Ecofeminism, Subsistence Living & Nature Awareness

January 24, 2010

My Fair Share

Filed under: Ecofeminism, Global Warming, Patriarchy, Subsistence Living — Jeanne Neath @ 8:38 am

With “developing” and wealthy nations now battling over obtaining their fair share of global carbon emissions, the belief that all people will someday enjoy the standard of living of the wealthy nations has become an unmistakable fantasy. Human societies are already in overshoot, consuming the resources of one and a third earths every year. If everyone on earth were to consume as much as people in the United States, humanity would be consuming the resources of five planet earths and there would soon be little of nature – or us – left. Yet the rising and very numerous middle classes in rapidly industrializing nations such as Brazil, India, and China are joining the shopping spree. Meanwhile one fourth of humanity, 1.4 billion, live on $1.25 or less per day and are unable to meet their basic needs.

The belief that the poor nations and poor people of the earth would eventually catch up and enjoy an abundant standard of living has allowed well-meaning people in the wealthy nations to act as if their own high incomes and consumption were unrelated to the poverty of others. Now that the limits of the earth are at hand the question “What is my fair share?” is getting tough to avoid. I want an answer to this question. I don’t want to participate in destroying nature and I don’t want to be responsible for other people living with hunger. But, I do want to live. How much can I have?

heirloom corn

Stowell's Heirloom Corn from Seed Savers growing behind comfrey, astragulus, and sage plants.

To discover my fair share I started with statistics from the World Bank (World Development Indicators: 2008). The average per capita gross national income for the world in 2008, equalized by “purchasing power parity”, was $10,357. The purchasing power parity correction makes it easy to compare income in different countries, despite the fact that the same amount of money can buy much more in some countries than others. For example, you could buy half a dozen bananas in India for the same amount of money that would get you one banana in New York City (example from Norm Myers and Jennifer Kent in their book The New Consumers). The purchasing power parity correction rate for India is 5.35 (as of 2002). The international standard is the U.S. dollar so the same amount of money goes 5.35 times further in India than in the U.S. In other words if you are in the U.S. you can think of the $10,357 average world income as actual U.S. dollars. If you are in any other country, then you must use the purchasing power parity correction for your country.

But, the figure of $10,357 is the average gross national income, which is not the same as personal income because it includes things like the average amount of money your government spends on infrastructure. In 2008 gross national income in the U.S. was $46,970, but U.S. personal income before taxes was $40,189 and spendable income was $35,486 (Bureau of Economic Analysis, bea.gov). According to Myers and Kent, actual purchasing power for the world in 2002 was 60% of gross national income, corrected for purchasing power parity (and 70% for the U.S.). Let’s say then that my actual purchasing power would be roughly $6500 (somewhere between 60% and 70% of $10,357).

Whoops! What about Carbon?
But, wait! There’s a problem. At current levels of world income humanity is producing such a large quantity of greenhouse gases that we are threatening the continuation of human civilization and much of life on earth. The Global Humanitarian Forum, a think tank directed by former United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan, estimates that global warming is already causing 300,000 human deaths per year. To reduce greenhouse gases either income and related production must be reduced from the current world average (meaning I’d get less than $6500), world population must drop significantly, or every dollar spent must result in much less carbon entering the stratosphere. Damage to the environment is commonly calculated by multiplying these three factors (i.e. Impact=Population x Affluence x Technology). Both population (.7% per year) and income (1.4% per year) are growing. The most palatable option for the world’s rich is the third option, commonly known as reducing carbon intensity.

Carbon intensity can be decreased by increasing efficiency (producing goods and services with less energy) and by using non-carbon energy sources like solar power. Over the past 25 years carbon intensity has improved by almost 23% worldwide. But, this downward trend has not been consistent over the years. Since the year 2000 carbon intensity has worsened worldwide. With worsening carbon intensity, increasing income, and increasing population the total amount of carbon going into the atmosphere has increased by 3.5% per year since 2000 (up from under 1% in the 1990s). This rate of increase is far higher than the rates assumed in any of the models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in making its predictions of future global warming. Even with the Kyoto Protocol, no part of the world has succeeded in diminishing its carbon emissions.

Prosperity Without Growth, a recent report from the United Kingdom’s Sustainable Development Commission, has calculated the improvements in carbon intensity that would be necessary to offset projected growth in population and income between now and 2050 and still reduce carbon in the atmosphere down to 450 ppm. While in 2007 carbon intensity was at 768 grams of carbon dioxide per dollar we would need to get down to 36 grams per dollar by 2050. In other words carbon intensity would need to improve by 21 times! Remember that 25 years of technological improvements between 1980 and 2005 were only able to improve emissions 1.3 times (from 1000 to 768 grams carbon dioxide per dollar). This projection allows for slow income growth, but no equalization of income between rich and poor countries. If world income were to equalize at current European Union levels by 2050, allowing no income increases in the developed world, carbon intensity would need to diminish to 14 grams carbon dioxide per dollar, 55 times better than today. This last scenario presumes no income growth in the European Union, a loss in income for the U.S., and large gains in income throughout the developing world.

Prosperity Without Growth concludes that these levels of improvement in carbon intensity are not feasible and that economic growth cannot safely continue. Worldwatch attempted to put similar figures into perspective by pointing out that for everyone on the Earth to live at the EU levels expected in 2050 if “normal” growth continues we would need cars capable of getting 700 or 800 miles per gallon! It looks like even my fair share of $6500 is too much unless a revolution in technology dropped carbon intensity down to nearly nothing. Since new technologies take decades to come into common usage, the hope for such a revolution is just a fantasy, albeit a popular and dangerous one. The only other alternative – and this is just a personal solution – would be for me to find a way to spend my dollars on products and services that emit almost no carbon.

Shrinking Ecological Footprints
Carbon emissions are not the only constraint on growth. Globalized industrial patriarchy has been stripping the earth of every “resource” and is already butting up against other shortages such as water. The resource thieves in the “developed” world, myself included, must cut back their lifestyles. The world average gross income of $10,357 gives us a rough and too high upper limit and a clear message that drastic lifestyle cuts are called for since most people in the developed world have far higher incomes than this. Ideally, entire nations will take up the challenge to quickly dismantle their polluting systems and adopt new ways of life that involve far less consumption. While we as individuals are pressing for the massive social change needed, we can begin the process by changing own way of life and setting an example for others.

But, where to start? Whether setting about change at a national level or an individual level, a measure that quantifies how much different activities take from the earth is necessary. Here’s where calculating national or individual ecological footprints can help. With an ecological footprint analysis, the resources required to produce the specific products and services consumed can be estimated and translated into a land equivalent, measured in square yards, square meters, acres or hectares. For example, a pound of potatoes requires about 33 square yards of land if grown using industrial farming methods. The potato plants themselves use a small growing space, but the chemical input, farm machinery, and transportation to market all contribute to the footprint or land area required to produce the potatoes. Similarly, a kilowatt hour of electricity from the grid uses 31 square yards of land, while the solar equivalent takes under a third of a yard. A full ecological footprint for a nation or an individual is the land equivalent for everything consumed in a year.

In the United States the average ecological footprint for each person is 23 acres. But, if you divide the amount of productive land on the earth (2.8 billion acres excluding polar regions, deserts and deep sea) by the earth’s population of over 6 billion, the bioproductive land available to each person to produce everything consumed would be 5 acres. Therefore, in the U.S. we are each using 18 acres of land more than the earth can spare for us. These figures do not provide land for all the other species on the planet, so each person’s 5 acre allotment must be cut back further.

Jim Merkel’s excellent book, Radical Simplicity, provides detailed instructions for calculating your own ecological footprint, along with tables that show the land equivalent required for a wide range of products and services. As a longtime practitioner of radical simplicity Merkel has lived on $5000 and an ecological footprint of 3 acres of land for many years. His book describes scenarios for a life lived with a 1 acre, 3 acre, or 6 acre ecological footprint.

On 3 acres, an amount that is enough less than the world personal allotment of 5 acres to allow at least some room for wildlife, the sample lifestyle is far removed from that of the typical American. While plenty of veggies, fruit, beans and grains could be eaten, meat, dairy products, juice, and alcohol would be excluded from the diet because they require too many resources. The living space would be quite small (150 square feet or so) in a very energy efficient building such as a straw bale house. A very small allotment of fuel oil or firewood for heating would be possible. Transportation would be largely by bicycle or on foot with 50 miles of bus travel and a couple of gallons of gasoline allotted per month. Air travel would be impossible.

