Talk:Tree sitting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Eco-terrorism link?

I don't think it is at all possible to neutrally link Tree sitting to Eco-terrorism, given the politically loaded nature of this term and the contradictory definitions that accompany it. Although certain commentators have sought to associate nonviolent civil disobedience by environmentalists with terrorism, using the term to describe someone sitting in a tree would surely stretch even the most unsophisticated propagandists credulity. Hell, if sitting in trees makes one a terrorist, then there are lot of small children out there that should probably be rounded up and carted off to Guantanamo Bay immediately ;-) Dirtbiscuit 05:35, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think tree sitting and eco-terrorism are very similar acts. They are both criminal activities committed in the name of environmental conservation. Is tree sitting eco-terrorism? No, tree sitting is a property crime, not a violent crime. Are they related subjects that should be linked? Yes. --H. CHENEY 15:59, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

H, a 'See also' link carries a strong connotation of definition. Eco-terrorism, by virtue of the fact that it consists of the word terrorism with 'eco' stuck to the front, cannot sensibly be used to describe a nonviolent act, and if you consider sitting in a tree to be an act of violence - let alone an act of violence sufficiently abhorrent to be labelled as 'terrorism' - I would be fascinated to hear how it would cause you to fear for your physical safety. Would you be worried that someone might fall out of the tree and knock you over, perhaps?

To be fair, though, you acknowledge that tree-sitting is 'not a violent crime'. You describe it instead as a 'property crime'. So, if trespass as a 'property crime' is 'very similar' to terrorism (and I'll leave the eco off this time, because what you are really doing by using the term eco-terrorism is associating tree-sitting with 'terrorism' in the readers' mind) are other acts of trespass 'very similar' to terrorism? How is this?

Actually, I'm not even sure whether this entry is particularly encylopaedic. It does irk me, though, to see this crude, oxymoronic compound-adjective being bandied about so uncritically. Dirtbiscuit 14:22, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dirtbiscuit, please read my comments thoroughly before responding. Second, please read the article's current revision before incorrectly defining what I consider to be an act of violence.

Tree sitting is not merely trespassing, it is a conspiracy to trespass, to aid trespassing, and to deprive the owner or leaseholder of their economic rights to the property. As such, tree sitters need a support network, similar in organization to a terrorist cell. Tree sitters, unlike most trespassers, threaten self-harm (suicide) if their demands are not met. Under the threat of participating in violence and helping a radical environmentalist's suicidal quest for martyrdom, loggers and timber organization either let the trespasser remain in the tree and avoid the area, or they remove the trespasser with a tree climber. To call tree sitters non-violent is incorrect, they raise the specter of violence to further their goals. The nature of tree sitting is much less violent than eco-terrorism, but is still closely related in goals and ambition to eco-terrorism. Despite tree sitters violent/self harm undertones, I feel tree sitting is primarily a property crime, non-terroristic, and a form of legitimate (though very illegal) form of civil disobedience.

Tree sitting is not eco-terrorism and there is no mention of eco-terrorism in the body of the article. Eco-terrorism (for example tree spiking) and tree sitting reflect two completely different world views of how to deal with perceived environmental destruction. The message of eco-terrorism and tree sitting is the same: "If you cut down this tree, somebody will die." Considering the similarity in the overall message, threat of violence (or a violent situation), and ecological world-views, I feel obligated to provide the reader a link to a similar article.

Even if you completely disagree with everything I have wrote above, why not leave the link to eco-terrorism to compare and contrast eco-terrorism to tree sitting, and let the readers decide for themselves? The articles about the Republican Party and the Democratic link to one another to compare and contrast. Our goal at Wikipedia is to promote knowledge, without promoting a particular point of view.

It seems as though you feel very strongly about this issue. Maybe, in the interest of neutrality, you should consider editing other topics. --H. CHENEY 16:43, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dear H,

Indeed, I do feel strongly about this issue; however, I don't think this is a reason to abandon efforts to improve this or related articles. Nor is it especially productive to make that suggestion, as polite as you have been in doing so. I'm sure we have equally strong feelings about promoting knowledge and neutrality.

I appreciate your acknowledgement that tree-sitting is not 'eco-terrorism', and that so-called 'eco-terrorism' such as 'tree-spiking' reflects a completely different world view to that of tree-sittingism.

However, you then go on to say that tree-sitting and eco-terrorism convey the same message, because they both raise the spectre of violence. If this is what you genuinely believe, I recommend that you do some reading on nonviolence and civil disobedience - and perhaps beyond the relevant Wikipedia articles, which while forming a reasonable introduction to the topics, are by no means comprehensive.

When Jesus Christ advised his followers to turn the other cheek - in other words, when he advised standing up to injustice without offering harm to those carrying out the injustice - was his behaviour like that of a terrorist? And therefore, should Christianity include a link to terrorism so that readers can compare and contrast? After all, turning the other cheek raises the spectre of violence in that one may receive a slap for doing so.

In your comments, you characterise tree-sitting as a conspiracy ... to deprive the owner or leaseholder of their economic rights to the property. Have you considered how tree-sitting might be characterised by someone sitting in a tree, rather than by those wishing to cut a tree down, or by the legal system? Are you aware of any instances where individuals have been prosecuted for conspiring with others to sit in a tree?

You also claim that tree-sitters need a support network, similar in organization to a terrorist cell. What would the similarities be, and how do they justify this comparison? If so, what other forms of organisation might be compared with terrorist cells?

