Maples Form Union; Bittersweet Equality Descends on Forest

[ThornDavis]

There is unrest in the forest
There is trouble with the trees
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas

The trouble with the maples
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade

There is trouble in the forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the maples scream 'Oppression!'
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights
'The oaks are just too greedy
We will make them give us light'
Now there's no more oak oppression
For they passed a noble law
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe and saw



What does this even think it means? Is he saying that unions are a bad thing? That’s the implication that the hatchet, axe and saw line has. But obviously the previous situation – with the oaks getting all the sunlight was unsustainable because the maples need sunlight to live. And the hatchet, axe and saw just isn’t… It doesn’t work as a parallel because that’s the ‘humans’ coming in. What would be the equivalent in the real-world struggle between unions? Unions are human society self-regulating, so I just… I can’t see what the forest being chopped is all about. Plus, workers vs owners is a tense relationship because they’re mutually dependent, but the oaks don’t need the maples or vice versa. What’s the Maples’ bargaining chip here? What do the Oaks stand to lose from a Maple revolt? The situation outlined above would probably result in warfare rather than legislation and if the oaks are hogging all the resources then the maples are going to get totally crushed. Fundamentally I think these lyrics suffer from an oversimplification of the complex relationship and inadequte resolutions of the tensions between the workers and owners of major industry.

[killer_roach]

It's a story decrying the use of equality by fiat, by the tyranny of the mediocre overwhelming the extraordinary. It's a very libertarian song in its lyrics, very heavily influenced by Neil Peart's Objectivist leanings.

And yes, unions are a coercive mechanism for tyranny of the mediocre. At least, that's what they end up being in practice, if not in theory.

[ThornDavis]

If that's the case then it's a really vile lyric.

[Sayburr]

I have always seen it as more of a "Rich" vs "Poor" kind of thing. The Rich have all the money "sunlight" and the Poor want more of it. The Poor complain about it and the Rich just shake their heads wondering why the Poor don't try to get a skill so they have a bigger standing in the world (ie, are worth more in the market place). So the Poor decide that is too much work so they form a union (get the lobiest working for them with groups like the ACLU to speak for them... ie, union). The Government passes a "Nobal Law" that raises taxes (saws) on the Rich and gives the money to the Poor making everyone earn the same, even though some are more skilled at obtaining "sunlight" than others, so earnings wise the people are now the same. Kinda like Obama wants to do...

[killer_roach]

If that's the case then it's a really vile lyric.

All depends on your politics. If you a modern liberal who values equality, then yes, it's vile. If you are a classical liberal, you tend to decry the use of force to restrain individuals' natural tendencies. Conservatives of all stripes kinda just look at it oddly and wonder if it's best for the order of society.

Nobody's going to force you to think that such a mindset as that espoused in the lyrics is good, just as nobody should try forcing me that the mindset of Rage Against The Machine lyrics is good. And that's when things work best, when individuals are left to their own devices to determine what works for them rather than somebody coming in to make the decision for them.

...Which is, in a way, what "The Trees" is all about.

[ThornDavis]

I have always seen it as more of a "Rich" vs "Poor" kind of thing. The Rich have all the money "sunlight" and the Poor want more of it. The Poor complain about it and the Rich just shake their heads wondering why the Poor don't try to get a skill so they have a bigger standing in the world (ie, are worth more in the market place). So the Poor decide that is too much work so they form a union (get the lobiest working for them with groups like the ACLU to speak for them... ie, union). The Government passes a "Nobal Law" that raises taxes (saws) on the Rich and gives the money to the Poor making everyone earn the same, even though some are more skilled at obtaining "sunlight" than others, so earnings wise the people are now the same. Kinda like Obama wants to do...

In the analogy of Trees though, the oaks haven't worked harder or done more to earn their sunlight - they're just born into it. Obtaining sunlight isn't a 'skill' for an oak, it's not something the earn - it's just something they get by dint of what they're born into. I suppose the Maples could represent Women or Blacks, which are both groups that have cried oppression in the past 100 years and formed pressure groups to get equal treatment.

I agree that the song doesn't seem to be written from the point of view of a 'Maple' sympathiser', and Neil Peart seems to take the point of view that the people who had all the resources, who are - yes! - at the top of the tree, are diminished by the idea of equality. So I suppose it's a case of "yeah, nice one women and blacks, you've ruined it for everyone with your wanting equal treatment. Now I haven't got enough money".

Is this really the most revered band on these forums?

[killer_roach]

It's not a question of race, gender, or class, but a matter of inborn stature and ability in The Trees. The lyrics seek not to perpetuate coercive paradigms, but to serve as a cautionary tale about those who wish to not allow individuals in a society to "grow" to their greatest capacity.

[ThornDavis]

That's the attitude that got Andrew Ryan done in. These 'Rush' fellas need to watch their backs.

[Fatal_T]

I think we're reading way too much into a song here.

[ThornDavis]

Although it worked out OK for The Incredibles so maybe it could go either way. Of course The Incredibles put their skills to to work in service of society - they protect people, whereas The Oaks just seem to want to hog all the resources. That's all they use their stature for.

Having said that, obviously trees need sunlight to grow so it's not just a case of 'let us be as great as we can be' - by hogging the sunlight they're actually denying others the chance of greatness. So who in this analogy is really denying growth to the other?