their inspiration for creating this compelling interactive documentary came from Ronald Wright’s best-seller of 2004, A Short History of Progress, in which the author claimed that civilization is in an experimental stage as much as the human beings from the Stone Age were then. But in this film, viewers that are trying to know what the main theme of the documentary is only have to look at the title, because “survival” is the central idea for this movie. Viewers are presented with different opinions from a number of economists, scientists, and authors, in which they describe what probably caused civilization to reach the point where it has to worry about its survival, and what can it do to prevent its destruction. After a few minutes in the documentary, Ronald Wright presents to viewers a term that he uses to define the current situation of civilization called progress trap, which corresponds to human behaviours that seem to be good things to provide benefits in a short term, but which actually leads to disaster and unsustainability. By looking at his definition of what a progress trap is, viewers can easily make the link between this, and the current problems of overconsumption, overpopulation, and the refusal of dramatic changes because people think that they are already contributing to a good environment. Another example of denial and scepticism is the critic of this documentary, written by Michael O’Sullivan of The Washington Post, who wrote that “99 percent” of viewers “probably won’t like what the movie has to say”. Now, one might wonder if this movie critic is implying that members of society simply do not care about change, or that they are already discouraged by the steps to take because they feel guilty. Basically, the whole documentary was about how humanity always strives for progress, but what humans see as progress, are not necessarily positively changing the world.

Secondly, the documentary being an interactive one is composed of many interesting interviews of experts, where the viewers can have their personal opinions of how the world is, how it got to this point, and how it can be fixed. For example, Michael Hudson, an economic historian and former Wall Street economist, claims that 2000 years ago, it was normal for countries to cancel their debt when it was too large, so that society can renew. But he adds that Rome became a powerful and rich empire by going to war against other countries before the kings could cancel their debt, and stripped them from their economic power to prevent equality. Basically, the gap between the rich and the poor may well have been caused because of this manoeuvre by the Romans, and could explain the current situation. Another memorable moment is the interview of Margaret Atwood, author of Payback: Debt and the Shadow Side of Wealth, gives the perfect argument against capitalism by saying: “Unless we conserve the planet, there is no economy.” At one point, Kambale Musavuli, spokesman of the organisation Friends of the Congo, makes a very interesting remark on debts by saying that the people are working to give the money they earn to someone else. This surely makes viewers uneasy, because of course Mr. Musavuli talks about the population of Congo, but isn’t it the situation in which every member of society find themselves into? Although, probably the most intelligent, simple, and jaw-dropping comment of Surviving Progress must be when Vaclav Smil, a population scientist, says that the solution to contribute to the environment and society in general, is that humans have to use less. This could fix the overconsumption, environment problems, but by fixing these, it could save humanity from its progress trap. So, if readers look at the examples given, they might notice that their words act like myths, because their words are the vehicle of their metaphysical insights, meaning that they convey words of wisdom concerning the values that society should acquire, or keep.

Thirdly, readers of this blog might try to find a link between this documentary, and the theme of the course, but should clearly see that they both treat of the same concept: Utopia. While Sylvain Duguay’s PowerPoint presentation Myths and Utopia: Imagining a Different World defines what is Utopia, the film illustrates an almost utopian vision of the world when the people interviewed, consisting of Stephen Hawking, Jane Goodall, David Suzuki, and many more, present their solution or vision of how to make the world a better place. Viewers might see a sense of collectivity, primarily because humanity is strongly connected to the Earth, but also, because of the challenge that humanity, as a whole, has to face. Another interesting subject that this documentary touched is the quest for answers. Daniel Povinelli, a cognitive psychologist that was interviewed, says in the documentary: “Humans are constantly probing for unobservable phenomenon to explain the observable”. So, it is easy to see that the fact that this documentary serves to warn viewers of the consequences of civilization’s actions, which is a quest of its own, but another is the quest that viewers are urged to undertake. Viewers may see many links between the film and the course, but there are also many between the first and second screening. One of the most significant links that viewers can make between the two screenings, would obviously be the fact that Colin Beaven, in No Impact Man, takes an enormous task as an individual, but finds himself against society and its criticism, while in Surviving Progress, society as a whole has to confront some challenges. This certainly leads to say that a person can make great changes in his life, but only if society cooperates and acts like a whole, can the world be change for the greater good.