Returning to Traditional Lifeways: The Real Sustainability Revolution
If all of this sounds like returning to a third world way of life, then you are correct. The average ecological footprint of the low income nations is under 2.5 acres. The peoples of both Africa (3.4 acres) and Asia/Pacific (4 acres) consume less than their share of the Earth’s biocapacity while those in Latin America (6 acres) and the Middle East/Central Asia (5.7 acres) slightly exceed their share. People are obviously capable of living on less than a 5 acre footprint. Although some people in the global South have far too few resources, this does not mean that one cannot live well without overdrawing the Earth’s biocapacity. Deprivation results when traditional peoples have their ways of life disrupted by thefts of land, water, or other resources, as has happened to many, thanks to the powerful forces of first colonization and now globalization. Where necessary resources are still available and communities are left intact, traditional and truly sustainable ways of life continue (See Ecofeminism by Maria Mies and Vandana Shiva, 1993). The peasants and indigenous peoples still living largely traditional lives in direct interaction with the Earth and each other are the models that those of us living in the heart of globalized industrial patriarchy need. Although small scale, traditional cultures may (or may not) have problematic patriarchal social structures, these cultures are able to maintain the Earth’s fertility and health and do not require huge amounts of energy from dangerous energy sources.

People immersed in globalized industrial patriarchy view traditional ways of life as inferior because these lifeways have been the target of an enormous smear campaign since the era of European colonization and then the inception of industry. Traditional people (and this includes all our ancestors) leave the land and their traditions when the powerful forces of industrializing, colonizing or globalizing patriarchy take the land and destroy their communities. Forced into cities or other participation in the globalized patriarchy, the propaganda of the dominating culture eventually persuades most displaced people that the old ways of life are inferior or too hard. But, now it is time to reverse this process! We can recognize the value of traditional ways of life linked directly to nature and local communities, dismantle globalized industrial patriarchy, and build new subsistence cultures. The traditional lifeways of indigenous peoples, peasants of the global South, and our own ancestors are our models for sustainability. Many of these small-scale, traditional cultures are also models for equalizing distribution of resources and more equitable social relationships. Some have matriarchal social structures (matrilineal, matrilocal) and these cultures deserve the closest study. Low-tech, modern inventions like bio-intensive gardening and perhaps bicycling can also help us to build subsistence cultures, as can social practices like consensus decision-making and consciousness raising.

In contrast, the vision of “sustainability” put forward by most of the political and educated classes of the industrialized world leaves many of the deadly bases of the dominant society untouched: industrialization, consumerism, capitalism, inequity, domination, patriarchy. Almost all the books, government reports, and even non-governmental organizations proposing solutions to climate change assume that industrialized society must continue. They call for major changes in practice – energy efficiency, recycling, de-carbonizing energy sources, even sometimes for an end to inequity - but do not address the roots of the problem. How can a system based in domination (patriarchy) and greed (capitalism) and therefore dedicated to giving more power and more goodies to some people create equity among people and live in balance with the Earth? Why would a sane people who care for the earth want to gamble that an aberrant way of life can be reined in enough to preserve the climate when there are existing ways of life that have worked for our species for thousands of years? Perhaps there may (or may not) be ways to live with the earth that could include some benefits from modern technology, but revolutionary changes are needed, not a new consumerism and more of the same old patriarchy. Only by getting rid of the social elements that have created the climate crisis, poverty, and ecological overshoot – patriarchy, capitalism, domination, consumerism – will we save the Earth and save our Selves.

Writing about my fair share has not been easy, but the writing is the easy part. How will I ever get my income and ecological footprint down to a level that does not hurt the Earth and steal from much of humanity? One step at a time is my only answer. The largest part of our ecological footprint here at Cedar Hill comes from the miles driven in two four wheel drive vehicles, the firewood burnt for heating the house, and, to a lesser extent, the food we eat. Our automobile usage seems hard to modify at the present moment due to our remote location, rough roads, lack of public transportation and a commitment to eldercare for my mother. We are currently creating window quilts and sealing up the house more effectively to reduce firewood use. We’re also growing more of our food on site and moving away from trucking in garden inputs. Fortunately, reducing income does have a clear upside: less time spent working for money and more time available for fighting patriarchy, spending time in nature, and working and playing on the homestead!

January 22, 2010

Trust Women, Every Day, Everywhere!

Filed under: Ecofeminism, Patriarchy, Paula Mariedaughter — Paula Mariedaughter @ 4:10 am

Fall, 1950
Marie said to her long-time doctor, “As you know I have had four pregnancies in six years. I have three healthy children, and I have my hands full! I’d like a tubal ligation to insure that I don’t get pregnant again. I do not want any more children.”

Dr. Boughton replied, “Now Marie, you’re young. (She was thirty.) You’ll change your mind—I can’t do that.”

This is a reconstructed conversation relayed to me by my youngest sister Lea who heard the secret from our father long after Mother’s death in 1979. According to our father, Mother had some kind of “breakdown” after this third child’s birth. She went away for a week or so, leaving him with the children. Marie stayed with women friends and (he says) played bridge with them for that week. We don’t know if her request for a tubal ligation happened before or after this “breakdown”. In telling Lea about this episode in Marie’s life, our father was not sympathetic.

My mother, Marie Virginia Donovan Neilson, was a strong woman who had overcome a number of obstacles in her life. But seeking control of her fertility was out of her reach in 1950. The shame of this situation is not my mother’s shame! She was a victim of the shameful attitudes of the patriarchal medical institutions we live with. Today, 60 years later, we are in mortal danger of returning to the days of enforced motherhood and unsafe, illegal abortions! I am writing about family planning today because 37 years ago on this date the US Supreme Court upheld a woman’s right to choose a safe legal abortion within the first months of her pregnancy in the case Roe vs. Wade. The assault on this decision has been ongoing and quite successful!

family

A favorite family photo of Mother, Paula (far left) and my sisters relaxing in our camper and photographed by Dad about 1959. Our brother Karl is not pictured here.

Women and girls live in intensely woman-hating societies in most parts of our planet! Facing this fact is not easy for any of us.

Our strengths are called weaknesses. Our unique ability to nurture new life within our own bodies has long been treated as a shameful condition by patriarchal societies. Pregnant women are at higher risk of physical abuse from their male partners who often beat and kick them in their growing bellies. Choosing when and how to bring forth new life is the most personal decision anyone can make. The decision to have a baby is different for a woman than it is for a man. The frank reality that motherhood and fatherhood are not equal decisions is obvious and usually ignored! Women risk their lives to bring forth new life, men do not. Men cannot give birth. Men do not risk their lives to bring a child into their lives. Nor do they bond with the unborn baby in the same manner that a woman who carries the growing child within her own skin can do.

Pregnancy is a potentially dangerous undertaking. In fact, an abortion in the first three months of the pregnancy is much less dangerous to a woman’s health than a full-term pregnancy. Every woman makes a series of choices in her life that may or may not lead to her becoming pregnant. Many times she is forced to have sex against her will. Once pregnant, we must decide what is right for us, and for the fetus beginning to grow inside of us.

In the fall of 1973, I believed I might be pregnant. I remember walking home from the doctor’s appointment, kicking leaves as I walked, and not knowing the answer to that question. For days I considered my options. I thought about the possibilities of raising a child at that point in my life. I decided I was not ready to risk my life, or to bring another child into the world–I would have an abortion. Then I discovered I was not pregnant.

Trusting women to do the right thing is not a principal of patriarchy! Patriarchy is about domination of mind, body and spirit. Dr. George Tiller was an abortion provider. When Dr. Tiller wore the words “Trust Women” on his chest, he became a traitor to the idea of male domination of women. George Tiller’s actions to allow women to choose when, and if, they wanted to become mothers, put him at grave risk. He knew the risks to himself and his family. His commitment to women who had few choices to legally terminate their pregnancies grew from all he heard from women and girls. Dr. Tiller was murdered on a Sunday, while serving in his church in May, 2009 because of his commitment to women!

Assassinations such as Dr Tiller’s accomplish multiple purposes including eliminating an individual, as well as intimidating the rest of us. Assassinations also make clear the political agenda hiding behind the slogans of the love for the unborn. Abortion is a legal right in most western countries, but the assault on reproductive rights here in the US has been effective:
Conservatives, energized by the success of their antiabortion drive, are ratching up their offensive [against birth control]. They’re doing it in their churches and in their faith-based organizations and with the help of numerous point people in Congress. Those on the right claim they’re honoring women by preserving the sanctity of motherhood, but their real beef is the freedom birth control affords women to enjoy a healthy, safe, sex life while avoiding unwanted pregnancies. That speaks for the forty-two million–or seven out of ten–American women in their childbearing years who are sexually active (and heterosexual, I add) and don’t want to get pregnant.

