Hi folks,
Guinier's book is an excellent piece of work, as are her various articles
in law journals over the years, concerning voting rights and how we might
approach a solution to the lack of black representation in many areas of the
country. I'm from, and continue to live in, the South, and feel a rather
personal stake in all this.
Her suggestions as to the sort of "bloc voting" now in place in some
districts of Alabama at the county beat supervisor level, and the
consideration of this type of voting as an alternative to the bizarre sort of
gerrymandering we've seen in Louisiana and Georgia (and I'm sure other areas)
is a welcome addition to the legal aspects of voting rights issues.
For those unfamiliar with this approach to voting, blacks registered to
vote have the same number of votes per person as there are supervisor's posts
(using the Alabama case as an example). In other words, each voter gets five
votes, if there are five positions in that county. These may be used as the
individual voter sees fit (split, used as a bloc), so a nod is made toward
the traditional "one person, one vote" idea. If, however, through voter
organization movements, many of these individuals choose to put all their
votes behind a single candidate, then adequate black representation can be
assured. Perhaps most interesting in some of these areas is the lack of
"race-based" voting; people do have a sense, even in rural Alabama, that
"candidates count."
Lest anyone should not understand the county beat system,or think it of
small import, I would say that the management of government at the county
level, especially in rural areas, is of great importance. Those bodies have a
real and immediate effect on the quality of life in those counties, through
roadwork, sanitation, schools, etc, the taxation for all these things, and
the jobs filled with people who do these things.
As to the deeper questions and more acerbic comments concerning the nature
of representative government, as they are developing on this thread: no one
should think (I don't think) that Guinier is addressing more than a
particular remedy for a particular set of cases in which eligible voters have
been denied their voice in government. I'd like anyone to show me where
Guinier isn't a "democrat," or that the problem is with representative
democracy as a concept.
Myself, I've always had sentiments best labeled anarcho-syndicalist, and so
I, too, can quote chapter and verse the terrible disappointments available to
the historian of democracy as democracy appears over time and from place to
place. However, my sentiments are balanced by a consideration of the
deeply-running interconnections always present in a complex society, and all
the competing claims that come with those interconnections. I don't know what
else could manage such a system, even in its bits and pieces, besides a form
of representative democracy. It may be the case that "just because we vote
doesn't mean we live in a democracy," but it is equally the case that "if you
can't or don't vote, you are absolutely positively not in a democracy." In
the first case ("can't"), it just ain't there! In the second case ("don't"),
you are outside the loop.
Are these representative systems often corrupted? Sure. Tell me something
that isn't -- at some time or other. Are trade agreements here or in Europe
examples of the disappearance of those representative systems? Hmmm, tougher
question. Are the enforcement bodies of these agreements armed? Is the
association voluntary, requiring approval by some representative body of
parties to the agreement, and able to be dissolved at or by the request of
any member of the new practice?
Representative democracy of ANY sort is always a "becoming" more than some
state of "being." Nothing stays fixed long in a dynamic society. Is this a
bad thing? Could be. Is this a good thing? Again, could be. Get involved at
the county or city level of your own piece of democracy. Take a page from the
Christian Coalition in terms of grass-root organizing and education. (I
suspect they "borrowed" it from earlier civil rights organizers, anyway.) In
doing so, you may "steal a march on them," because "they" ARE thinking of
you. That they, and their ilk, have had some successes in electoral politics
is far from a demonstration of some fault with representative democracy. It
is an affirmation that these things can be made to work. "To work" for good
or ill is up to us.
OK, enough editorial. I get carried away sometimes.
Harry Ferguson
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jun 24 14:43:56 1997
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 24 Jun 1997 16:43:57 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 16:41:44 -0400
From: fight4it <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: nature
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ben Fox wrote:
>
> >Hi Ben...
> >
> >Sorry I didn't answer sooner, but I haven't been online. If you want
> >that
> >kind of info, a great source would be Feminists for Animal Rights. I
> >don't
> >have a phone number, but their web page is
> >http://envirolink.org/arrs/far
> >
> >I hope that helps... they are a SUPERB group!!!
> >
> >--
> >- Charlotte
> >
> >
> >
>
> Thanks for the info Charlotte, but the essay's already been written and
> handed in. In one part of the essay I discussed the differences between
> ecofeminism and the Animal Rights movement. I said that the Animal Rights
> movement is using the patriarchal concept of Rights and simply applying it
> to Animals. This is not changing the fundamental way we relate to animals.
> It is thus a contradiction in terms to say Feminists for Animal Rights.
>
> Thanks,
> Ben.
WOW... I have been both a feminist and animal rights activist for years
and
I am having trouble understanding what you state as your topic:
"Patriarchal
concept of rights"??; "APPLYING it to animals"?? And, in fact,
"Feminists
for Animal Rights" is probably one of the most reasonable terms I have
ever
come in contact with: The animals of society are treated much the way
womyn
are and vice (sp??) verse. We (FAR members) fight for the rights of
animals
because WE understand what it is like to live in a society that promotes
a
patriarchy, that does not recognize us as even close to equal.
With that, please explain your stand. Thanks!
--
- Charlotte
