Saturday, August 1, 2009

Restructure our Structure


Change doesn’t come easy. I am starting to have a better understanding of this mantra as I look back on the historic efforts to preserve the salmon and their habitat. As the salmon population continues to decline and the environmental problems become seemingly more insurmountable, I am challenged by this track record.

This past week I have been brainstorming ways to engage various stakeholders, especially community members to create a more comprehensive and collaborative salmon recovery strategy. Through this process, it has occurred to me that our voices are mainly heard through agencies and organizations. Think about it, if you were interested in becoming involved or even voicing your opinion about something in which you feel passionately, you would either find a local organization to give money or volunteer time, contact a governmental agency to explain your position, or start your own movement. But what if you lived in area where such organization don’t exist, or time and money is not something you have to give, or you lack the resources to start your own organization? In fact, what if you don’t even have easy access to the internet to seek further information? Often these people are left behind and their voices and opinions are neglected.

Furthermore, organizations can often burn through volunteers because they are set up in a way that provides little to no return on investments made. Many organizations have agendas that shape the development of projects and the role of the volunteer then, most likely, becomes the implementation of such projects. Unless they are on the Board of Directors or the steering committee, volunteers have little to no say in the developmental process. It seems that some organizations, while trying to serve from the bottom up still employ the top down strategy.

Unfortunately time is becoming an increasingly important factor in solving our environmental problems, yet our ways of creating change seem slow and antiquated. Are we being constrained by our existing models of collaboration? Are our organizational models even set up to effectively serve all constituents? I think it is time to challenge our rules of engagement and our methods of organization to finds ways we can mobilize people faster, more efficiently, farther reaching, and on a broader more inclusive level.

Further Exploration of the Religious History of Germany


While I had set up prompt questions for my blog posts, I am going to continue to ignore them in order to delve into thoughts that have arisen during my readings.

I am in the middle of reading The Germanization of Medieval Christianity: A Sociohistorical Approach to Religious Transformation by James C. Russell. As the name indicates, this reads somewhat like a thesis, but since the subject interests me immensely, it’s a quick and easy read. Before this study began, I initial thought that Christianity came into the Germanic world much like how modern day missionaries create converts, by taking all that they deem sacred and telling them its wrong and showing them that Christ’s path is the only path. Albeit simplified, this is the overarching story that is told about missionaries going into remote locations in Africa and South America and I assumed that such practices began hundreds of years ago.

As is often the case, my oversimplified assumptions were proven wrong and I am glad for it. First of Russell tells us, as his book’s title suggests, is that it wasn’t so much that the Germanic peoples were Christianized as much as Christianity was Germanized. “This process of accommodation resulted in the essential transformation of Christianity from a universal salvation religion to a Germanic, and eventually European, folk religion.” (Russell, 39) In essence, the missionaries allowed for a certain amount of melding of the traditional folk, or pagan, religion with Christianity in order to have converts. Second, the author goes on to describe how current Christianity is in fact a Germanized version of the original religion. In fact, Russell asserts, “were it not for its Germanization, Christianity might never have spread throughout Northern and Central Europe.” (Russell, 40) By allowing the Germanic peoples to take differing parts of the old and new religious ideas, missionaries were able to make Christianity “stick” and eventually spread throughout Europe. Fascinating!

What does this have to do with food, you might ask? Well, my original hypothesis was that the Germanic peoples’ relationship with food was changed by the influence of Christianity. However, in reading this book, I realize that it may be the other way around. This would explain how modern German relationship with food does not seem significantly different than during more agrarian times. Stay tuned for more insight!


P.S.
An interesting blog: http://parablesblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/cup-of-christ.html

Thursday, July 30, 2009

DRCC River festival interviews - photos!








I tried adding photos to my post from a couple of the programs that I connected to without success, so here they are: the photo on the left is from Erin Evetts, outreach coordinator of the Manufacturing Industrial Council. The two photos on the right are from the work readiness program at the Georgetown campus of South Seattle Community College.








