UKC

Outdoor clothing brand Patagonia have launched a series of Virtual Reality (VR) films in the aim of protecting the sacred Bears Ears National Monument in San Juan County, Utah, USA. The monument is currently under under threat after a resolution was signed and passed by the Utah legislature asking President Trump to rescind Barack Obama's recent designation of Bears Ears as a National Monument. The area is a sacred home to five Native American tribes, important archaelological sites and is a popular destination for climbers in addition to being of interest to the fossil fuel industry.

Read more

In reply to UKC News:

Great effort by Patagonia for taking such a pro active role in this. It'll be interesting to know how Trump reacts. Haven't got a lot of faith given he's a climate denier and pressure from the fuel industry is likely to be pretty powerful too. Hope I'm wrong.

The virtual reality films were pretty amazing, especially the one from the drone. Not sure why it's recommended to watch on a small screen though. Surely much better larger? I watched on my PC and it worked fine.

Well done Patagonia a real passionate company that cares about the environment as well as their products

In reply to UKC News:

I may well be in the smallest minority to say this, but an alien view of this situation (I'll call it an alien view so as to distance myself from what the mob may think of me for saying it) would be that Obama's proclamation was nothing but a landmine for the incoming President (as was Dakota pipeline being stopped), as well as the State, and this cynical move has made decades of hard work by many sides utterly toxic and utterly counterproductive. As ever good people are allowing themselves to be utterly manipulated by leaders who only have contempt for them, exploit their weakness in this, that weakness being that they are good people (Fascism exploits the bad, but this form of neofascism leverage is what makes us civilised). Worst of all, free people have become intimidated to side with the bad against the worst. Leadership is not doing the easy thing, but the hard, and real change is made by everyone building a tent, then getting inside it together, and after some small fisty cuffs making changes that are agreed on by the majority. This whole situation is beyond disturbing to me, in that intelligent people have lost (or have been intimidated) into losing all their faculties to think clearly, but only react like trained monkeys, even Patagonia. People made 'friends with band', fell under the spell of a system that was corrupt and murderous, and in doing so have sacrificed their ability to challenge real power. It seems now the most dangerous form of revolution is to write shit like this and sound like a total asshole (but so be it).

In reply to andy kirkpatrick:

Are you drunk? Nothing you say makes any sense. Literally.

I mean, this, for example.

"but this form of neofascism leverage is what makes us civilised".

I literally cannot even begin to form a guess at what you might possibly be trying to say.

jcm

In reply to andy kirkpatrick:

What?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

If you read it out loud, a minor adjustment presents itself: "but this form of neofascism leverages what makes us civilised"

I'm not clear from Andy's post on how he's defining "neofascism", but with that small adjustment I can't see any other problem with the sense of what he's saying there... To paraphrase, traditional fascism taps into the bad aspects of people's nature, but this "neofascism" (whatever that is) leverages the things in us that make us civilised, or the good aspects of our nature. Does that sound reasonable?

Andy, are you trying to say that Obama is some kind of modern-day fascist for using sympathetic causes like environmental preservation, which trigger us emotionally, to shut down debate or to attack the people he doesn't like (Trump? The Republican side?)? Where do you stand on the actual issue here, the one that Patagonia and the people in the videos are discussing? I can sort of see how what you're saying here fits into the world view that you're expressing in your blog and social media these days, but don't you think it's even just a little bit possible that those people are doing/saying what they are because they do actually care about the preservation of this national park? Why assume (if you are doing... my apologies if you're not) that they're just mindless puppets being controlled by some malevolent larger force?

In reply to TonyG:

"controlled by some malevolent larger force?"

Not malevolent, just highly effective, and if you can't see my point as the only rational one that can be made (on the weaponising of Bear Ears) we can't even have a debate (and instead we'll have the typical long slandering list of posts by drones using the same dronish words: drunk, mad, shockjock, right wing, trump supporter etc etc). Like I said, I don't mind being an asshole for saying the obvious.

In reply to andy kirkpatrick:

Like I said, I don't mind being an asshole for saying the obvious.

It's not at all obvious what you're trying to say though, Andy.

In reply to Tom Last:

Is he not simply saying that it might have been better if everyone had sat down and had a rational discussion about the future of Bears Ears rather than "weaponising" it: Obama's provocative unilateral creation of the NM, The Utah Governor's retaliation, Patagonia's boycott etc.?

Though, if that is what he meant, it was expressed rather strangely!

