In a personal message, Faith Barr-Glover asks:
>David, SOMEONE has to start ... several people have sugggested giving
>examples; no one has done so, yet. I don't have any, or I'd start.
>Since I can't start, why don't you?
>Looking forward to your example ...
>Faith Barr-Glover
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let's try this again. After asking folks on the list for some examples
of alliance or networks in action, and what ecofeminism can add to such
forms of action, Faith wanted me to start.
I gave a couple, in my original post, that can be seen explicitely as
ecofeminist: the Women's Pentagon Actions and the Mothers Day Actions at
the Nevada Test Site. The 1990 Earth Day Wall Street Action also had an
ecofeminist contingent, along with a variety of other groups. The two
battles in LA against incinerators were waged primarily by women of
color, but they were also joined by a number of other activists and
groups (for example, Greenpeace, Citizens Clearinghouse on Hazardous
Waste, Center for Law in the Public Interest, National Toxics Campaign,
and others).
Faith seemed to want a personal story of my own of alliances and action.
Probably the best example was my participation in the Livermore Action
Group (LAG) in the 80s, and the actions to blockade Livermore Weapons
Laboratory. I was a young, naive, white male college student interested
in anti-nuke action and the relationship between my University and
weapons production. But those actions exposed me to the most diverse
group of folk I had ever been involved with, and I have remained
interested in the notions of diversity and solidarity ever since. LAG
was able to bring together witches, nuclear engineers, elders, gays and
lesbians, Christian housewives, Quakers, anarchists, mothers, and
Leninists long enough to attempt to disarm the state, and spend a couple
of weeks in jail for the trying. It was a wild ride working with such a
diverse group, and the group *did* work. Donna Haraway describes such
actions as an example of a "cyborg society", or one that has been
artificially constructed and can build a solidarity while keeping
communication and understanding open between different and often
contradictory standpoints.
One thing LAG really didn't do, however, was create a multi-racial
solidarity, and I think it is solidarity and alliances built across
class and racial barriers that Dorceta Taylor was interested in in a
previous post. Examples of those surely exist, though they are not what
many on this list would consider ecofeminist: PUEBLO in Oakland, the
Labor/Community Strategy Center in LA, the Southwest Network for
Environmental and Economic Justice, and the network organizing *right
now* over dumping in Native American lands down in Southern California.
So the questions remain: What does ecofeminism have to offer to assist
in the formation of such alliances? And are there folks on the list who
can offer stories of their own attempts at alliance/network/solidarity
work?
David Schlosberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 29 14:06:30 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 29 14:06:29 1994
Received: from DAFFY.MILLERSV.EDU (DAFFY.MILLERSV.EDU [192.206.29.10]) by
csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id OAA14712 for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 29 Oct 1994 14:06:29 -0600
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 16:10:31 -0400 (EDT)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Regional consumption
Brian Luke wrote:
>To me "agribusiness" means using the land to make money rather than
>to feed people, and it does strike me that there is something
>intrinsically wrong with this.
If the agribusiness person is making money from the land, by growing crops,
then obviously he or she is giving consumers what they want. What is wrong
with that? Don't you make money from what you do? Every dollar made is made
because the business is feeding people. You can't grow worthless crops and
make money. Is it that they are not growing the crops that you would have them
grow if you ruled the world?
If the law required that any agricultural activity, large or small, family or
corporate, had to show that it was not damaging the environment, and had to
leave the land as fertile as it was before, then the size of the farming entity
would be irrelevant to the environmental issue, and would be as large or small
as economies of scale allow. Small can be beautiful, but big can be efficient,
and that reduces the price of things to those who can least afford to pay high
prices.
Brian also writes:
>Somehow animals have dropped out of that list. Or is ecofeminism
>just about people and environmental systems?
Some people care more about animals than others. Ecofeminism for some is much
more people centered, or if you prefer, anthropocentric. As much as I care
about certain animals, I care about people more. I get the feeling that that's
not true for some animal lovers. This is one of those issues, like religion
and abortion, that goes around in a mobius strip. I'll bet there are animals
that even Brian doesn't care that much about, such as lice. Should we feel sad
that sometimes they have to suffer so that humans can have a better life? If
not, then what are the criteria by which animals gain entry into the empathy
club?
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 29 14:33:53 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 29 14:33:53 1994
Received: from LEWIS.UMT.EDU (lewis.umt.edu [150.131.14.4]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id OAA15656 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 29 Oct
1994 14:33:46 -0600
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: by lewis.umt.edu (MX V4.1 VAX) id 14; Sat, 29 Oct 1994 14:35:54 MDT
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 14:35:53 MDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Celestine Prophecy
It probaby says something that so many have (& still do) believe
that the book/story was true. What do you (anyone) suppose is the apparently
enormous need in our culture that could rocket such a book to the
bestseller list?
Oh, & by the way, those in the publishing world certainly knew all
along the thing was just a story...(which anyone who understood the
impossibility of the history in it would)...it was on the NYT Besteseller
list for a long time (and may still be)...under the "Fiction" catagory.