DRCC River festival interviews

I have interviewed eight people so far, seven of them via phone, the eighth responded to the interview questions I posted here via e-mail. The organizations that I have talked to people about include the Georgetown campus of South Seattle Community College, Seattle Parks and Recreation, the metro YMCA, the Seattle Maritime Academy, Got Green and Puget Sound Sage. Most of these organizations have some type of internship program designed to provide education and awareness about livable wage jobs and careers for youth between 15 to 20 years who are from "disadvantaged" backgrounds. These programs focus on helping their students learn about many occupations that we tend to look down on, including construction, urban reforestation, health care and technology. I focused my interview questions with interviewees about the programs that these organizations have that provide some environmental education to youth along with raising their awareness of the new field of "green" jobs.

The responses that I got to my questions varied, especially when it came to discussing "green" jobs, and whether or not the organization considers that its program does have connections to the EPA superfund cleanup of the Duwamish river. Michael Woo, the founder of "Got Green", a new organization dedicated to working with youth from disadvantaged diverse communities, talked about "green" jobs from an organizing perspective. He stated that we shouldn't wait for anyone else to define what "green" jobs should be, communities of color need to define what we see as opportunities and to actively create them. His view contrasts to Melinda Nichols' perspective of working in job readiness programs. Melinda is skeptical about "green" jobs and feels that not everyone will have the "glamorous" ones that the media talks about such as working on solar panels. Given what I know about their backgrounds Melinda works for a government bureaucracy while Michael Woo speaks as a former community organizer and construction worker.

Monday, July 27, 2009

Holy Ground

I am tempted in every blog entry to formulate some kind of spiritual gardening doctrine and declare it like the sermon on the mount. But the fact is, as you will see below, much of what I'm learning are snippets, little bits of truth here and there that don't have a collective form that I can present to you. Walk with me, like in a garden and take in the beauty and variety that can be found.

My initial spiritual experiences with soil was through the Christian creation story- “...the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life...” (Genesis 2:7). The existential Ecclesiastes also refers back to man's beginning in the famous “dust to dust” verse: “...'As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. Man's fate is like that of animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the spirit of man rises upward and if the spirit of animal goes down into earth?'” ( Ecc. 3:18-21)
(Side note: In an effort not to pull a verse out it's context as is so often done with the bible, I intentionally included the whole paragraph and was surprised by what else was said in the verse. I have no memory of these parts, though I've read this book countless times.)

Sitting next to my garden, I was ruminating on the chalice symbol representing the womb of the Mother Goddess. It suddenly became very apparent to me that soil in which the plants sat was the body of the Earth. She lay on her back, the shape of the garden her belly, the soil her flesh, the organisms her cells, and the water saturated in it her blood.

I have been reading about nature spirits and their different manifestations, trying to understand their role in the food garden. In my ancestral tradition, Gaels and Celts, the nature spirit were held in great reverence. Gnomes are known as the personification of the soil spirits, the beings that aid plants in their birth and growth. Last week I spoke to a clairvoyant who explained to me that nature spirits are like nitrogen fixers, except that they fix energy. As he explained it the nature spirits' role is to take the world's energy and fix it in a way the plant can use. When I speak to my plants, sending it generous and loving energy, it is the nature spirits who take this energy and feed it to the plant.

I've known people who are quite offended when one refers to soil as “dirt.” To them, dirt is well, a dirty word. It implies that soil is worthless and lifeless which couldn't be further from the truth. For these people (and I think I'm one of them) soil is a miracle. It is miraculous how unclean and unwanted things like shit and rotting matter, can be turned into something that gives so much life. For us, soil makes every inch of the earth holy ground.


(Originally posted at growfoodfeedspirit.blogspot.com).

