The Spirituality Of An Inconvenient Truth

[RestoreGore]

The spiritual overtone to this movie cannot be denied. And you can see it, if you look very hard into your own spirit...

"We, the great mass of the people think only of the love we have for our land, we do love the land where we were brought up. We will never let our hold to this land go, to let it go it will be like throwing away (our) mother that gave (us) birth.". - Letter from Aitooweyah to John Ross, Principal Chief of the Cherokees.
"The land is sacred. These words are at the core of your being. The land is our mother, the rivers our blood. Take our land away and we die. That is, the Indian in us dies." - Mary Brave Bird

"We must protect the forests for our children, grandchildren and children yet to be born. We must protect the forests for those who can't speak for themselves such as the birds, animals, fish and trees." - Qwatsinas (Hereditary Chief Edward Moody), Nuxalk Nation

The above are quotes from Native Americans, our first environmentalists. A spiritual people who to this day place great emphasis upon our connection to the land that birthed us and our connection to all other living things. That is what I believe in my spirit as well... That how we treat this planet is how we would treat our own family. That is also what I believe is the message of An Inconvenient Truth in relaying that spirit about our global family and its relationship to our only home. From the very first frame showing the Caney Fork River in Carthage, Tennessee to its ending in the same serene place, the spirituality of this movie was lurking ever present in the background.

Some may not have seen it because they were too busy looking for anything to suggest that this movie is a campaign ad, but I didn't see that at all. What I did see however, is a movie that inspires us to understand the huge responsibility we all have as stewards of the land that gave us birth, and the consequences of our losing touch with that spiritual bond which will result in us losing that land.

I cannot understand how anyone can say that they are spiritual and yet not feel a profound sense of awe and wonder at the beautiful world we were given. I also cannot understand how anyone who claims to believe in a supreme being who made this Earth as an Eden for us, could condone the senseless, greedy, rapacious way we are wasting and misusing this planet and its resources.

That is why An Inconvenient Truth is the wake up call that it is. That is also why some have decided that rather than face the truth of their own culpability and responsibility in the making of the current conditions we find ourselves living in, that they would rather attack the messenger. Which shows me they do not have the spiritual bond to this Earth that they claim to have, because the true message was totally lost on them.

This movie is not about political campaigns. It is not about movie stars. It is not about talk shows. It is not pretentious, arrogant, condescending, or biased. It is a warning about the rate of complexity we are creating in a simple beautiful environment that is now threatening our very existence. It challenges our resolve. It speaks to our hearts. It bares our souls. It tells us that our Earth, the land that birthed us, nourishes us, and sustains us, is crying out to us. The question the movie then asks is: will we listen and answer?

Believe me ladies and gentleman, this message goes so much deeper than just being the third highest grossing documentary or a best selling book. This message goes to the heart of why we are here. The Native Americans have understood for centuries why we are here. They see it in the morning sunrise. The cool breezes that blow the trees. The soft rain that brings sustinence at the Harvest. The sun that smiles upon fields of golden grain. The moon that shines its mysterious light into the heavens. It is about cherishing all of those things, and learning how to use them to not only sustain us, but the land that birthed us.

In this modern age however, it has been looked down upon to think in this way. It is suggested that to think of a simpler time is to be against progress. On the contrary. I believe that as we can live as one with the Earth in the simple way we were meant to live, so can we live as one with progress if it is moral, ethical, fair, and within the boundaries of natural law. And truly to me, that is the only way progress is ever successful. We can still appreciate the Earth and respect the gifts our Earth gives us in such a way to combine that love and respect with ethical, moral business practices that exemplify our spiritual bond with the Earth.

And indeed, where we find ourselves today, that is a moral and spiritual imperative. And it is an imperative that we must recognize as something that will not be achieved isolated from the rest of the world, nor our spiritual bond with it.