Review of Surviving Progress:

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/gog/movies/surviving-progress,1224566/critic-review.html

Part 3: Personal Reflection of the two Screenings

From watching the documentaries Surviving Progress and No Impact Man, there is a common subject that is emphasized from the two documentaries which is change and progress. Humans are capable of great change but the changes we make in society aren’t enough to be considered as “change”, instead it is referred to as progress. But as human beings we don’t realise that we are progressing too quickly as a species, so quickly, that the changes and progress we make could threaten the very existence of humanity, basically a progress trap (as Ronald Wright would call it)!

  In No Impact Man, the film taught us that as humans, we have the capability of making great changes to help better the world for the tomorrow to come as seen with Colin and his family, which consists to live a “no impact towards the environment” lifestyle for one year, in New York City. His idea was successful but really, there is one question that we should ask ourselves, if one man and his family could do it, why not the rest us? Is it because humans are afraid of change, or that we simply don’t care? Right now, we are living in a society in which our way of living is harming our nature our very habitat. We are polluting, extracting, using up all of our natural resources, and destroying habitats for our personal needs. We need paper so we cut trees; we need land to build homes so we destroy forests etc…  Our actions always have consequences and as consequence for our actions we are committing towards the earth, we are slowly progressing to lose nature itself. Forests, animals, natural resources, all would disappear if we continue in this path but when people begin to realize about the harm we are causing, we take small actions (example: recycling, living a no impact lifestyle etc…) to better ourselves and Earth and hope that this will eventually progress into a big change but sometimes the progress we make to help better ourselves and the world isn’t quite helpful at all.

From the documentary Surviving Progress, it seems the documentary emphasizes the idea of how sometimes, progress isn’t that perfect. As humans, we strive to make change, but yet we don’t realize that the human race is something that affects our planet. We are growing in numbers so our demand increases and affects our nature etc… “Humans are the most intellectual creatures to walk on planet Earth yet us intellectual beings are destroying are only home” (Jane Goodall). We are problem solvers, if there is something wrong, we will work it out but when the topic involves change in our habits, or ourselves, we merely ignore the problem or we simply don’t do anything. For example, when people discuss about the environment, usually you’ll have people who talk “big” but in the end you don’t do anything, because you’ll still drive your car, still throw garbage, consume natural resources, and etc…    

Both Surviving Progress and No Impact Man teach us that we live in a very small world and that rather than taking care of our planet, most people do the opposite, even if “The world is small and it can’t grow or be big” (Margret Atwood).  Earth is not a humongous planet with an infinite amount of natural resources. It is small. The only thing that is enormous is our population. Almost seven billion people live on planet earth and the number will continue to rise throughout the years but that’s not the only variable changing, year after year our natural resources are diminishing to a point that eventually, we’ll have nothing left. Why you ask? Because of consumerism, earth provides us with what you will call “Natural Capital”, (water, oxygen, forests, minerals, oil etc…) all of these resources that Mother Nature has provided to us, is used as capital because for humans, everything is about money. Eventually our situation will progress to a point where (as said by Stephen Hawking in the film Surviving Progress) the human race would have to leave earth and venture out into space to find a new planet to live on search for new resources (like in a science-fiction movie), because our instinct as a species is to explore, possess and consume. 

Films like No Impact Man and Surviving Progress were created to transform our vision of the world by showing us the consequences of our actions and emphasize on them so that we can change our ways just like how Colin Beavan did. Surviving Progress showed us that our world is dying and we are killing it. We are making progress so that our earth can live on but the progress we make isn’t enough or that the progress we make isn’t making a difference we’re just making it worse. While No Impact Man has proved to us that it is possible to make change by fixing our lifestyle and habits, humans have the capability of making the world a better, environmental friendly place by taking small progressive steps in order to make a change. This is something that society has to learn because if society doesn’t learn that the things we do on earth is merely killing it and we have the capability of change then who will? This is something we have to learn and this is what is considered as real progress.   

Reviews of Surviving Progress and No Impact Man:

http://www.theboulderstand.org/2012/02/20/surviving-progress-asks-deep-questions-but-fails-to-provide-answers/

http://movies.nytimes.com/2009/09/11/movies/11impact.html?_r=0

Conclusion

After watching the two documentaries and making links between the two of them, it is easy to present to readers of this blog things that the team learned. Although, these films show viewers how they can act to make tomorrow a better world, but the filmmakers did not go to the extent of showing these solutions as actions that will lead humanity to the point where it has finally reached Utopia. Readers of this blog might have their own opinion and are invited to contribute by commenting about what they have thought of the blog, and other subjects or details of the documentaries.