You then go on to say that tree-sitters threaten self-harm (suicide) if their demands are not met. I am confounded by your implied re-definition of suicide as death resulting from the actions of another. Let us say that someone was committing an act of trespass by refusing to leave another person's house. If the owner of the house were to burn it down, thereby killing the trespasser, how do you think the courts would regard the resulting death? Homicide or suicide?

Your edits to the article also describe tree-sitting as a criminal form of trespassing. Could you please explain what constitutes a non-criminal form of trespassing?

Lastly - and I apologise if this seems like a cheap shot, but I think it illustrates an important principle for neutral editing - civil disobedience cannot be 'very' illegal. It is, by its very definition, always illegal. Dirtbiscuit 01:20, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I find it insulting that you assume that I am uneducated and suggest I, ". . . do some reading on nonviolence and civil disobedience." I am very well read on Thoreau's work, if that is what you are referring to. Being an atheist and finding monotheism boring, I am not as well read on Christianity or Christ, so I do not feel qualified in answering your passive-aggressive question.

Whether you like it or not, the current legal system is a reality. The current legal system defines tree sitters as trespassers, and thus, criminals. You can deny it, but it's a fact, and as such, should remain in the article.

Tree sitters, and their support networks, frequently use pseudonyms and other covert tactics to evade prosecution. Most support groups operate in small informal cells, similar to that of terrorist organizations. Let's face reality - tree sitters are not terrorists, but they are not law abiding members of the Sierra Club either.

You then go on to say that tree-sitters threaten "self-harm (suicide) if their demands are not met". I am confounded by your implied re-definition of suicide as death resulting from the actions of another.

In the United States there is a form of suicide called, "suicide by cop." The suicidal person threatens to attack, or attacks, a law enforcement officer, who in turn will shoot and ususally kill the perp. Police shoot threatening criminals, lumberjacks cut down trees, and suicidal maniacs put themselves in situations where they can get killed. I definitely view the tree sitter as the aggressive party.

I have included mention of eco-terrorism and ecotage in the body of the article because you refuse to allow them in the "See also" section. I hope my wording and context is acceptable to you

I am having a great deal of trouble finding links to articles regarding tree sitting with neutral point of view or with a point of view sympathetic to property rights. I noticed you added several pro-tree sitting links, can you possibly suggest a broader spectrum of links for our readers? --H. CHENEY 03:14, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's considerably better. Attributing the definition of tree-sitting as 'eco-terrorism' to particular parties or interest groups moves the article towards neutrality. Perhaps you could name the elected officials, lumber companies and advocates of property rights that claim that tree-sitting is a form of eco-terrorism. I'd be interested to know where and when the claims have been made.

Let's face reality - tree sitters are not terrorists, but they are not law abiding members of the Sierra Club either.

On this we agree. They are not terrorists. I say that it is unreasonable to therefore suggest that sitting in a tree is 'like' terrorism, when the defining characteristic of terrorism is the use of violence on a terror-provoking scale.

In the United States there is a form of suicide called, "suicide by cop."

Yes, I've heard the term, and thought it an extraordinary rationalisation of police shootings. However, even the phenomenon of so-called 'suicide by cop' is hardly analogous. Surely if a police officer, in such a scenario, shoots someone who threatens to attack them, their action is one of defense against an immediate threat of injury or death. How does a person sitting in a tree pose this sort of threat?

I find it insulting that you assume that I am uneducated and suggest I,". . . do some reading on nonviolence and civil disobedience."

Don't be insulted, H. No-one said you were uneducated.

I don't know where you'll find 'anti' tree-sitting web-oages. I don't think its sufficiently controversial enough to attract that sort of attention. As for neutral articles, isn't that the whole point of this? To create one? Dirtbiscuit 17:27, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I really don't think this article should include a link to eco-terrorism. Despite the fact that tree-sitters are breaking the law, there is not even a hint of violence or even property damage. In fact, i think the inclusion of this link, rather than hurting the environmental movement, actually hurts the counter-eco-terrorism movement. By expanding the word "eco-terrorism" so much, it takes away from the meaning of it, and just makes people who are opposed to violent destruction of property in the name of the environment look stupid. Hope everyone followes my logic. Bonus Onus 03:35, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A solution

A 'compare with' seems like a good idea. However, it is still difficult to compare tree-sitting with eco-terrorism because the definition of the second is contentious and likely to be disputed - someone has even slapped a 'controversial' warning on the article.

Compare with: tree-spiking makes far more sense than See also: eco-terrorism because both tree-sitting and tree-spiking are easy to describe, but very different tactics which seek a common end. It is also worth noting that the environmental organisation Earth First! publicly disavowed tree-spiking in 1990. Dirtbiscuit 02:39, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to remember there's the rest of the world to think about too! I don't know the legalities of occupying trees in the USA, but in the UK living in a tree is not illegal and thus not criminal. Occupation of land earmarked for development is not illegal either - we have something called 'legal squatting'. So - to suggest tree-sitting is a form of eco-terrrorism because it's ciminal is grossly inaccurate NickW 14:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bathroom

How do the tree-sitters go to the restroom? Do they just take a dump over the side, or do they bring a bucket or something? I would think there's not much privacy up there.. 69.243.41.28 23:16, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Buckets, Milk Jugs, etc. Canaen 21:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

We drink all our Urine and make Make Vegan Chili out of our shit. Next stupid question....