The More, The Merrier

Today, I planted trees with the organization Friends of Trees. We went around to several Southeast neighborhoods and planted pre-approved trees in designated planting areas. We thought it would be fun to just get out there, feel earthy, get our hands dirty, and help plant a few trees. What we walked away with was the feeling of making a difference on not only a community level, but on an individual level.

It was great; we learned how to shape the earth around the roots of the trees, how to take into account the position of the branches and how they will grow into the street or sidewalk, how to pack the earth so it is stable and healthy, and how to tie up the tree to help it grow tall and straight. The people with us were full of tree appreciation. Overwhelming us with incredibly friendly energy, they took time out of their day to plant trees around some houses. I was so impressed with their commitment, but I wanted to further understand why they have decided to take this time out of their lives to plant a few trees around some random neighborhoods.

Lisa, our crew leader, said that she believed that even though it seems like just a few trees, the difference that each tree makes goes further than we can see. Each tree brings shade to the ground, a living space for critters, the chance for roots to spread. They bring oxygen to our air, they are aesthetically pleasing, and they are non-invasive, meaning they are beneficial to our ecosystem in the Pacific Northwest. By planting one tree, we are improving the overall neighborhood, and it only takes two hands.

When we look at making a difference in the sense of social or environmental movements, we tend to see them in the framework that a leader is necessary to make the changes or inspire the people. This perhaps is true in a way -- the inspiration and organization has to come from somewhere. However, we must not forget about the people who follow, the support behind the leader, and the individuals who have dedicated their lives to make the world a better place.

In reading about the slave abolition movement, we read excerpts on how it was a small group of people to initially inspire the public to make the changes, but after time, it was the people in the greater community who went against their own government, and their own economy, to try and end the horrific use of humans as forced labor. The men who started this movement were ordinary men who simply believed that humans should have a right to be free. They met, empowered the communities around them, and after several years managed to abolish slavery. As Adam Hochschild says in "Bury the Chains," "the antislavery movement had achieved its goal in little more than one lifetime" (3). While we can look at this movement as the first successful human rights movement in our history, it is important to realize that the people organizing it were simple global citizens like many of us.

We can look back on their success today as an example of what is possible, especially when we are feeling as if change in the world is against our power. The men behind this movement were undoubtedly discouraged at times, but, as Hochschild says, "their passion and optimism are still contagious and still relevant to our times, when, in so many parts of the world, equal rights for all men and women seem far distant" (5).

These men "not only helped to end one of the worst of human injustices in the most powerful empire of its time; they also forged virtually every important tool used by citizens' movements in democratic countries today" (6). We are capable of making these changes, just like these men did, especially now that we have their example to follow and their tools to use. By planting trees today, I felt helpful by bringing life to places that lacked it. The trees will benefit the people in those communities and each tree planted is a better step to an environmentally sound planet. We can make differences too; we don't need a leader to help us stand up.

"'Never doubt,' said Margaret Mead, 'that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has'" (7).

Framework Limitations

When one says they are "open-minded," how open-minded can they actually be? We shape our perception of things based on experiences, influences from our family and friends, and even instincts based on our personality. We have a framework that not even the most open-minded person can step out of; we are locked in what we know, in what we want to think. This does not mean that we are not capable of becoming aware of the limitations of our framework, or even adjusting perspective to have a wider lens. But ultimately, we shape our lives and specifically our choices around our own individual frameworks, letting these experiences, influences, and personality instincts control the paths of our existence as humans.

These frameworks are not all bad, and they are also happening sometimes in our sub-conscious. Some, however, have led to a mass destruction of species on Earth, even of our own species. In Sven Lindqvist's work "Exterminate All the Brutes," he mentions the influence that perception through specific frameworks have had on our history, especially when encountering cultures different to what is already known. He specifically talks about the European opinions that European's are superior to indigenous cultures, and therefore allowed access to power that is not originally theirs. Charles White, a doctor from Manchester wrote in a text that "the European stands above all other races" and continues to describe the "perfect" features of Europeans and their "large" brain (100-101). This idea that one race could be superior to another was popular from the time colonization began up until a more recent history.