"I have seen that in any great undertaking it is not enough for a man to depend simply upon himself." - Lone Man (Isna-la-wica), Teton Sioux

Not only are the Native Americans prescient about our relationship to this Earth, they are wise as well. And if we listen to the wise message in An Inconvenient Truth that speaks to our spirits in the background of the scientific facts and images, we will come away with the urgency necessary to not only seek that simpler time when man and Earth were one, we will acquire the vision necessary to take us into a future that can give us the best of all worlds. That is why we are here.

[peacetalksforall]

1. Nice post. Thank you. Excellent focus.

Reminds me of something I read (a proverb) long ago - five words - Touch the Earth Lightly. There are many ways to put it into practice. The words truly belong to Native Americans (all of the Americas). Perhaps (at one time) Earths' best caretakers?

[RestoreGore]

2. Yes, I believe that

Native Americans I believe have an innate closeness to the Earth because they worked the land and cherished it long before the Industrial Revolution turned our hearts colder with steel. Progress is a good thing, but when it is at the expense of the planet that nourishes us I don't call it progress, because that puts the Earth out of balance. Thank you for your response.

[greyl]

3. "first environmentalists"?

You mean of North and South America, correct?

[RestoreGore]

15. " Ours" meaning America's...

Is that ok?

[salvorhardin]

4. Something odd...

"We, the great mass of the people think only of the love we have for our land, we do love the land where we were brought up. We will never let our hold to this land go, to let it go it will be like throwing away (our) mother that gave (us) birth.". - Letter from Aitooweyah to John Ross, Principal Chief of the Cherokees.
"The land is sacred. These words are at the core of your being. The land is our mother, the rivers our blood. Take our land away and we die. That is, the Indian in us dies." - Mary Brave Bird

"We must protect the forests for our children, grandchildren and children yet to be born. We must protect the forests for those who can't speak for themselves such as the birds, animals, fish and trees." - Qwatsinas (Hereditary Chief Edward Moody), Nuxalk Nation

The above are quotes from Native Americans, our first environmentalists.

Our first environmentalists are both still living?
http://www.nuxalk.org/html/jail_cn.htm
http://nativeamericanrhymes.com/women/bravebird.htm

It'd be better to use quotes from historic Native Americans.

[okasha]

5. "Our first environmentalists" refers to

Native Americans as a class, not just to the two speakers.

[greyl]

6. If that's what was meant, it's horribly incorrect.

I'd prefer to hear what the OPer has to say.

[okasha]

7. What's "horribly incorrect?"

That Native Americans were/are "our first environmentalists?" You have another candidate?

[greyl]

8. There are a few other continents

that may have slipped your mind.

[okasha]

9. None that I call "mine."

So, do you have other candidates on other continents? Prior to 20,000 BCE or so?

[greyl]

10. Well, that's your problem.

I prefer to identify with the global human community at large which has existed for 2-3 million years.
I think the OP was pointing out that An Inconvenient Truth can be appreciated on levels beyond politics, social propriety, and 'selfish' conservation of "our" culture's lifestyle, a la:
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Sacred_Balance.asp
http://www.sacredbalance.com/web/portal/

Furthermore, there is much evidence that the "environmentally friendly Native American" is an unfortunately mythological stereoptype:

http://chicagowildernessmag.org/issues/fall1997/wildones.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060213090658.htm
http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/gary.kroll/courses/his%20132/myth_of_the_ecological_indian2.htm

So, do you have other candidates on other continents? Prior to 20,000 BCE or so?

First, why don't you explain how the category "Native American" doesn't unwittingly serve to obliterate the thousands of unique tribal identities that have called South, Central, and North America home?

[okasha]

11. So do you have other candidates?

First, why don't you explain how the category "Native American" doesn't unwittingly serve to obliterate the thousands of unique tribal identities that have called South, Central, and North America home?

I had no idea it was Czechoslovakia south of the Rio Grande. My bad.

[greyl]

12. There are thousands.

Are you seriously asserting that Native Americans are the first examples of human cultures who didn't behave as though the the world was made for them to conquer and rule?