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Laying the Foundations


I have spent the past week learning about the creation of the National Park Service (NPS) and the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). I have also been learning a lot about the structure of the NPS, how it allocates its funds, where most of the money goes, and as a result, what problems arise due to the current structure although this will come in a future post. Granted this is not as exciting as getting to talk about some of my favorite parks and show pretty pictures from my hikes, but it is quite important to understand the inner workings of the NPS to better understand what changes need to be made in order to create a sound, stable platform from which they can operate and function now and the future.

In 1864 congress ceded the Yosemite Valley to the state of California to be protected “inalienable for all time.” (Miles, 4) This action was spurred by George Catlin who fell in love with the West and recognized that as more settlers like him came into this new area the entire scene would change. While most settlers saw the West as a land of endless resources and opportunities, Catin saw it as a magnificent landscape that needed protection if it was to endure. This idea ultimately became the basis for the creation of the first national park. Yellowstone National Park was created in 1872 by Ulysses S. Grant. Unlike Yosemite, Yellowstone was to be administered by the federal government rather than by a state. Right away administration became a problem for the new park and ultimately congress appointed the U.S. Army as its protector. Yellowstone did not even have legislation protecting wildlife until 1894, more than ten years after it became a park. The stage was set for a myriad of problems that would plague the parks then and now: “incompetent and political concessions (private entrepreneurs providing services to visitors for a fee); threats of inappropriate development; boundaries inadequate to protect resources, especially wildlife; and an inadequate budget to the job mandated by the act creating the park.” (Miles, 6) A short time later Sequoia, Mount Rainier, and Crater Lake National Parks were founded by congress, however there were no funds to manage or protect them and once again the military moved in to do what they could. It was clear that the designation of boundaries was not enough and as John Muir and the Sierra Club were quickly finding out, there were lots of opportunities and work for citizens interested in supporting the national parks. These parks were all clearly appropriate examples of magnificent national parks, but in the early 1900’s the creation of three new national parks raised issues with many park advocates. The creation of Wind Cave, Sullys Hill and Platt became the butt of jokes in congress. For example, Platt National Park was created to honor a deceased senator from Connecticut and its main feature was a group of springs, however these springs were polluted by runoff from an inadequate sewage system in a nearby town. It was becoming evident that there was a need for the establishment of some sort of criteria for what should or shouldn’t be a national park as well as the development of a systemic, comprehensive management plan to protect them.

After the civil war Americans were becoming more concerned about the destruction and degradation of natural beauty and wildlife and the conservation movement began. The conservation movement divided into two branches early on. The conservation branch, led by Gifford Pinchot, felt that resources should be used, consumed and sometimes depleted. The preservation branch, led by John Muir, felt that resources should be protected and not depleted and that some resources should simply be left alone and in the case of the national parks they should be preserved. Many organizations, such as the Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society, the Mountaineers and the American Civic Association were founded with conservation and resource protection in mind. The United States Forest Service was established in 1906 under the leadership of Pinchot who was a true conservationist at heart. J. Horace McFarland, a leader of the American Civic Association and a preservationist, envisioned a similar bureau that would unify the management of the national parks. McFarland allied himself with Muir to oppose San Francisco’s proposal to build a dam that would flood the Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite and as a result became a major advocate of the national parks. The battle over Hetch Hetchy and the conflicting views of preservation and conservation illustrated the need for a centralized administrative system for the national parks. In the early 1900’s McFarland and the American Civic Association along with his alliances with the Sierra Club, the Appalachian Mountain Club, Society for the Preservation of National Parks, and John Muir pushed for a national park bureau or service.

