romanticizing movements

We like things that move us. We like stories that make us think that there is hope, that people are doing this that could change bad situations, and that people are powerful. Often, stories are romanticized to please an audience. I did not realize, however, until reading this chapter, the degree to which stories can be altered by people who have something that they want to see, or a specific audience to please.
For example, in the Chipko movement, it was women primarily involved, but not a feminist movement. There are other factors that could lead to the women being the ones protesting. Maybe the men were at work? Sometimes a situation looks differently than it actually is, and the motivations are miscalculated by people looking in on the story, and then reporting.
As is a theme throughout this whole book, the point of view of the people involved really matters. People living on a land understand the consequences of their actions, because they have lived with them. It seems as if it’s almost never a good idea to have an outside authority coming in and dictating a situation. Similarly, when reporting on a story and details get confused, and the motivation of the participants is misread, all that is necessary is for the voice of those people to be heard. They know what they’re doing! That’s why they’re doing it!