9 - Ideologies

By: Matthew, Evan and Alex


Introduction 

There are many different ideologies corresponding to different groups of individuals. These ideologies are based on different beliefs, values and habits that help shape our world. Even though there are many ideologies, do we, as a society, accept all of them? Capitalist companies and governments do not accept ideologies that are against or not with their own beliefs. Even though individuals have a right to speak their mind, they are not always heard. Capitalist companies and governments go against John Locke’s natural law principle, which states that people cannot violate other people’s rights to life. We are seen examples of this in the two documentaries If A Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front (directed by Marshall Curry and Sam Cullman) and L’erreur Boréale (directed by Richard Desjardins). Both of these films show different people’s ideologies about the environment and how the government and capitalist companies are not hearing their views. We hope you enjoy the blog. 


Part 1 - If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front

If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front is a documentary directed by Marshall Curry and Sam Cullman and was first released in January of2011. The film is approximately 85 minutes long and is based on a radical environmentalist group called the Earth Liberation Front. This documentary is different than most because it shows the point of view of three different groups. The first and most documented group is represented through the character Daniel McGowan who was an active member of the Earth Liberation Front. Daniel is awaiting trial for his actions on behalf of the ELF for multiple counts of arson on public buildings. The ELF began burning buildings of the companies that profited from deforestation after a string of peaceful protests went met with police brutality. The second group of people in the documentary are the business owners who are the ones cutting down the trees for profit. They get the chance to explain that what they are doing is not necessarily affecting the planet to the extent that everyone believes and that they also replace a lot of the trees that they cut down. The documentary also does a great job of humanizing the business owners by showing the damage as well as the personal responses to their buildings being destroyed. The third and final group in the documentary are the Oregon state police as well as the FBI agents who are attempting to stop the protests and arsons. The police are shown both as instigators of violence and as peace keepers throughout the film. We see the instigator side when they are forcibly removing and pepper spraying the protestors who are not acting violent. However, arson is still viewed as a crime and can also be viewed as extremely dangerous which is why it was important for the FBI to catch those responsible. Dan eventually left the ELF when he thought their ideas were getting too radical. In the end, many members of the ELF were caught and sent to jail and in Dan’s case; he was branded as a domestic terrorist.

                  

Throughout the entire documentary there is the question of the legitimacy of democracy in the United States. Democracy states that every person is supposed to have an equal say, yet in If a Tree Falls we see only the rich and powerful people are the ones who decide the fate of the forests. John Locke argued that society has the right to revolt when the law is inadequate and violent and the ELF strongly believes that the government is being unfair. It also brings up the debate of ecology versus capitalism or the love of nature versus the love of money. The film shows the protestors trying to save the trees and nature and then the businessmen who are attempting to make a living. This ties in to the concept of ideologies that everybody has. Ideologies are a set of beliefs or values that a person or a group of people have. We see multiple ideologies throughout the film and many of them begin to clash with each other. First of all, there is the clash between the protestors and the business men, but there is also a clash of ideologies between the peaceful and violent protests. Some of the protestors such as Daniel took more drastic measures in order to get their messages heard. What comes with ideologies is the idea of integrity. Integrity is when your personal values can change depending on the situation in front of you.. The character which embodies this concept would be Jake Ferguson who pretty much founded the Earth Liberation Front. In an attempt to save himself Ferguson tricks his other members into confessing to their crimes so he would get less jail time. He betrayed his friends and dropped his personal values in a stressful situation.

Here is a link of an interview with Marshall Curry director giving his input on the situation in Oregon. The idea of the media is supposed to be to keep the people informed and do so in a politically correct way. Today, many people feel that the media is doing an inadequate job at being a public service.

Here is a link of an interview with Marshall Curry director giving his input on the situation in Oregon.