This warning is from Barbara J. Berg’s new book, Sexism in America: Alive, Well, and Ruining our Future. Many women depend on effective birth control and assume that will protect them from considering an abortion. (It can’t happen to me, thinking.) However, many birth control methods are being redefined as abortions! Berg informs us that so-called Right of Conscience Regulation created by the recent Bush administratination broadens “the definiton of abortion to include many kinds of birth control, especially oral and emergency contraception, and allows health care providers to withhold available medical information if it conflicts with their moral or religious beliefs.”(p. 154)

What does “sanctity of motherhood” mean? Mary Daly, one of the most influential thinkers in the women’s liberation movement, warned us to be aware of patriarchy’s reversals of reality. For me, “sacred motherhood” or “the sanctity of motherhood” begins with respect for a woman’s capability to make informed choices about her life and to make the right choice about bringing new life to our crowded planet. Every child born into a wealthy nation consumes eleven times the resources of a child born in a developing country. All our personal choices affect the planet. We have come to understand the resources of our bountiful planet are not infinite. We are embarking on a new world where we must trust women–every day and in every way!

January 5, 2010

Insanely Dedicated?

Filed under: Ecofeminism, Global Warming, Jeanne Neath, Patriarchy — Jeanne Neath @ 11:36 am

The lesbian feminist movement was sizzling, with formerly heterosexual women racing out of stagnant relationships with men and into the beds of their best women friends. This was the mid 1970s and I was going to graduate school in social psychology at the University of Kansas and undergoing huge life changes including a divorce, coming out as a lesbian, and then adopting radical lesbian feminist and lesbian separatist politics. No one suggested to me or to the thousands upon thousands of formerly heterosexual women that lesbian genes were required to be a lesbian. I stayed in graduate school for a little longer than an eternity because I was so involved in doing lesbian and feminist political and cultural work that I had little time and interest in my graduate studies.

Jeanne

Jeanne, age 32, in front of Spinsters Books, 1983

On graduation, with my PhD in hand, I continued working in a low wage horse tour job and devoted my best energy to Spinsters Books and Webbery, the lesbian feminist bookstore and women’s center in Lawrence, Kansas. My work at Spinsters was mostly unpaid and I lived with my Dalmatian and cat on about $500 a month in a small semi-finished garage. By 1984 I became somewhat dissatisfied with my life situation, not so much because of my low income, but because the feminist movement was cooling down and some of my friends had moved away. I continued on with the bookstore for several more years, but eventually I began to feel resentful and not properly appreciated for the work I was doing there. While I was living on a small income and devoting my best energies to Spinsters, other lesbians and feminists I knew were moving upward in their careers. My separatist and radical feminist political views elicited mostly defensiveness from much of the larger feminist community in Lawrence, though our collective at Spinsters held similar views. Eventually I had had enough of giving so much of myself to a fading feminist community. I no longer was receiving an adequate return for my work and I moved on to a new adventure, homesteading on lesbian land in the Ozarks.

Several years ago a young female student at Smith College interviewed a number of the lesbians involved with Spinsters and a local lesbian journal called Monthly Cycle for a class project in her “Queer Publics” course. This student had grown up in Lawrence and became interested in its lesbian herstory. Not surprisingly, from her postmodern, queer perspective she was unable to fully understand the motivation of the lesbians creating Spinsters in that very different era. Although she valued the contribution the lesbians of Spinsters and Monthly Cycle had made, the conclusion of the paper she wrote for her class implied that we were not quite sane. She seemed to agree with one of Spinsters’ collective members she had interviewed: the lesbians of Spinsters and Monthly Cycle were “insanely dedicated”.

As I look back now to my years at Spinsters I see quite the opposite. I admire the dedication that my younger self and her sister revolutionaries had. The problem, then and now, is with all of the women (and men) who aren’t dedicated to creating an ecofeminist revolution, who instead find their niche in patriarchal society, enjoy the rewards of overconsumption, and make their own contribution to destroying life on this planet. We did not give too much to Spinsters or to feminism. Others gave too little. If everyone, then and now, tried their hardest to challenge the patriarchal social system that is killing the planet and took only enough to live a quality life, then we could all be supporting each other with the gifts of our consciousness, our revolutionary fervor, and our lives of voluntary simplicity. We would create the life-loving and ecofeminist society we need.

In the 1970s it took a strong vision, like that provided by radical feminist or lesbian separatist theory, to be able to see how deadly patriarchal society was. We knew that the patriarchal society we lived in could not be reformed and we were committed to building an alternative ecofeminist society. At Spinsters we attempted, not always successfully, to manifest lesbian feminist revolution in our day to day work in the bookstore. We did not care about getting ahead in the larger patriarchal society because we wanted to radically change that society, not participate in it. To someone immersed in patriarchal society we may have looked crazy in our dedication. But, we already knew at that early date that patriarchy was destroying women’s lives and life on earth.

Global warming is now demonstrating to everyone who isn’t actively denying reality what we already knew back then. This society is deadly and has to be stopped. The kind of vision and dedication possessed by the radical lesbian feminists and lesbian separatists of the 1970s is what is needed now in order to stop globalized industrial patriarchy before it is too late. The results of this patriarchy’s practices are now clear for everyone to see. Thousands of the world’s top scientists are telling us that business as usual will have devastating consequences for humankind, plant and animal life, and the Earth’s ecosystems.

Unfortunately, much of the response to the problem of global warming is guided by the same patriarchal mindset that has created global warming. We desperately need to use the insights of radical feminist and ecofeminist theories and dismantle globalized industrial patriarchy. These radical ecofeminist insights can be used in conjunction with those of the world’s indigenous peoples, matriarchal peoples, and others still living close to the earth on the margins of patriarchal civilization. Those of us in the wealthy nations that have created global warming need to transform our own lives and our society, leaving behind our large incomes, our ridiculous overconsumption, our dependence on industry, and our domination of nature and other humans. We need to face up to the entirety of our problems. We need to insanely dedicate ourselves to creating an ecofeminist future, a future that ends domination, restores women to a central place in society, and returns the earth to the way she was before patriarchal civilization:

“From the air we breathe to the water we drink to the food we eat, every one of these has been altered from the way our ancestors experienced those things. The earth itself, when you pick it up and analyze it, is not the same. Everything has been changed. Yet if nature is sacred, it would be our mind to change it back to make it the way it was when it was supportive of life on the earth. This would mean to make the food the way it was, to make the water the way it was, to make the air the way it was, to make our bodies and everything on the planet the way they were, the way nature made them to be.” (from John Mohawk’s essay “Clear Thinking: A Positive Solitary View of Nature” published in Original Instructions: Indigenous Teachings for a Sustainable Future)

October 12, 2009

Vultures, Magnificent Birds with an Unsavory Job

Filed under: Paula Mariedaughter, Wildlife — Paula Mariedaughter @ 6:58 am
vulture

Igor, the vulture with a wingspread five feet wide

Vultures are majestic birds with an important part to play in the health of our ecosystem. Vultures take their job as scavengers seriously and want our respect enough to wear tuxedos to collect the garbage! Seriously, isn’t this a beautiful bird? If you saw it, and I told you it was a relative of the huge California condor and we called it an Arkansas condor you might be more inclined to admire the common turkey vulture. The condors have a 10′ wingspan! Our local relative has the same red head with a 5 1/2′ wingspan. Both are impressive as they cruise the skies soaring along the currents above the trees.

vulture

Igor, catching his balance

When this turkey vulture spread his huge wings preparing to lift off, I felt the breeze. The powerful wings pushed a rush of cool air toward us. This huge bird was tethered to the gloved hand of Lynn Sciumbato of Morning Star Wildlife Rehabilitation Center. Lynn brought four common raptors to the Shiloh Museum for a program sponsored by the Northwest Arkansas Audubon Society on Saturday, October 11, 2009. I was sitting front and center with my new digital camera and asked beforehand if it would be permissible to take pictures. Five feet in front of me were birds I knew from living in the mountains of northwest Arkansas for the last twenty-three years, but I had never been within feet of touching them.

Lynn brought two owls; the smaller was an Eastern Screech Owl (about 8” tall with pointy ear tufts and a wingspan of 20, weighing a mere 6 ounces), and the larger was a Barred Owl (about 21” tall with pronounced bars of dark gray and a wingspan of 42”, weighing 1.6 pounds with no visable ear tufts). These owls are more common in woodland settings and tend to be heard rather than seen. The third of the true raptors was a Red Tailed Hawk, also a big bird and the most rambunctious bird as it waited for its turn to view the crowd. Each bird traveled to the event in a large plastic dog kennel with towels draped over each kennel to minimize stimulation. Red Tailed Hawks (about 19” tall, with the distinctive long rusty-colored tail feathers and a wingspan of 49”, weighing 2 ½ pounds) are often seen soaring high above open spaces or perched near roads and highways.

screech

Eight inch high eastern screech owl with an injured left eye. Note the heavy leather worn to protect flesh from the razor sharp talons

When Lynn first introduced us to the diminutive screech owl I was impressed by the respectful manner she handled the owl and by how comfortable the owl seemed perched on her gloved hand even surrounded by strangers. Lynn is a former teacher and is licensed to rehabilitate wild animals at the sanctuary located in Gravette, AR. Her calm, gentle manner and warm sense of humor pervaded the room. Each of the birds seemed to trust her. Someone asked if she was not nervous having the bird’s sharp beak so close to her face. Lynn explained that in her mind the beak was comparable to a knife and fork used for eating food. With emphasis she explained that all the raptors have razor-sharp feet for seizing and killing prey. When she is attempting a rescue of an injured raptor, she must protect herself from an attack of those deadly claws. According to my dictionary, raptor comes form the Latin word meaning to plunder or snatch. Their name describes their actions for survival–the raptors all grasp their prey with their weapons know as talons.