-JRC
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 29 20:25:41 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 29 20:25:40 1994
Received: from enterprise.udayton.edu (enterprise.udayton.edu [131.238.75.10]) by
csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id UAA04230 for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 29 Oct 1994 20:25:39 -0600
Received: from checkov.hm.udayton.edu by enterprise.udayton.edu;
(5.65/1.1.8.2/09Oct94-0637PM)
id AA11335; Sat, 29 Oct 1994 22:28:22 -0400
Received: from HM/MAILQUEUE by checkov.hm.udayton.edu (Mercury 1.11);
Sat, 29 Oct 94 22:18:44 GMT-5
Received: from MAILQUEUE by HM (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 29 Oct 94 22:18:40 GMT-5
From: "Brian A. Luke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: University of Dayton
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 22:18:38 EST
Subject: Re: Regional consumption
Priority: normal
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > This is a serious, not a rhetorical question--do the members of this
> > list take ecofeminism to be about the interrelations between
> > patriarchy and environmental destruction, or is it about the
> > relations between patriarchy, animal oppression and environmental
> > destruction?
>
> Good point. I can only speak for myself, but for *me* the issue of
> relationships with animals was subsumed under the heading concern about
> the environment as well as concern about people. No, I do *not* think
> the kind of meat production system you are talking about would ever be
> environmentally sound. It is not in tune with natural systems and is
> bound to produce "side effects" in the environment which end up being
> destructive. Furthermore, I think that such a production system is not
> healthy for the *people* who are involved in it. As you say, it is
> inherently based on domination and exploitation and people learn what
> they live and it transfers to all other realms of their lives.
Yes, these are just the kinds of interrelations that many ecofeminists
are writing and talking about, and that makes ecofeminism so exciting
and important to me. How modern intensive agriculture is
environmentally destructive, oppressive to animals, AND bad for
people all at once (pretty impressive accomplishment). With these
realizations we can move past any lingering sense that environmental
concerns are in competition with animal liberationist concerns are in
competition with concerns about human justice.
Well, often we can, anyway. :)
Brian
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 29 20:49:29 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Oct 29 20:49:28 1994
Received: from enterprise.udayton.edu (enterprise.udayton.edu [131.238.75.10]) by
csf.Colorado.EDU (8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id UAA04515 for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sat, 29 Oct 1994 20:49:27 -0600
Received: from checkov.hm.udayton.edu by enterprise.udayton.edu;
(5.65/1.1.8.2/09Oct94-0637PM)
id AA11353; Sat, 29 Oct 1994 22:52:09 -0400
Received: from HM/MAILQUEUE by checkov.hm.udayton.edu (Mercury 1.11);
Sat, 29 Oct 94 22:42:30 GMT-5
Received: from MAILQUEUE by HM (Mercury 1.11); Sat, 29 Oct 94 22:42:00 GMT-5
From: "Brian A. Luke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Organization: University of Dayton
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 1994 22:41:50 EST
Subject: agribusiness
Priority: normal
X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.22
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Brian Luke wrote:
>
> >To me "agribusiness" means using the land to make money rather than
> >to feed people, and it does strike me that there is something
> >intrinsically wrong with this.
>
> If the agribusiness person is making money from the land, by growing crops,
> then obviously he or she is giving consumers what they want. What is wrong
> with that?
If the consumers are affluent North Americans who want coffee and
chocolate and cocaine and beef and exotic fruits year round, then the
problem is that we get these commodities ultimately by forcing people
off the land they've traditionally used for their own subsistence
needs.
> Don't you make money from what you do?
I am paid for doing my job, just about enough to provide for the
subsistence needs (granted, somewhat inflated in the U.S.) of myself
and my two children. That is a completely different economic process
than the accumulation of profits, which is what drives agribusiness.
Every dollar made is made
> because the business is feeding people. You can't grow worthless crops and
> make money.
On the contrary, it's rather difficult to grow WORTHWHILE crops
and maximize profits. Huge portions of agribusiness are devoted to
arguably worthless crops such as opium, tobacco, grains for fattening
cattle, etc. These crops have little to do with meeting important
human needs and a lot to do with accumulating profits.
>
> If the law required that any agricultural activity, large or small, family or
> corporate, had to show that it was not damaging the environment, and had to
> leave the land as fertile as it was before, then the size of the farming entity
> would be irrelevant to the environmental issue,
The last clause doesn't follow. Regardless of what the law says or
doesn't say, certain kinds of large farming systems (such as
confining tens of thousands of farm animals in a shed, which
dangerously accumulates manure) are necessarily damaging to the
environment.
>
> >Somehow animals have dropped out of that list. Or is ecofeminism
> >just about people and environmental systems?
>
> Some people care more about animals than others. Ecofeminism for some is much
> more people centered, or if you prefer, anthropocentric. As much as I care
> about certain animals, I care about people more.
I don't think it takes a huge amount of caring for animals to object
to what's done to them on the factory farms. Just a little bit.
Brian
