On Sun, 7 May 1995, Michael Golden wrote:
>[snip]
> I would suggest that this policy of the DEMOS exposes the ultimate bankruptcy
> of their environmental politics. While the demos are (debatable) saving
> wilderness, environmental issues that affect working people and people of
> color, poor, etc are ignored. I'm thinking about lead in the playgrounds
[snip]
> upper middle class liberals
> (democrats)are able to hike in their precious wilderness, the working
> people, poor, and minorities have to live in polluted environments.
[snip]
> nonwithstanding). Still, the inner city is polluted, but good for those
> demos, they sure can save 'wilderness'.
>
> whats between one's legs and more interested in their program for
> fighting racism, gender inequities, and ecological destruction. I am VERY
> interested to learn about and deal with how I as a man contribute to
> gender oppression.
There are lots of things about this post that may contribute to
"divisiveness," but what I most object to is the assumption that saving
wilderness is just something that's done so that middle-class white
liberals can have some place to go hike.
I am concerned about issues like lead in playgrounds and other patterns of
environmental racism, gender oppression, et cetera. I also happen to
care very much that nonhumans continue to have some place to live. We
humans have pushed them back and pushed them back to the point that many
species may not survive the next century, and individual nonhumans are
increasingly feeling the brunt of human invasion of their remaining habitat.
Where the privileged few humans can hike has nothing to do with it. What
the battles over wilderness are about, as far as I'm concerned, is
oppression, every bit as much as many intrahuman struggles are about
oppression, and I do give credence to the analyses of Warren and other
ecofeminists that the oppressions of humans and of nonhumans are linked
conceptually in important ways. I would love to hear more discussion, in
fact, about these linkages on this list.
When a person belittles the concerns of another instead of recognizing
that person as a potential ally in the ongoing struggle against ALL
oppression, the effect is often for the other to pull back--OK, you don't
think what I care about is important, see if I stand up for your cause.
This kind of thing reminds me of Murray Bookchin's famous tirade against
deep ecologists back in 1987. Even though he seems to have made a kind of
reconciliation since, I feel that the spirit of "greenness" under which
many diverse groups had been coming together has never fully recovered
since that vituperation. What a shame.
I don't expect everybody to share my concerns for nonhuman life, but I
would hope that people on this list would at least recognize that the
position exists. Just as people that are constantly fighting race and
gender oppression get weary, it's very tiring to realize that, here in
this very anthropocentric culture, respect for human life is something
that at least gets lip service (if not observance), while concern for
nonhuman life doesn't even make the charts--often, not even on this list.
People who hold positions that aren't necessarily the same can work
together and support one another, and they can listen and try to
understand each other even as they continue to focus on different
problems. Or, they can fight over what should "take priority" while their
real opponents continue their oppressive practices unimpeded. I'd like to
try for the first course. OK?
Ronnie
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon May 8 10:32:59 MDT 1995
via Charon-4.0A-VROOM with IPX id 100.950508113623.320;
From: "Jackie Van Brocklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: UTA Libraries
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (jonesli)
Date: Mon, 8 May 1995 11:36:13 CST
Subject: Re: power communication
Only in "theory" does this sound sensible [..."each according to
their needs..."]. The problem I would have with this would be:
WHO will decide what *I* need??? A committee? Will each thing I
"need" have to be "approved" by someone/group? Jeez - I've worked
for bureaucracies far too long..... A "capitalist?" ME? To a
certain extent - but I miss the "humanist" touch to economics
that J.K. Galbraith used to speak forth (he still does - but not
nearly as much as he should...IMHO).
Jackie
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon May 8 10:56:12 MDT 1995
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 May 1995 13:02:01 EDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: ECOFEM digest 205
From: NAME: Jeff Bile
FUNC: Library
TEL: 614-593-2681 <BILE@A1@OUVAX>
To: MX%"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"@MRGATE@OUVAX
Can someone help me out? I have mistakenly deleted ECOFEM digests 130-136 and
190-196. I'd really like to have them. If you have any of them and could
forward any or all of them to me I'd be very appreciative. Thanks for your
time.
Peace, love, and understanding
Jeff ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