Because of DNA evidence, vultures have recently been moved from the raptor grouping and are now classified with storks. The weak claws of vultures make them distinct from the raptors. Without the predatory claws, vultures are not capable of ripping open a tough hide on dead animals–they depend on other predators (many with cars) to open such a carcass. Vultures even have a vestige of webbing between their toes that makes their feet similar to storks.

We learned that frogs and lizards are common prey for this diminutive owl with the tufted ears. At Cedar Hill we often hear the distinctive high-pitched whinny call of the screech owl. The haunting sound is common, but an actual sighting is difficult because they roam the woods at night. Note that the feathers on this owl look like tree bark–camouflage is a protection against other bigger predators like the barred owl Lyn brought out next.

barred

Almost two feet tall, with bars of color on the tail--one big owl!

Barred owls may look like a cuddly stuffed animal, but remember those razor sharp talons! Lynn noted that the barred owl may look big and heavy, but said it was a illusion caused by the fluffy feathers. She demonstrated by poking her finger in about two inches among the feathers before reaching the owl’s body. This big owl was almost two feet tall, but weighs less than 2 pounds. The wing span is 4 1/2 feet across and the owl makes not a sound when it swoops down with its feet out-stretched to sieze a rodent. We know our local barred owls only by their thrilling calls back and forth to each other in the evenings. Barred owls perch on a favored tree during the day. Occassionally, we have discovered evidence of their residency in the form of pellets the owls drop below the tree. This sign is full of compacted bones and fur–the remains of the prey that could not be digested.

In discussing the general disposition of the barred owl , Lyn thought them to be relatively easy to deal with in her experience. She said when she is called upon to rescue an injured barred owl it looks at her with its dark eyes and says, “Please help me.” In contrast, she said that when called upon to rescue an injured great horned owl, she looks into the gold eyes that seem to say, “I will rip your throat out if you approach me.” She summed up by saying that this disposition difference is why she does not bring any great horned owls to these public events.

redtail

Red tail hawks have a dark back, light underside often with a belly band of reddish color which this one lacks.

Lynn characterized the red tailed hawk that was rattling around in the kennel as her “diva” bird. Apparently, this elegant hawk had been acquired as a young bird by a falconer who trained the hawk to hunt. The falconer hunted with the bird and was quite upset when the hawk injured its left wing in an hunting accident. While the falconer watched, the hawk siezed a rabbit, but the rabbit twisted in a way that pulled the hawk off balance and the hawk’s left shoulder/wing hit the ground hard injuring the shoulder severely. The falconer spent thousands trying to have the hawk’s wing repaired. Lynn pointed out that this injury could happen to any bird of prey when siezing its dinner, and if it did, that the bird would probably starve because it could not fly well enough to feed itself. Or it would be killed by a stronger bird. Landings and takeoffs are always the most dangerous parts of flying. This is further complicated if you are hauling up a struggling animal in your talons.

barred

The trust level between this big hawk and the woman amazed all of us viewing the interactions.

Red is a crude way to describe the coloring of red tailed hawks because the rich rusty color is difficult to describe. The young birds do not have the red tail. Many red tailed hawks have a horizontal band of reddish color across the chest below the wings. This belly-band varies among individual hawks and some, like the visitor Lyn brought, had no band of color across the white chest. The red tailed hawk is a stocky bird; it stands about 2 feet tall and displays the prominant hooked nose characteristic of most hawks. With a wing spread of four feet, we can easily spot a red tailed hawk from the ground as it is soaring over fields and the edge of forests looking for likely prey–especially small rodents. With excellent eye-sight the red tailed hawk can detect the slightest movement in the grass as a mouse feeds.

When driving north on Highway 540 in the winter months, Jeanne and I have sighted up to forty red tailed hawks perched in trees or on fence posts in the section of highway between Fayetteville and Kansas City. Again, these birds are visually scouring the ground for their next meal. Rarely, we have seen two red tailed hawks perched in the same tree along this route and speculated about their connection to each other.

barred

Lyn lectures, but Igor wants her attentions! Lyn indulges her turkey vulture pal. Both species are social creatures.

“A fluffy white tennis ball with a black head” is how Lynn described Igor as a ten-day old chick when she rescued him. This was twenty years ago when a fisherman competing in a fishing contest at Lake Fayetteville noticed the strange creature at the edge of the grass and Lyn was called to rescue the baby thing. Igor lived in her kitchen for the first month in a effort to keep him warm enough to survive. With all that early contact the tiny turkey vulture imprinted on Lyn and believes they are family. Igor lives in an outdoor flight cage and occassionally other vultures will perch on the upper wire of the enclosed area looking down at Igor. Lyn reports that Igor will look up at the other vulture, but does not attempt to interact.

Most birds do not have a good sense of smell. Turkey vultures are an exception; they depend on their excellent sense of smell to locate a carcass from high above the ground. This is a valuable talent for a scavenger. Black vultures flying the same skies depend on visual sightings and are at a disadvantage. Black vultures watch the actions of these gifted smellers and follow the turkey vultures to a new carcass.

vulture

The bald red head serves the vulture well because it is more easily cleaned after attacking a decaying carcass.

Turkey vultures are often sighted in groups. While driving along highway 16W (before the county line) there is a dead tree favored by vultures on cool, misty mornings. I have seen about twenty vultures sitting in that tree. All are facing the rising sun with their wings spread as they dry their feathers after a damp night. Each time I see this sight I think, “These vultures are true sun worshippers!” These groupings probably include several pairs of adult vultures and their offspring who roost together and forage together.

vulture

After living together for twenty years, the turkey vulture knows what to expect on these public appearances.

Expect the unexpected! I went to this event at the Shiloh Museum primarily because my photo had won a third place in the amateur outdoor photography contest sponsored by the Audubon Society. What I experienced seeing the raptors and the vulture up close is impossible to describe. It is a highlight of my life because my view of my world has expanded. Witnessing the relationship between Lyn and the birds she has rescued, inspired me to document the birds and their mentor. Morning Star Wildlife Rehabilitation Center is performing miracles each and every day.

vulture

Lyn appears here to have a guardian dressed up in a tuxedo.

August 17, 2009

Radiator Charlie’s Mortgage Lifter: Flora or Smart Economics?

Filed under: Economics, Paula Mariedaughter — Paula Mariedaughter @ 9:17 am

Both. Radiator Charlie’s Mortgage Lifter is a unique tomato developed by a man nicknamed Radiator Charlie for his skills at his radiator repair shop. This was Charlie Byles who sold his unique tomato plants for one dollar each in the 1940s and was able to pay off most of his mortgage of $6,000 in six years with this extra income. This story came to me from Amy Goldman in her fabulous book The Heirloom Tomato. She elaborated by writing, “ ‘Mortgage lifter’ is a generic term that refers to a set of big old tomatoes, characteristically pink, from central Appalachia.” This tomato was big and juicy, of a beefsteak shape, often with several lobes. Not good for shipping, but great eating!

foxglove

Homegrown Foxgloves in Bloom

Radiator Charlie understood the oppressive nature of another holding a mortgage on your home or business! This is smart economics to look after your long-term interests. Getting out from under a mortgage was understood to be an important effort in creating stability in one’s life. “Lifting” your mortgage was a life goal. Why would we want to gamble with the home or business that shelters us? In my parents’ generation one did not gamble in this manner unless desperate. Buying a house was a long-term investment.

Not owing a mortgage opens up options and possibilities. Jeanne and I knew this when we considering how we were to make a living in rural northwest Arkansas. This is a guiding principal we used to help us understand our options:

“The less money you need,
the freer you are,
the greater is your choice of jobs
and the less entrapped you are.
There are all sorts of things
we can do for ourselves.
If we have a tiny bit of land,
A small garden,
we can grow things.
We can do all sorts of things ourselves,
instead of buying everything.”

Before we moved to Cedar Hill in 1978, I latched on to this quote from E. F. Schumacker in an East-West Journal article circa 1977. I copied it in my own handwriting and posted it where we would see it every day. (I took the liberty of writing his words in verse form.)You may remember Schumacker as the author of Small Is Beautiful.