http://video.pbs.org/video/2122024931/

Part 2 - L'erreur Boréale 

L'Erreur Boréale is a documentary film produced by Québec singer Richard Desjardins and Robert Monderie in 1999. The documentary lasts 70 minutes and it was filmed in the Province of Québec. This film is about the problem of deforestation that we are facing today in Québec. Most of the province’s population might not know it, but the forest is a public place and if we were to divide it, each individual would have the equivalent of 20 baseball fields of land. What is shocking in this film is that the Government has sold these parcels of land to forestry companies without consulting the population first. Since the birth of our country, forestry has been the pillar of our economy. In the past, companies stayed close to the shore of rivers, where they were working, because it was easy to cut trees and heave them into the water. Thanks to the fact that trees are less dense than water, the water would transport the trees to the mill and then transform them into either paper or other wooden resources. With the constant evolution of the market plus the lack of wood, companies had to move away from the shore and created roads that go through the forest itself. Their main goal now was to clear the forest to make the most profit. Richard Desjardins being curious about the companies behaviour, he went to go see the minister of the environment (Léopold Gaudreau) and learned that the minister has no control over the forest because of Bill 150. Thanks to this Bill, companies can now cut whatever they want in the condition that they plant trees in places where they cut. This is paid with the money of the public. Some people would say that it's a good deal but it's not. Indeed a forest has diversity and that makes it possible for a complete ecosystem to live but if we cut all the trees down and only plant some new trees, it would be impossible for all the animals to come back. Animals live in these grown trees that are being cut down. When Richard Desjardins goes to a forest companies meeting he asks a question about the regeneration system used by the companies and the only answer that he gets is: "Question niaiseuse" (stupid question). It shows us that companies don't care about the threat that they're inflicting to forests because it seems like all they care about is profit.

That's where the Ideology comes in. By living in a democratic country, everyone should be on the same level and should be able to decide whether or not selling our resources is a good thing for our province. Private companies should not decide for the faith of our public goods because they only care about their own interest. If we look at it more closely, the forestry companies are breaking the natural law that prevents people or industries to violate other people properties. As a society it's our duty to make sure that those rights are not threatened. We can also ask ourselves the question, is it more important to make money or to protect our environment knowing that a small amount of people makes profit of our common goods? The major problem would be the clash of the ecologist ideology against the capitalist one. One promotes the protection of the environment at any price and the other promotes the profit making.

http://m.ledevoir.com/non-classe/37010/la-gestion-de-la-foret-quebecoise-erreur-monumentale-ou-fraude-fiscale-gigantesque
Movie of L'erreur Boréale

Part 3 - Reflection of the Two Movies

These two environmental documentaries show us of individuals who work nonstop to try and help the environment. These individuals only represent a small percentage of people in our communities and countries that are concerned with environmental threats. We know that there are many environmental threats but what are we doing to help our planet? We can ask ourselves what do we do individually to help the planet. Do you recycle? Do you compost? Even if we do these two things, are we doing enough? Can we do more? There are individuals, like Daniel McGowan, who take of the labels from cans and recycle them. There are individuals like Richard Desjardins who go to forest companies meetings and bring up environmental issues. Environmentalists teach us that we could do more than just recycle and compost to help our planet. You don’t have to do extreme things to help out the environment but if everybody puts a bit more effort and does a bit more work, then we would be able to help save our planet significantly.

These documentaries teach us about tree cutting and how it has a significant impact on the environment. Tree companies cut down thousands of trees a year to help their businesses and industries grow. Based on the documentaries L’erreur Boréale and If A Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front, these companies do not care about how many trees they cut down but they only care about how much profit they get. They teach us that companies are more interested in capitalism and getting that extra money than not cutting down as many trees. This doesn’t happen in one area of the world, deforestation is happening all over the United States, Canada, the Amazon and many more places. Even when environmentalists like Daniel McGowan and Richard Desjardins bring up issues of deforestation, nobody listens to them.

Environmentalists try and transform our vision that our environment and tree numbers are falling apart significantly. The news and newspapers don’t bring up this issue like they should. Politicians and companies make everything seem like what they are doing is ok and we believe them because we are dependent on stuff made by trees. We are dependent on material like paper, toilet paper and nose tissues. We do not think about deforestation and tree issues more than we should because most people want paper, chairs or other wooden materials made out of trees. Environmentalists are trying to tell us that we have to change the number of trees we cut down because next thing we know, there will not be enough trees to make our paper or chairs.

The message that these two documentaries are giving us is that we cannot look at environmental issues later in the future. We have to look at them now. If individuals try harder to make a difference now, we may be able to save our environment. “We won’t have a society if we destroy the environment.” (– Margaret Mead). We have to act now.  

60 minutes interview about the Earth Liberation Front

Environmental quotes: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/topics/topic_environmental.html

Conclusion 

Different Ideologies come from different individuals. We, as humans, all have the right to express our own opinion. Even if some people do not like your opinions and beliefs, do not let these people change who you are. In these two documentaries, we were able to see individuals fighting back in what they believe. Daniel McGowan and Richard Desjardins are great examples of people who fight back. We should all learn from these two gentlemen. We hoped you enjoyed out blog entry and we hope that you learned a lot about Ideologies and about the documentaries.