[okasha]

13. I didn't say that, which I think--I could be wrong, but I think--

you're literate enough to know.

You're also still avoiding answering a rather straightforward question.

[greyl]

14. I'm literate enough, and familiar enough with you,

to barely make out some statements between the lines. I'm asking for clarification.

You're also still avoiding answering a rather straightforward question.

Funny how I can do that while providing a lot of information about where I really stand on the issue, eh? My answer is "Yes. Thousands." It would be totally asinine of me to say, for example, "Native Africans" as if they were a class, or mention just a few cultures out of the 10s of thousands of relatively environmentally friendly cultures that have existed on Earth.

Are you seriously asserting that Native Americans are the first examples of human cultures who didn't behave as though the world was made for them to conquer and rule? If you aren't, then you're already well aware that there are other candidates.

[RestoreGore]

18. What do you have against Native Americans?

And why are you trying to trash this post and focus on that rather than discuss the spirituality of the movie? If you believe otherwise, I'd be more than happy to read you post on environmentalists of the world. Again, that was not my focus here.

[greyl]

24. I don't know why you're asking that question.

Could you please quote my anti-Native American statements?

[RestoreGore]

17. True, but I was writing about America.

And how I hoped this movie would inspire Americans to understand the spiritual symbiosis we have to our planet, as the Native Americans who preceded us did before we pushed them off their land.

[RestoreGore]

16. Thanks

The quotes I noted were simply some of my favorites.

[okasha]

19. I figured as much.

And as a Native American as well as an environmentalist, I thank you for your comments. :)

[Odin2005]

20. The notion primitive societies were "at one with nature" is a myth.

It's nonsense directly decended from Rousseau's naive, romanticist notion of the "noble savage" uncorrupted by civilization. most primitive societies had/have nature-centered religions, but that doesn't necissarily mean thier lifestyles were/are ecologically friendly. Our distant hunter-gatherer ancestors worshiped mammoths, woolly rinos, and cave bears while thier hunting pratices caused the extinction of the very same animals.

[bloom]

21. Their simple, low-tech lifestyle

was certainly more earth-friendly than our is. Or than other large civilization type of lifestyles.

The attempt to down-play the more direct connection to the earth of less technological lifestyles by the super-techies sounds like self-serving (ego-band-aid) denial to me.

[Odin2005]

22. Your post sounds like typical luddite talking points to me.

so there. :P ;)

[Igel]

23. In California,

some tribes drove species to extinction by overharvesting; not recently, of course. And the tribes suffered for it.

In Cahokia, they managed to divert streams and clear thousands of acres of land for corn production. Corn is not an environment-friendly crop, although planting it with beans helped mitigate some damage.

On the Atlantic seaboard they used fire to 'farm' forests, and made sure that trees that yielded mast were plentiful, even to the point of being almost the only tree in some forests. On the fringes of the plains they had no problem making sure that areas where scrub and forests would have spread were buffalo-friendly prairies.

In the Amazon, they made sure that they had berms to grow crops; and that the trees that were useful were plentiful, even if that meant controlling nature.

N. American tribes had no trouble adopting and exploiting horses when they were released.

Once iron was introduced no agrarian American tribe had problems with slash-and-burn farming; iron is needed to make it useful, stone axes are too slow in clearing land. Hunter tribes had no difficulty using firearms to kill buffalo. Had the native Americans had a steady source of iron, those of European descent would probably (a) have a different, less idealized idea about how environment-friendly they were, and (b) not have conquered the continent as easily.

The evidence is that they used the technologies and techniques they had to produce what they could, and had no problem altering the ecosystem to the extent they could to serve their needs. Some were harmless: borrowing the idea of burying small fish with seeds. Some were harmful. Whether or not they were really environment-friendly is an article of belief: They were limited by their technologies, and this limit is taken as a virtue.

[greyl]

25. Right, sustainable, time tested societies aren't "primitive. nt