“The less money you need the freer you are,” seems an obvious statement today as many people are losing their jobs and, often times, losing their homes too. Home ownership is a precarious undertaking! Most people who loose their homes do so because of unexpected illness or unexpected job loss—who expects these things anyway? (Universal health care would help in this personal and economic disaster.) By buying bigger and fancier homes we gamble that neither illness nor job loss will affect us. With smaller homes and a smaller mortgage we have a better chance of weathering a financial storm. For example, with a smaller mortgage or no mortgage, we should be able to set aside some money each month just in case the “unexpected” happens. Perhaps you could set aside enough to live on for six months to a year should you have to cope with the unexpected.

My birth family lived in a modest house from 1947 until 1979. When the family outgrew the two bedroom house about 1954, my father built an addition of a large bedroom with bath and a family room. With four young children my parents knew the family needed more space; they liked their neighborhood and did not want to move (and could not afford to do so). My father, Paul, built a delightful space for his three daughters. Our room had a hardwood floor, knotty pine walls and we each had a walk-in closet. Dad built this while working full time as a land surveyor. This arrangement worked well for us for decades. With that addition, my family more than doubled our living space and created a multi-use, adaptable house. When the house was sold, I was told that those who purchased it planned to use that space for an ailing parent.

Sometime in the last thirty years the concept of “starter houses” appeared. Realtors encouraged families to keep “upgrading”. A highly mobile workforce also encouraged more buying and selling of homes and mortgages. Each of these developments benefits banks, realtors and other businesses that take a big cut every time a house changes hands. The more expensive the sale, the more those businesses will profit. When we let the industry decide how large a mortgage we can assume, we are engaging in foolish and risky behavior! We must think for ourselves and consider all the risks involved. We cannot let ourselves be seduced by large lots and pretty pools or big-screen TVs. The consequences may be dire. Remember, the less money you need, the freer you are!

Big house, little house, on in between–with someone else holding a mortgage on your home you are vulnerable to loosing the roof over your head if you have money troubles. Isn’t this obvious? And the more money you owe to the mortgage holder the more risk you take. Isn’t this obvious? In my ongoing exploration of both fiction and nonfiction books written by Sandra Dallas, I have been enjoying the book Gingerbread & Gaslights: Colorado’s Historic Houses. Dallas gives a guided tour of castles, mansions, huge ranch houses, and Victorians covered with “gingerbread” trim. When she was writing about these unusual houses in 1965, many had been torn down or abandoned. Some became museums or resorts. But most have not survived the decades. Each was a treasure. In reading the descriptions of the houses, the families that built them, and then the fate of the edifice, I kept thinking of the gambles that life presents to rich and poor. I once owned a large Queen Anne Victorian house at 1718 Summit St. in Kansas City, MO. It was in a poor neighborhood, but the house had been rehabbed by a neighborhood nonprofit. I loved that house. I still love that house. But I could not move it to my forty acres in Arkansas, so I sold it and that sale helped to finance our building our humble home here.

house

We Put Local White Oak Siding on Our 20' x 40' Humble Abode

My closing thoughts about mortgages and the value of “lifting” or avoiding a mortgage (when possible) involves the value of “staying put”. When we “stay put” we make connections—to the land, to friends and family. We care about the environment. For example, we won’t welcome a landfill like the one planned a decade ago near Delaney which the local community successfully stopped. We think about any chemicals we might consider using on our yards or near a stream because we are going to live with the long term consequences of that action. Putting down roots and creating a stable living situation for ourselves and our loved ones means more to me than living in a fancy house with an oppressive mortgage hovering in the background every day.

E.F. Schumacker reminded me that, “We can do all sorts of things ourselves, instead of buying everything.” Home grown food, homegrown entertainment and home-produced electricity are some of the ways we at Cedar Hill do for ourselves. Mostly it feels good. Especially, it feels good when we do not have to wake to an alarm clock! Usually I wake up about six and wander outside in the garden while it is cool. I weed and wake up. Sometimes, like this morning when Jeanne picked a handful of strawberries, and we savored the sweetness of a just-picked berry I believe I have everything I need.

July 27, 2009

Sustained Commitment: the Gardener’s Challenge

Filed under: Homestead garden, Paula Mariedaughter, Subsistence Living — Paula Mariedaughter @ 7:49 am
wreath

Clematis Among the Eastern White Pine Cones in Paula's Wreath

Spring finds every gardener full of enthusiasm for the turning of the seasons. We want to turn the soil of our gardens and work magic with Mother Nature. We are ready to turn our backs on winter and our faces toward the sun. We gather our seeds, tools and bring our grand hopes to our plantings. The new seedlings and spurts of growth spur us on to get up early and work long days in our grubby garden clothes. As the days get hotter and the insects arrive to torment us and our vegetative friends, we can falter in our efforts to weed, water and pick hornworms. Tim Stark put it this way, ” After twelve years of growing vegetables, I have learned to accept that every [growing] season presents a unique set of conditions that invariably prove to be less than optimal.” Stark wrote this in Heirloom: Notes from an Accidental Tomato Farmer. Wind, rain, no rain, bugs, heat, cold, and/or animal attacks can overwhelm the most enthusiastic gardener.

I try to look to my successes and minimize a focus on the non-successes. When I started quilting in 1994, my mentor Lila Rostenberg interrupted me when I tried to point out the mistakes in my current project. Lila assured me that there was no need to point out my mistakes. I took Lila’s advice seriously and always pass it on to my quilting students. I also appy it to my garden projects. When I am in my garden I employ the same strategy–it is a strategy you know! I learn what I can about the plants that do not thrive and I keep trying until it becomes clear that my garden is not meant to grow, for example, lovely delphiniums because they cannot tolerate our hot days and hot nights. I look for similar alternative plants. In the case of delphiniums, I found larkspur which do thrive here and even self-seed themselves for next year.

Today I’ve prepared a garden tour of some of our early-season successes starting in our main garden. At the center “grows” a driftwood figure we call our Dancing Goddess! The original was a piece of driftwood we discovered down the mountain along the river after a storm. It took a decade for the first Dancing Goddess to melt back into the earth. The current goddess is formed from part of the root system from an Osage Orange (also called Bodark or Hedge) tree we had to remove twenty years ago. Her outstretched arm holds this pinecone wreath I fashioned from the cones from the Eastern White Pine. I am fascinated by the curvy shapes of these cones. Not pictured, but below the Dancing Goddess, lounge bright red bee balm flowers to entice hummingbirds.

Striper

Striper Hunts Bugs Under the Tomatoes

Striper was a howling kitten when Jeanne found him abandoned down by the river. Named for his distinctive bold orange stripes he is posed below the thriving tomatoes. Each morning and evening, Striper also looks for bugs while I scan the tomato stems carefully for the camouflaged hornworms disguised as just another tomato stem. Below Stiper are the basil plants and to the right are sage plants spilling into the path.

Cleome

Cleome or Spider Flowers Dot the Garden with Color by Mid-Summer

When we expanded our garden this spring I moved these purple coneflowers, the silver lamb’s ear and the cleome to our former visually neglected compost area. We needed the bed space for edibles. I landscaped with large rocks from the river to provide steps in this steep area. In the background you can see that Jeanne has created a huge mound of fresh materials to make fresh compost. The gold flowers are the first blooms of the rambling pumpkin patch. Some of the ten foot vines reached to the fence and the deer pulled on the vines through the fence to consume the tender growth.

Compost

Jeanne's Carefully Mounded Compost Pile in the Background with Huge Gourd leaves on the Far Left of the Picture

Our birdhouse gourd vines exhibited exuberant growth up the bamboo trellis I’ve provided. They seem to grow ten inches overnight and the long curling tendrils reach out for support and comfort (or so it seems,)when I walk by. Yesterday I found the first of the delicate white flowers that will transform themselves into foot long gourds in less thatn two months. These miracles of creation draw me back to the garden day after day. I depend on them to renew me. And I depend on these miracles to renew my commitment to hauling water and attending to the other needs of a successful garden–most of which I enjoy.

Gourds large and small were used by native peoples for serving dishes, mixing bowls, plates, dippers, storage and even for heating liquids. Once dried and cured gourds are strong and useful tools. To heat liquids in a gourd, one does not place the gourd over a hot fire. Instead, one heats several small clean rocks on the edge of a fire. Then using wood tongs the heated rocks are carefully dropped into the liquid transferring the heat from the rocks to the liquid.