As history shows, Europeans took it upon themselves to rid the world of what they thought to be were lesser races by "clearing the inferior races off earth," and moving to "exterminate such sections of mankind" (8). They believed that these people had no more purpose on earth, and as the great European race expanded, certain races needed to be eliminated. Many people found theories to support this, or else ridicule this notion. Charles Lyell had no intention to do indigenous peoples any harm, but did come up with the idea that throughout time, species have eliminated other species in order to create a defense or maintain "balance":

 "We human beings... have no reason to feel guilty because our progress exterminates animals and plants. In our defense, we can state that when we conquer the earth and defend our occupations by force, we are only doing what all species in nature do. Every species that has spread over a large area has in a similar way reduced or wholly eradicated other species and has to defend itself by fighting against intruding plants and and animals. If 'the most insignificant and diminutive species... have each slaughtered their thousands, why should not we, the lords of creation, do the same?'" (117)

In Lyell's view, however inhumane it may be, it is "natural" for us to exterminate other species so we can then blossom, because "man was a part of nature and in nature even destruction is natural" (117). This idea of what "natural" is, is purely a piece of a greater framework used to convince that such behavior of humans on humans is just. What is "natural"? Each person defines this differently, defining it to best fit their interpretation of what "natural" should be, could be, and is.

Throughout the painful history of the slaughter of indigenous peoples by the European sword, the general population took years to question the behavior and wonder why it was necessary to kill these other, older races. The European framework, as a whole, has shifted since the era of the Great Dying and the massacres that followed, but the lens through which a European person might look back on this history will always be affected by the experiences they have had, what has been taught to them, said to them. It has been shaped by the traditions of their country, the influences of their media, and the biases of their friends and family. Any person can view this history as they want to, and this is something that has not changed throughout history

Although negative consequences may result, this does not mean that a framework is bad, nor is it necessarily good. We cannot completely step out of our frame, but we can attempt to become aware that such a frame exists, and that other frameworks may be just as good, or equally as bad, as what we believe.

"Citizens of the World"

In Martha Nussbaum's essay "Citizens of the World," she addresses the role of respect, cultural inquiry, and awareness in one's own habits and differences in others. This essay struck a chord with my own thoughts and self-inquiry. What are the habits I acquired that I believe are best? What kind of lens do I see the world through? What are my prejudices and judgements? In traveling, I hoped to smudge the lines of cultural differences by living with locals, doing things as they do without any expectation or pre-conceived notion of how things should be done. What I discovered, however, was that even if I was ready to leave my habits behind, other cultures weren't as prepared, and smudging all cultural barriers sometimes seemed harder than I would have liked. In all cases, everyone learned more from each other. In India, I learned to trust in fate and life and the serendipities that occur. In Africa, I learned how to live in the simplest way, growing my meals, my life on my back, hardship on every side of the road.
Wanting to blend these differences together requires some ethical inquiry. According to Nussbaum, "ethical inquiry requires a climate in which the young are encouraged to be critical of their habits and conventions; and such critical inquiry, in turn, requires awareness that life contains other possibilities" (54). I am in agreement that those of younger ages will be more inclined to question themselves and explore the other possibilities of our own humankind. This critical and ethical inquiry, however, does not mean that one should give up their original habits and traditions, but merely adopt an awareness that sometimes the way we do things is not always the best.
Nussabaum illustrates this in her essay when mentioning the role of language. We forget, to a certain extent, how much language plays in our daily habits and how easily we forget that everyone finds their language easiest to speak. Nussbaum says that "we should not suppose -- and most of us do not suppose -- that English is best just because it is our own, that works of literature written in English are superior to those written in other languages, and so forth" (62). English is becoming incredibly widespread, but did we ever stop to think that even though a large portion of people speak it, perhaps it is not the "best" language to have the global population learn?
This awareness is key to eventually being able to fully respect other cultures, and it is a step into becoming what Nussbaum calls a "world citizen," or someone who considers humanity as a whole, a part of their focus when creating a better world in which to live. We cannot solve our problems by thinking individually, and only concerned with our concentric circles that are so close to home. Nussbaum explains this in detail, emphasizing that our problems can be solved if we all work as one. We do not have to isolate ourselves, we can help each other.
I am grateful that I chose to attempt to smudge the lines of cultural barriers. I believe that it is the best way to learn more about other people, and, ultimately about yourself. Even if you go back to living as you were and as you know, at least the idea of knowing other people live in equally wonderful ways can exist.