In 1910 Secretary of the Interior Richard Ballinger asked McFarland to confer with him about the creation of a national park bureau. Ballinger’s successors Walter Fisher and Franklin Lane continued to support Ballinger’s proposal. Amongst severe opposition McFarland and his allies pursued their campaign and in 1912 President Taft urged congress to create such a bureau. Pinchot and the Forest Service adamantly opposed such a bureau believing that the Forest Service should have control over the national parks and their resources. While McFarland and his allies set about pushing the creation of the National Park Service, the Department of the Interior was trying to work on some sort of coordination for the parks. Secretary of the Interior, Franklin Lane, brought Adolph Miller on board as an assistant and gave him the responsibility of unifying the administration of the parks. Miller recruited Horace Albright as his assistant and was soon introduced to Steven Mather. Together with McFarland and his allies they pushed for the signing of the National Parks Service Act and on August 25, 1916 against powerful opposition President Wilson signed the National Park Service Act and the National Park Service was created.

The creation of the National Parks Service was a monumental accomplishment, yet there was still more work to be done. In 1917 Mather decided to hold a national conference aimed at getting congress to appropriate support for the development of the parks. Mather underwent a great deal of stress advocating for the parks and during this conference had a nervous breakdown. Many felt that Robert Sterling Yard was the logical choice for Mather’s replacement but the young ambitious Albright would take Mather’s place until he could return. Albright was named “acting director” of the NPS until Mather’s return and Yard was appointed as chief of the Educational Division even though there was no official appropriation for that division. Yard’s salary was paid out of Mather’s own pocket! Yard saw the need to increase interest in education of the national parks and promoted them through articles and other publications. What Yard found was little interest in public education of the parks which ultimately led him to create an organization outside of the government. He gained support for his idea from scientist and secretary of the Smithsonian Charles Walcott as well as Henry Macfarland and together they began the formation of the National Parks Educational Committee. In the next two years they would gain support and in 1919 the committee had 72 members. They felt they could create a partnership with the NPS by letting the NPS develop and administer the parks while they provided public education of the parks. In 1919 the Educational Committee proposed their idea of the creation of the National Parks Association with Mather. Mather wholeheartedly agreed that such an organization would benefit the NPS and urged its creation at once and pledged $5000 to help it get running. Yard and Macfarland worked tirelessly to create the National Parks Association and on April 9, 1919 scheduled a meeting in Washington DC to discuss its creation. The response was positive and on May 19, 1919 the National Parks Association was created.

What was the responsibility of this new organization? Yard, Mather, Macfarland and many others knew that the NPS needed more funding and thought that their priorities might not be entirely correct. The NPA created a document that set the agenda and objectives for the organization which is prefaced with this:

As Congress conceives the National Parks only as concrete properties and appropriates only for their physical protection, improvement and maintenance, there is no governmental provision for their study from any other point of view, or for their interpretation, or for preparing the public mind for their higher enjoyment. To accomplish these objects is the fundamental purpose of the National Parks Association. (Miles 24, 25)

The National Parks Association also created four objectives. The first was “To interpret and popularize natural science by using the conspicuous scenery and the plant and animal exhibits of the national parks, now prominent in the public eye, for examples.” The second stated “To help the development of the national parks into a complete and rational system.” The third objective was to “thoroughly study the National Parks and make past as well as future results available for public use.” The final objective was “To encourage travel in every practicable way.” The NPA wanted to attract people to the parks, yet they also realized the need for education and the sharing of information as well as resource protection. They saw themselves as the defenders of the National Parks and realized that public education is essential to public support.

I have long been a fan of the National Parks Conservation Association (they added the word conservation in the 70’s when the environmental movement emerged), but until recently I never knew their origin. I have also known that the NPS and the NPCA frequently butt heads on issues regarding the parks. Now I feel I have a much clearer vision of why the NPCA was created in the first place and I am glad they are still there advocating for my favorite places. There is still much to be done but I am hopeful that it can and will happen. I feel that their mission to educate the public about our national parks is vital to their public support. Please vote for increased funding for our national parks and support them by visiting them taking only pictures and leaving only footprints on the trails of course.


Works Cited
Miles, John C. Guardians of the parks a history of the National Parks and Conservation Association. Washington, D.C: Taylor & Francis in cooperation with National Parks and Conservations Association, 1995. Print.

What’s Organic about Organic?

Something for the food folk to watch.