Birdhouse Gourds in the Background and Lavender in the Foreground

Birdhouse Gourds in the Background and Lavender in the Foreground

Jeanne and I choose to add flowers and herbs to the mix in our vegetable garden. From comfrey and astragalus to foxgloves, coneflowers and morning glories we depend on these to bring pollinaters and to offer spots of color and texture to the garden canvas. This is our most ambitious garden; we are growing strawberries, corn, basil, garlic, cucumbers, yellow squash, carrots, pumpkins, watermelon, three varieties of tomatoes, gourds, several types of beans and a variety of greens. Last fall we planted three apple trees and cleared around a “found” mulberry tree.

Morning Glories

Morning Glories Beginning to Climb the Obelisk

Our yellow crookneck squash are buzzing with bees and beginning to produce the tender squash as the flowers fade to fruit, or in this case vegetables. The leaves are over a foot across and erect like an umbrella. We are seeing unwelcome signs of powdery mildew on the leaves of the squash and the cucumbers. Both of these plants have prickly hairs that irritate the forearms as we pick underneath the leaves searching for young fruit before they become oversized. Some people have a severe reaction to this irritant. Beware.

Squash Plants

Lush Growth on the Squash Plants with many Cleome in the Background

Our end-of-July garden tour of Cedar Hill closes with a closeup picture of the tendrils that tether these luxuriant birdhouse gourd vines to any nearby object. Each tendril has its own agenda as it stretches and twines toward a stationary object. The bamboo is harvested from our own homegrown stand. Our bamboo trellis lifts the vines off the ground and toward the sunlight allowing air to circulate among the leaves. Circulating air minimizes the chance of invasions of unfriendly mildew spores here in the garden as well as indoors if not using air conditioning.

If you look closely you will see that I have used jute to train the vines up the slippery bamboo poles. Gourds too have prickly leaves, but assisting the vines by tying them carefully to the bamboo is part of my ongoing relationship to the summer garden. Cool moist mornings are my favorite time of a day in the garden. The early morning promise is rather like the hopefulness of spring. Sustained commitment to nurturing and harvesting rewards you with snacks of perfect strawberries and tastes of green beans so tender when plucked off the bush that you do not dream of cooking them. Munch them whole while they last. It will be a long wait until next year’s crop.

Gourds

Tethering Tendrils of the Birdhouse Gourds

July 22, 2009

Rambunctious Canine Meets Rambling Pumpkin

Filed under: Homestead garden, Paula Mariedaughter, Subsistence Living — Paula Mariedaughter @ 9:30 am
Early July Pumpkin Patch

Early July in the Pumpkin Patch

I fell for a warty, peach-colored pumpkin at the Fayetteville Farmer’s Market last fall. The knobby growths and pale color attracted my imagination as the multitude of pumpkins jostled for attention on the long flatbed trailer. The pale color and the unusual texture pleased me in the same manner that I find the nubs seen in raw silk fabric add a pleasing texture to a smooth silk fabric. I circled the display searching for the perfect pumpkin to bring home to Cedar Hill. When I asked the farmer about the name of this variety, he pulled out the catalogue and pointed to Galeuse d’Eysines adding that they are delicious pumpkins encouraging me to steam it and to eat it.

I discovered that my adopted pumpkin was from Eysines, France introduced in 1883. This unique pumpkin, Cucurbita maxima, was also called Warted Sugar Marrow. I was sure my pumpkin was no hybrid with a pedigree like this! I had fantasies of growing my own next spring.

Sugar Marrow Pumpkin

Sugar Marrow Pumpkin from Eysines, France introduced in 1883

I displayed the Galeuse d’Eysines in several spots in the house that fall and winter appraising the personality and charm of this new acquaintance. By early spring, I had moved it to a spot outside near the front bench. As the pumpkin began to sink in on itself, I discovered that Shyla, our youngest adopted mutt, had enjoyed the texture in her own way. Shyla had shredded skin and the inner membranes containing the seeds. I found seeds and membranes scattered near the rock wall that marks our first garden bed. I vaguely hoped some might sprout, but had no expectations.

Today we have three rambling pumpkin vines climbing over and around our former compost area. Circumstantial evidence led me to believe that those wandering pumpkin seeds did sprout! I noticed the small pumpkin plants nestled near the rock wall before the deer did. I quickly transplanted them to a sunny spot below the main garden where they will be able to spread their tendrils far and wide before fall ends their adventure. I do not want to “count my pumpkins before they hatch”, but I am extremely hopeful that this will be the beginning of a beautiful relationship. Some of the immature pumpkins are the size of golfballs–smooth with no warts yet. When I wrote this last week I was convinced that I had the wonderful warty pumpkin growing.

Today I believe that I jumped to conclusions! The pumpkins a bigger, still white, and have no warts. Among my scrapbook items for last fall I found a label for a “White Carving Pumpkin” from Bottomleys Evergreens in North Carolina and a product number to go with that pumpkin. I searched their online catalogue to locate the botanical name of the thirty pumpkins glowing in our garden but found no white pumpkins. I have emailed them about my dilemma and will report any results. Jeanne and I have resolved to buy seed for the Warty Sugar Marrow pumpkin for next year!

Saving seeds from hybrid plants is risky because the seeds are often not true to form. Seeds from non-hybrid plants, or open-pollinated seeds (sometimes called heirloom seeds), are reliable in producing plants and fruit like the parent. We have transformed our garden this year with our sweat and hand tools to make room for more edible plants. All our new seeds will be open-pollinated so we can save our own seeds for the future!

Our previous raised beds did not provide room for extreme ramblers like pumpkins, gourds and watermelons–all of which we are trying this year. Each of these varieties displays an affection for hot days and nights. I am energized by the “lust for life” of the cucurbit family. The Miniature White Cucumbers we planted are so prolific that I need to eat one every time I open the refrigerator. Picked at three inches long and chilled in the solar-powered refrigerator they are a perfect summer treat. With a sweet cucumber flavor and skin as tender as an apple, this cucumber is best eaten raw and I do.

Shlya

Shyla, the Rambunctious Pumpkin Shredder

A great source for open pollinated seeds is Seed Saver’s Exchange, 3094 North Winn Road, Decorah, Iowa 52101, 563-382-5990, www.seedsavers.org. All the seeds I have mentioned here were purchased from Seed Savers including:
Birdhouse gourd: Lagenaria siceraria
Watermelon: Crimson Sweet, Citrullus Lantatus
Miniature White Cucumbers, Cucumis sativus

I was challenged to understand which of these might cross-pollinate and produce an undesired, inedible hybrid. Seed Savers recommended The Compleat Squash: A Passionate Grower’s Guide to Pumpkins, Squashes and Gourds by Amy Goldman (2004). The author indicates that squashes will not crossbred with melons and cucumbers. However, squashes in the same species do cross with one another. We have kept it simple this year by growing only one variety of squash.

The squash, watermelon and cucumbers were purchased seed. Our Warted Sugar Marrow pumpkin was planted by a rambunctious canine and nurtured by Mother Nature until Paula discovered it sprouting in deer territory. It has been a team effort with Jeanne carrying water to the pumpkin patch occasionally. All of these are rampant growers with big leaves and curling tendrils reaching for support. Some of the pumpkin vines are twelve feet long and still growing! I have developed an intimate relationship with each plant. I find myself infected by their “lust for life” and energized by their exuberance. Thank you, Shyla, for your part in this story!

July 14, 2009

Subsistence and Resistance

Filed under: Ecofeminism, Economics, Global Warming, Homestead garden, Jeanne Neath, Patriarchy, Subsistence Living — Jeanne Neath @ 11:30 am

In a recent column in Orion (May-June 2009) Derrick Jensen criticized the “simplicity” movement and what he says is one of its core questions, “If our world is really looking down the barrel of environmental catastrophe, how do I live my life right now?” Jensen’s criticisms of simplicity living are multi-faceted, but the heart of his argument, as I understand it, is that this culture is “killing the planet” and must be stopped, just as a psychopath rampaging through your house and killing your family members would need to be stopped. In light of the severity of the problem (a culture that is killing the planet), lifestyle choices are insignificant and resistance is imperative.

Reform or Revolution?

Yellow squash plant

Lush yellow squash plant

While I agree wholeheartedly that we need to resist and stop the globalized industrial capitalist patriarchy that is killing the planet, those of us living in the “developed” world desperately need to create vastly changed human cultures that live in a way that benefits nature and benefits humans. In many “developing” countries ancient and sustainable subsistence cultures still remain more or less intact outside the cities and land areas taken over by development. But in the developed world the takeover by globalized patriarchy is so complete that almost everyone is dependent on the captor (globalized patriarchy) for their basic means of living – food, shelter, water, clothing, fuel. In subsistence societies where the earth is healthy (as it was prior to patriarchal civilization), basic needs of life can be met by every person either in direct interaction with the earth or with members of their own local community.