In reply to andy kirkpatrick:

Andy, I re-read what I wrote, just to make sure I hadn't called you any of those things, and no, I hadn't... but I suspect we're not going to be able to have a debate for other reasons... You're requiring that people understand your point without you explaining clearly what your point is, even after several people expressed that they can't discern the meaning in what you've written. I don't think you're an asshole, just a guy who doesn't seem to want to clarify his point. No worries, that's fine.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Ah, okay. Thanks.

In reply to Robert Durran:

That makes total sense. Thanks.

Andy, if that's what you were saying, then I agree... although it's hard to imagine it actually happening in that way, what with the way politics and discussion is becoming so polarised and identity-based (in this case maybe "people who care about the environment" versus "people who don't", which simplifies things far too much for any meaningful agreement to be reached.). But I still find it hard to view the involvement of people like Tommy Caldwell and Kitty Calhoun in something like this as being motivated by anything other than a desire to see Bears Ears protected, regardless of how cynical we could be about the big picture of the way it's all been handled...

In reply to Robert Durran:
There has been a debate. I found this article sums up the issue quite well: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/12/obamas-environmental-le...

"The only problem: Bishop and Chaffetz never found a winning coalition for their Public Lands Initiative bill. No Democrat in Congress supported it. Many environmental groups in Utah found it made too many cuts to the conservation area. And the five tribal nations with cultural claims to Bears Ears walked away from negotiations more than a year ago, feeling unheard and unheeded."

Also here is a map of the monument's boundaries, the governor's proposed boundaries and the Intertribal coalition's proposed boundaries: http://www.standard.net/Environment/2016/12/29/why-is-bears-ears-national-m...
The monument is slighty larger than the state's initiative, but fairly smaller than the coalition's. The main difference with the state's initiative seems to be that new mining and oil leases would have been legal (dare I say encouraged seeing as representative Bishop for instance is largely funded by the energy industry).


I wonder what Andy Kirkpatrick's reaction would be if there was a proposal to dam Yosemite Valley and flood half of El Capitan (or destroy any other place he climbs at)?

In reply to andy kirkpatrick:

But what will you do? Patagonia may fail but they are trying.

In reply to andy kirkpatrick:


Hmm, if i have to accept that your point is the only rational one that can be made (I don't BTW) to have a debate, there seems nothing left to debate as your condition on opening the debate is that I accept you are correct. Have I missed something?

In reply to Robert Durran:


There has been a discussion, it's been going on a long time. Patagonia have also been at loggerheads with the government of Utah on multiple issues for quite a while. The attempt to rescind the National Monument designation (that is still a compromise on what the various factions of the "winning side" wanted in the first place) has been seen as the final straw, hence the multiple boycotts and the departure of the trade show. We're only hearing about it now but it's been a long battle.....

In reply to andy kirkpatrick:


This looks like a very "weaponised" way of getting together and having a discussion

In reply to andy kirkpatrick:


I agree with this bit.

The rest is harder to understand...

In reply to UKC News:

Where can I find the split screen version for Google Cardboard?
Si.

In reply to andy kirkpatrick:

Thanks for your post.

It seems you knew a wee bit more about this issue than most. I just did a bit of digging myself into it and it seems (according to the article below from last year) there's more to the simple narrative offered, of 'fossil fuel industry wants to drill on Native American land for profit.'

Indeed it still probably comes down to this, and for many reasons still needs to be opposed. However the article indicates designating a site as a national monument has had other precedents that have restricted access to land by native communities to pursue their important practices and rituals.

More ways to skin a Buffalo, perhaps.


http://www.sltrib.com/news/4159848-155/utah-guv-calls-pro-bears-ears-monume...

In reply to UKC News:

In reply to UKC News:

The lack of a response is nothing to do with not willing to debate the issue, but that there’s really nothing to debate in what I wrote. I love Utah and I believe in making Bear Ears a monument, and support Patagonia and the all the work done, but this plain to see that this 11th-hour action (after agreeing no such action would take place) could undo years of work and typifies a president who was only interested in salting the wells and securing his own legacy (much of which we're going to be living through for a very long time, Brexit for example is directly linked to his foreign policy).

More and more I get emails from people who thought I was full of shit - but not anymore - that my view of the world is the one that best fits the world they increasingly see around them, and not the one we're sold, not the BBC world. And yes, I'm sure I sound full of shit, maybe even mad (I remember an old friend ranting like this on UKC who went on to kill himself), but I fear I'm not, that living in another country to the UK (one of 4.5 million not 65 million) affords me some small bit of clarity.

I've no interest in debate, and if what I wrote does not open one tiny crack in stone hard certainty then it's beyond me to change anyones minds.