On the last day
of my Environmental Literature class this semester, I learned that our
president-elect had named Scott Pruitt as his director of the Environmental
Protection Agency. Pruitt, an avowed climate change denier, is as well a man
who has asserted that he is “a leading advocate against the EPA’s
activist agenda.” Pruitt, like ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, Trump’s pick for
Secretary of State, is beholden not to the American people who elected Trump
but rather to the fossil fuel industry that has dumped millions upon millions
of dollars into generating the bogus science behind climate change
denial.
Here's your president, "blue collar millionaire," declaring that the Trump way to live is the only way. Those people under the billboard are in Mumbai. And they are homeless.
I
don’t really have the patience or the stamina to trace the narrative of how
these guys have funded scholars producing bunk science that denies climate
change, a tactic undertaken to support their bottom line. I don’t have the
patience or stamina because the facts that prove my point have been readily
available for some time. You can read about how the fossil fuel
industry, led by Charles and David Koch, manufactured an inaccurate and
dangerous narrative that maintains that the jury is still out on climate
change. My
education into nature of Koch Brothers’ the dark money began when my university
accepted a $2 million gift from the Koch Foundation for the establishment of a
so-called center for the study of Free Enterprise and my opposition to that
money lead to this.
Koch Bras, beatch.
With
regard to climate change, the jury is not out: it’s real, and we are causing
it.
I’m
an English professor who has done National Science Foundation grant-based work
with three scientists to develop a teaching module that uses both literature
and science to talk about the reality of global warming. Literature and science
give us different kinds of truths about the situation: science gives us the
facts, and fiction gives us narratives of the potential toll of those facts.
In
my Environmental Literature class, I had a mix of students from a variety of
disciplines including nursing, business, economics, anthropology, and
criminology, all of whom were required to read works of literature that
examined humanity’s relationship to the natural world. My class was made up of
mostly first-year, first-generation students, a mix of Republicans and Democrats,
students of various socio-economic backgrounds, people with complex and varied
life experiences.
I
began the semester with the white men, the conservationists and creators of the
narratives of the American wilderness and its virtues: Emerson, Thoreau, and
Bartram, a writer who recorded his travels throughout my native state, North
Carolina, where my family has lived since the 1700s. The class moved then to my
colleague Ron Rash’s 2008 novel Serena,
a Depression-era historical novel about clear-cutting, timber barons, and the
establishment of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.
Serena shows us the power of
capital to foment environmental damage and the power of art – in this case, the
writings of Horace Kephart and the photographs of Jim Thompson – to counter that
destruction. But the story is not that simple, not just a narrative of
conservationists defeating capitalists; for the national park to come into
being, people living on the land that became the park had to be evicted from it.
The loggers, who function as a chorus in Rash’s novel, work to understand their
role in the devastation, the creation of the park, and the displacement of
people:
“We
had to feed our families.”
“Yes
we did. What I’m wondering is how we’ll feed them once all the trees is cut and
the jobs leave.”
“At
least what critters are left have a place they can run to.”
“The
park you mean?”
“Yes
sir, trouble is they ain’t going to let us stay in there with them.”
“Running
folks out so they can run the critters in. That’s a hell of a thing.”
One of Jim Thompson's photos of the land that became the park.
There
were native peoples here first, of course, displaced first; they show up as
shadows, working on the logging crew, voiceless, abject.
After
losing all of his money during the Great Depression, my father’s father worked to
clear-cut the mountains where I live and work. The narratives of environmental
destruction and salvation are never simple, never just a matter of preservation
in the face of needless consumption. My father told me that his father made one
dollar per day in the early 1930s doing some of the most dangerous work
imaginable. He lived in a logging camp,
away from my grandmother. He never put his money in a bank again.
In
Rash’s novel, after the logging crew cuts down the last tree, as the men stare
at the devastation, one says, “I think this is what the end of the world will
be like,” and none of the other men “raised his voice to disagree.” My students
noted over and over again that this is a novel about the end of the world, the
apocalypse it must have been for the southern highlanders. And we discussed the
notion of apocalypse, the almost but never arriving end, the most powerful
metaphor of the environmental movement that is still, it seems, not powerful
enough to stop the devastation that continues to happen all around us.
After
Serena, we read Edwidge Danticat’s 1998 work The Farming of Bones,
a novel about the historical Parsley Massacre in the Dominican Republic
in 1937, a five-day period that constituted the genocide of 20,000 plus Haitians
at the hands of Rafael
Leonidas Trujillo Molina, the dictator who pedaled fear of the Haitian
immigrant population to the residents of the DR.
Here's an image of Trujillo. I'll spare you pictures of the massacre.
In Danticat’s
novel Trujillo speaks: “Tradition shows us a fatal fact . . . that under the
protection of rivers, the enemies of peace, who are also the enemies of work
and prosperity, found an ambush in which they might do their work, keeping the
nation in fear and menacing stability.” The Massacre River, the environmental space
between the two countries on the island of Hispaniola, is the space of the
genocide: the wall and the safe passage. The Haitian pronunciation of “pési,
perejil, parsley” was the shibboleth that determined whether one was killed,
cut down with machetes, or lived. The similarities between Trujillo’s
pronouncements of the Haitians and Donald Trump’s comments about Mexican
immigrants were not lost on my students who wondered if such a thing could
happen here.
One of my
students is from the DR. Her grandfather was tortured by Trujillo’s regime; she
told us how while interrogating him, Trujillo’s men pulled out her
grandfather’s fingernails. “My grandmother has more stories, if you want them,”
she said.
Such a thing
could happen here, I said.
And here's why it could happen here.
We
ended with Margaret Atwood’s Oryx and Crake, a 2003 novel that feels all
too real right now. Atwood’s dystopian work of speculative fiction engages with
catastrophic human-made crises that are already happening: mass extinction,
global warming, and human trafficking. Crake, the evil genius who, via a
bioengineered virus, brings out the near end of humanity, tells his best friend
Jimmy, “break the link in time between one generation and the next, and it's game over forever.” And that’s what he
does: breaks the link, destroys a generation, and rewrites the rules for human
civilization.
***
Let
me get to my extremely problematic point: such a link is being broken now – not as the
result of a physical virus, but as the result of viral misinformation, fake
news, and propaganda. Scott Pruitt and other politicians denying human-caused global
warming aren’t denying it because they actually don’t believe it; they are
denying it because they know that the fossil fuel industry and our consumption
of fossil fuels is causing the earth to warm, but they simply don’t care. Your life,
my life, our students’ lives, the lives of every other human and every other nonhuman
being on the planet don’t matter one iota to these guys so long as one already-rich
man in the western world can be made richer by our continued dependence on an
industry that is ruining our planet and killing us.
The
denial is not based on bad data; it’s not based on actual belief, either.
Donald Trump, Scott Pruitt, and the rest of Trump’s anti-fact, white
supremacist cabinet are denying facts to convince the rest of us that global
warming is not happening, that we are not implicated in its happening. They are
doing so because they don’t care about your life or the lives of your children,
your students, your friends and family. They don’t care about you. At all.
The DAPL protestors. He doesn't care about you either, but you already know that.
So:
to be clear, the denial that this incoming administration is perpetuating
amounts to the sanctioning of genocide. It is a tactic taken by those who deny
the holocaust, the deadliest genocide in history, an event that claimed
somewhere upwards of 10 million people. This genocide is different; it is
what Rob Nixon calls slow violence of a
kind that is and will continue to happen over a long period of time; it’s
harder to see and, therefore, easier to ignore. There are seven billion humans
on the planet at present. What does the climate change denial genocide look
like? How can we even comprehend it? In
Atwood’s novel, Crake tells Jimmy that “Homo
sapiens sapiens was not hard-wired to individuate other people in numbers
above two hundred, the size of the primal tribe.”
Yeah.
He’s right, of course. This is why we have trouble
processing the enormity of past genocides: 10 million people in Germany, 20
thousand in Haiti. These numbers are beyond our human ability to comprehend.
But I can understand 200. This is roughly the number of students I teach in a
year. This is the number of people in my tribe; these are my charges, the
people for whom I am in many senses responsible.
Let
me assert once again that reality is actually reality: human beings, via their
production and use of fossil fuels, are causing the earth to warm at an
alarming rate. This is a fact, whether we live in a post-fact world or not. Not
believing it doesn’t make it less true, even as, for now at least, it’s been
easy for those of us in the so-called developed world to ignore this reality;
global warming is a slow moving monster, and we are the frog in the pot, coming
to a slow boil without realizing it. For the last eight years, we have lived
under an administration that has worked to protect us, to set in place some
limits on the amount of carbon that we are producing. But such limits are not
good for the bottom line of billionaires who only want more, so now that we’ve
put one of those in office, strap in and wait for the pot to boil with all of
us in it.
Next semester, I
will teach this course again to a new tribe of students. And next semester we
will read Octavia E. Butler’s 1998 novel The Parable of the Talents, a
tale of an apocalypse – the Pox – that begins in 2015, a calamity brought about
by “our own refusal to deal with the obvious problems” in “coinciding
climactic, economic, and sociological crises.” In this novel, Butler’s narrator
writes of a presidential contender with marauding bands of murderers. He’s a
narcissist who tells his increasingly violent and disenfranchised followers to
join him: “leave your past behind and become one of us! Help us to make America great again.”
Science shows us
the facts; literature shows us the future when we disregard them. As educators and as global citizens, we should pay
attention to both, particularly now.
No comments:
Post a Comment