The value of individual lifestyle changes depends largely on whether the purpose and effect of the changes are reform or revolutionary change. For example, buying efficient, “green” consumer goods is an act aimed at reform. While the “green” products may be an improvement over older, “legacy” goods in terms of environmental impact, consuming the goods supports continued large scale industry and business almost as usual. Production of the products is far more likely to harm the earth than help her. In contrast, the development of subsistence cultures that benefit the earth and replace globalized patriarchy is revolutionary change. People living in lands now dominated by “developed” nations can take steps toward developing matriarchal, subsistence cultures. When they do, their individual lifestyle changes contribute to revolution. Just as acts of resistance to globalized patriarchy can attempt to reform society (leaving massive industrialization and male dominance in place) or effect radical change, daily living practices can intend and produce reform or revolution (or perpetuate the status quo).

Post-Patriarchal Living

I don’t think that we can “stop this culture from killing the planet” without both resistance and creation of new/old subsistence cultures. We need to both stop the patriarchal earth-destroying culture and create new earth-loving cultures. The devastated earth needs the restoration and caretaking that humans in matriarchal, subsistence societies can provide her. Freeing the earth of possession by patriarchy and seeing nature begin to recover is a big motivation, but people also need to be able to envision and experience post-industrial, post-capitalist, and post-patriarchal ways of living. For most people in “developed” nations an end to globalized industrial capitalist partriarchy would seem like suicide – an end to the basic necessities of life (as well as the treasured frills). By starting to create subsistence cultures now, more people in the developed world can believe that there is a path to take out of globalized patriarchy and industrialization that allows life, including their own, to continue.

We also need to influence the form of the subsistence societies that will follow globalized patriarchy. Globalized patriarchy is heading toward collapse because it is taking from nature at a rate that exceeds nature’s ability to replenish herself. Subsistence living will follow collapse, but past and present subsistence societies have frequently been patriarchal and harmful to women. As a woman I greatly fear male violence and other attempts to control women during and following societal collapse. Beginning to consciously transition to subsistence now can help create cultures that are matriarchal – egalitarian, based in strong bonds between women and respect for all of life. The end of globalized patriarchy can be a door opening into a far better world, but not if any form of patriarchy continues.

Building Subsistence Cultures

At the heart of any human culture are the ways people relate to the earth to provide for basic needs – shelter, water, food, heating. As members of the “developed” nations turn to subsistence living, new subsistence cultures will develop from humans meeting their basic needs through direct relationship with local nature and local human community. These are “lifestyle changes” that create new subsistence cultures. Subsistence gardening is one activity that begins to build subsistence cultures. As Richard Heinberg has pointed out, without fossil fuels and machinery many more people will need to become involved in growing food. Using techniques such as Ecology Action’s Grow Biointensive (Jeavons, 2002, How To Grow More Vegetables, 7th Edition) people can work with nature to grow more food and more nutritious food on less land. (One person can be fed with the crops grown on as little as 4000 square feet using Grow Biointensive methods while “modern” agriculture requires 15,000-30,000 square feet for the average U.S. diet and much more for heavy meat eaters.) This method of horticulture grows topsoil as well as crops, benefiting nature. With large numbers of people gardening small areas of land, the land can be well cared for and areas of former farmland can be returned to nature. People able to grow their own food (including staples such as grain and potatoes) lose a big chunk of their dependence on globalized patriarchy and become freer to resist.

Sweet corn, oats, comfrey, astragalus

Sweet corn, our first attempt at oats, comfrey, astragalus, sage

Gardening can be more or less an act of building subsistence culture. At Cedar Hill our goal is to help build a subsistence, matriarchal culture, not just to grow a few tomatoes. We are a long way from an ideal of growing most of our diet and using no outside inputs, but we are moving in that direction. We’re growing at least some dietary staples like dried beans, potatoes and, this year, a few oats. We use mostly heirloom and other open pollinated seeds and are saving the seeds. We use hand tools exclusively so the energy used to grow and maintain the garden comes from the sun and human power (though the hand tools are well crafted 20 year old industrial-made tools). We’ve never used chemical fertilizers or pesticides, but we have brought in alfalfa meal, greensand, manure, worm castings and compost produced off site over the years. Now we are getting very serious about the compost pile(s) and planning what crops to grow so we’ll have enough carbon and nitrogen in the residues to create enough compost to fertilize the entire garden. We collect water off our roof into big stock tanks (again industrial-made) and water by hand, so we are trying out plantings that can get by without much irrigation in our very hot summers. We are still trucking in mulch, wonderful ash shavings from a local handle factory, but we did use oak leaves for one potato bed this year with successful results.

Lina Sisco Bird Egg heirloom beans, Tomatoes

Lina Sisco Bird Egg heirloom beans, Tomatoes

The men who sold us industrial society were first rate snake oil salesmen. Regaining our lost connection to nature (and to human community) should make up for many supposed “losses” that come to people in the “developed” world with an end to massive modern industry. Subsistence gardeners begin developing a real relationship with the earth – the smell of her soil, the wildly colorful food crops, the native plants returning to the lands freed from agriculture, the insects chomping their way around the garden, the precious predator insects, bug-snarfing toads, the feel of the rains and winds on their own skin. With connection to nature can also come the directly experienced spirituality that so many people in globalized patriarchy have been futilely searching for. Replace patriarchy with matriarchy and “heaven” comes down to earth!

Stop Globalized Patriarchy Now!

Subsistence and resistance. Resistance and subsistence. We need both. But, practitioners of each need to keep their eye on the ball. Globalized patriarchy is destroying the earth. We don’t need minor adjustments and reformist change. The small cuts in fossil fuel emissions by 2020 promised by the current version of the ACES bill in the U.S. Congress does next to nothing to reverse global warming, a frightening example of the failure of the reformist approach. We likewise can’t afford to get so busy out in the garden that we forget to resist. Subsistence is in some ways easier than resistance as one could co-exist without active opposition to globalized patriarchy (at least until the waters rise, the bug-eating toads go extinct, or cancer strikes home).

On the other hand, a singleminded focus on resistance prioritizes the public (traditionally male) sphere over the “private” (traditionally female) sphere, as Maria Mies and Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen (The Subsistence Perspective, 1999) and Sharon Astyk (Depletion and Abundance, 2008) have pointed out. Politics with a capital “P” and economics with a capital “E” characterize male-dominated, large-scale societies, while daily living and the women who typically provide are more important in small-scale subsistence societies. Revolutions in industrial societies have consistently produced only male-controlled, domination-based societies.

We have to live during and after the revolution and the living could even be the revolution if only everyone, including the power holders, walked out on patriarchy. There isn’t much sign that most people in the developed nations are leaving their modern gadgets (and the rest of globalized industrial patriarchy) behind, so we need resistance and subsistence. As Jensen argues, we need to stop this culture from killing the planet.

June 24, 2009

Brooms are ancient and useful tools!

Filed under: Paula Mariedaughter, Subsistence Living — Paula Mariedaughter @ 2:57 pm
Kitchen Broom from Henson Brooms

Kitchen Broom from Henson Brooms

Brooms are ancient and useful tools! A well crafted broom made with natural broom corn works well on either our hardwood floors or on the section of the house floored with river rocks. Brooms are quiet and consume no electricity! But, well-made brooms of natural materials are hard to find. I don’t want plastic brooms and I cannot tolerate the roar of vacuum cleaners. In the 1970s I found a horsehair hand broom at a thrift store that I use with a vintage metal dust pan. My horsehair broom may be fifty years old and it is still performing well. These three tools are all I need to sweep dog hair and debris from the floor. When I went looking to replace our current broom after five years of use, I could not find a local source that met my standards. No one in northwest Arkansas carried a broom to meet these standards!

We know from family lore in Jeanne’s family that one of her Dad’s first sales jobs in the 1940s was to sell the new household cleaning tool–the vacuum cleaner. Of course he approached his extended family first to try his sales pitch and to try to make his first sale. Despite his persuasive personality there was a problem with selling vacuum cleaners. Most people did not have carpeting! In fact, a well made broom still did the best job sweeping up debris on bare floors. Brooms are portable, easily stored, not heavy or noisy. Not until carpeting became the norm did vacuum cleaners become ubiquitous.

Jeanne and I have an ancient vacuum in a storage area far from the house, but I dragged it out yesterday because I need to suck up as much dust as possible because we were having part of the ceramic tile entrance area replaced. Vacuum cleaners are superior for this task. We had plenty of sunshine, so I did not have to be concerned about the pull of electricity required from our solar energy system.

Ideally, I would be growing broom corn and learning to make my own brooms or trading my skills with someone locally who made brooms. Instead, I bought this Kitchen Broom from a family business called Henson Broom shop in Kentucky (www.hensonbrooms.com) and paid to have it shipped to Arkansas. Our new broom performs well and is a pleasure to use.

I feel good about bringing this product into my home. Often I have mixed feeling about the things I choose to buy and use–from my favorite yoguart because it is packaged in plastic containers, to the electronic devices I use to make a living like our computers and the printer/scanner.

Brooms do not require nuclear energy or coal to produce the electricity to move them. Brooms are not noisy. I find that vacuums drown out thought! In most parts of the world, wall-to-wall carpeting is uncommon and homes have tile or hardwood floors, which are easily swept, wiped, or mopped.

Is it cool to use a broom? What urban hipster knows how to make one? Try this trick when you are next looking for a good broom: five years ago a Kentucky broom maker told me that a good broom will stand up on its own and proceeded to demonstate the fact that his brooms will do so. Do you have a broom well balanced enough to stand alone? Do you have a broom story?

May 25, 2009

Sustainable or Business Almost As Usual? (III)

Filed under: Ecofeminism, Economics, Global Warming, Jeanne Neath, Patriarchy, Subsistence Living — Jeanne Neath @ 1:44 pm

My mother and father moved into a suburban house with a large yard in the late 1960s, after living many years in more constricted living arrangements. The yard seemed to call for a dog and for my father’s 54th birthday I bought him a six week old Dalmatian puppy. My father went with me to pick out the puppy, but we did not consult with my mother ahead of time. When we arrived home, puppy in arms, my mother opened the garage door, screamed “Oh no” at the sight of the puppy, and slammed the door in our faces. Within a day or so mother was completely enchanted with the puppy and she dearly loved him until his death at age 17.

I eventually found out that part of her reaction to seeing the new puppy came from the loss of her family’s dog when she was in high school. Her family had recently moved to Kansas City due to the failure of my grandfather’s trucking company in the Great Depression. Their dog was out in the residential street in front of the house when a group of young males gunned their car right at the dog and purposefully ran him over. They had attempted to run the dog over before and were jubilant that this time they succeeded in killing him, loudly exclaiming “Got it”. Over thirty years later my mother did not want to risk loving another dog.

This story of male cruelty and violence is one among millions that women have told during the centuries of worldwide feminist resistance to patriarchy. Feminists have called western patriarchy a death-loving culture in part because of its long history of violence and bloodshed including, but not limited to, rape, war, cruelty to animals, sexual degradation, lynching, racism, incest, slavery, and environmental destruction. Feminists have already had plenty of evidence of the death orientation of western patriarchy, but by now everyone else should be wondering too.

A consensus has emerged among the scientific elite that industrialized society is creating dangerous climate change that, unless stopped soon, will put as many as 30% or more of the world’s species at risk of extinction. What does it mean that this society has acted in a way that endangers a third or more of earth’s life forms? What does it mean that most of the concern about global warming focuses on its effects on human societies, not other forms of life? Global warming provides indisputable evidence that globalized, capitalist patriarchy is a powerful life-destroying force. The fact that many feminists, indigenous peoples, and other resistors have known for a long time is now the province of everyone in the developed world: something is terribly, terribly wrong here!

Efforts at abating global warming focus on lower carbon use, more renewable energy, and reduced waste and pollution. But there has been so much delay and resistance by the developed countries in initiating these changes on a large scale that even a lower carbon “developed” lifestyle cannot extend to 7 or 9 billion people. Extreme and immediate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions are now needed. A “developed” lifestyle cannot safely be extended to developing countries, nor can the U.S. continue with anything remotely resembling “the American way of life.” We must face up to this reality honestly and scale back our society in a purposeful way, eliminating much while reconstructing institutions that can be of real value such as education, health care, or disability supports (see http://sharonastyk.com/). The other options, denial or Business Almost As Usual (BAAU – see Part I and Part II of this blog) are a catastrophe for humans and for huge number of species likely to become extinct if temperatures rise much further.

Global warming has reached an emergency level with temperatures rising and ice sheets melting at far faster rates than projected by the most recent IPCC reports issued in 2007 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, 2007). The IPCC operates using a form of consensus that results in assessments that are overly influenced by conservative forces such as the OPEC nations and the former Bush administration. Most of the research (118 scenarios) included in the latest IPCC report focused on what will happen if CO2 levels reach 485-570 parts per million (ppm – 560 ppm is double preindustrial levels). The IPCC barely studied scenarios of a world that put more serious limits on greenhouse gases: just six scenarios studied projected CO2 levels of 350-400 ppm. Even these lowest studied CO2 levels are predicted to increase global temperature 2.0-2.4°C over pre-industrial times.

Many nations, including the European Union, view a 2°C change in temperature over pre-industrial times as a maximum for preventing “dangerous climate change.” Increasing numbers of scientists and non-governmental organizations now call for limiting temperature even further, with some suggesting 1°C over pre-industrial as the long term goal (see Worldwatch’s 2009 State of the World for a summary). However, we are already at .7°C (387 ppm) and there is a time lag, which means that even if no more fossil fuels were burned, temperatures will continue to rise to well above 1°C over preindustrial.

The earth requires an immediate lowering of greenhouse gas emissions. Yet emissions have continued to rise despite the Kyoto treaty and escalating worldwide concern. Although there are some hopeful signs from the Obama administration such as the decision that the EPA will regulate CO2 as a pollutant, both the Obama administration and the proposed American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) legislation propose much smaller cuts in greenhouse gas emissions than the European Union advocates. [The EU calls for emissions 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020. The Obama administration wants to skip the 25-40% cut and return to 1990 levels by 2020. (Kansas City Star March 29, 2009 and New York Times March 31, 2009.) ACES confuses the issue by calling for 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. Of course, 2005 levels were much higher than 1990.] If there is any hope of reaching any of the lower goals for greenhouse gas concentrations, emissions must peak by 2015 and begin a rapid decline.

The BAAU plans are running out of time, have probably already run out of time. Ross Gelbspan, the Pulitzer prize winning author who has written two books on global warming, says that we have waited too long to make the necessary changes and there is no hope now of stopping the rising temperatures at a safe level (http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=7203&method=full). The Worldwatch 2009 State of the World report recognized the need to limit temperature rise to 1°C, but could not project a way to reach this goal without relying on carbon capture and storage, a technology that has been used only on a small scale trial basis. The safety of carbon capture and storage, which buries CO2 captured from power plants (or even from the atmosphere) underground, is highly questionable. Imagine an earthquake and the earth burping out massive quantities of carbon unsafely stored underground. This is not a comic book fantasy. A similar event happened 55 million years ago when a natural methane “burp” released over a trillion tons of methane from the ocean floor and sent temperatures soaring by 18°F causing mass extinctions. (See Fred Pearce’s book, With Speed and Violence:Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change.) Technological solutions, like carbon capture and storage or far more science fiction type possibilities, are the wave of the future if BAAU plans are followed and are likely to cause far more problems than they solve.

We must instead begin to realize that BAAU plans won’t limit climate change adequately or create equity among the peoples of the world. But, there is still a way to turn climate change around and end world poverty and inequity by making radical, not BAAU, changes. Radical change is change that goes to the root of the problem.

First, we must recognize that industrialization on the enormous scale it is currently practiced must be severely curtailed. I don’t know if there is a safe way to use limited industrial production or not, but at the very least we need to reduce industry to producing essential and very efficient, durable goods that help take care of the basic needs of all the billions of people on earth. Perhaps any industry is so destructive of nature and of our human nature that it will best be eliminated altogether.

Second, we must address the root of our problems by bringing an end to the social system of globalized, capitalist patriarchy (and other forms of patriarchy as well). Economically, as Maria Mies and Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen (see their book The Subsistence Perspective: Beyond the Globalised Economy) have explained “Subsistence is the Alternative”. Politically, Matriarchy is the Alternative. By matriarchy I mean an egalitarian society that is strongly based in bonds between women, similar to many of the matrilineal, matrifocal societies that exist now or that have been described by anthropologists in the past. By turning to subsistence and matriarchy, societies can develop that are able to meet the needs and hopes of people in a way that globalized capitalist patriarchy never even attempted. The time for change is right now, before each of us in developed countries becomes responsible for the extinction of many of the earth’s species and the creation of a world that will give all of the earth’s children and grandchildren a life no one wants for them.

Nikki, Jeanne and Chase, Zora, Shyla

Nikki, Jeanne and Chase, Zora, Shyla

Tonight (9 PM) there is a low fire in the woodstove. Paula’s antique irons are heating on top of the stove. We have one 15 watt light on in the center of the house. Women, dogs, and one cat are drawn together to the heat and light. Two flats of tiny seedlings – tomatoes, peppers, eggplant, basil – are stashed behind the stove keeping warm overnight. I am not at all certain what the future will bring, but tonight I am warm and content, happy to be sharing this 40 year old couch with dreaming dogs. Tomorrow the dogs will go on the run they are dreaming of now (their legs are twitching) and I will take another step toward subsistence.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress