I get it. Diversity consists of people who are like Brian A. Luke in
slighly different ways. Sort of like variations on a theme, no counterpoint
permitted.
Doug
Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Left Business Observer
212-874-4020 (voice)
212-874-3137 (fax)
On Sun, 23 Oct 1994, Brian A. Luke wrote:
>
> > It is interesting how questions of racial diversity evoke the ire
> > and images of 2 Live Crew joining ecofeminism. Brian, the images you
> > list, are those the only images of People of Color you have?
>
> I must have been unclear in my post. I'll try again. I was
> responding to a tendency I perceived by posters here to use
> "diversity" to block the inclusion of animals. In other words, the
> idea that we can't possibly respect animals by ordering vegetarian at
> conferences because (for some unexplained reason) that would prevent
> the participation of some humans. I concluded by suggesting that we
> think of diversity in terms of subverting institutionalized
> exploitation, rather than in terms of including cross-culturally
> diverse forms of exploitation. Or, instead of thinking that
> diversity means including an ethnically diverse range of flesh
> entrees, think of diversity as including an ethnically diverse range
> of vegetarian entrees.
>
> The 2 Live Crew example was meant to be an example of the
> kind of diversity I DON'T support. Respecting a diversity of
> cultures, to me, doesn't mean respecting a diversity of forms
> of subordinating women. It means respecting an ethnically diverse
> range of ways of liberating women. Groups like 2 Live Crew and Sir
> Mix-A-Lot are promoted as black culture because doing so furthers
> the subordination of women. This is a very pernicious, cynical and
> manipulative form of "diversity." We might choose to celebrate black
> culture AND women by instead focussing on groups like Sweet Honey in
> the Rock, Arrested Development, etc.
>
>
> > ought to made clear. Diversity, as percieved by ecofeminists, should
> > be defined. What I am getting at is that there are a lot of catchy
> > buzzwords and phrases - I want to know if there is any real commitment
> > to give real meaning to these phrases. Many people like myself, when
> > they see an idea, they want to know how to put those ideas into practice
> > if they can. If I get flamed for asking how do these things work and
> > what are the implications for the movement - then so be it. By simply
> > Simply torching me won't let these questions go away.
>
>
> I recognize that my post did not address your main question--I was
> focussing on one component of your post and others that I was
> particularly interested in and had something to say about. But I had
> no intention whatsoever of flaming you or evading your main question.
> I think your questions are extremely important and well put and need
> to be addressed--I don't have a lot to say about them right
> now, but I'm thinking about them and looking forward to the
> contributions of yourself and others.
>
> Brian
>
>
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 24 05:03:02 MDT 1994
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Oct 24 05:03:01 1994
Received: from mason1.gmu.edu (mason1.gmu.edu [129.174.1.11]) by csf.Colorado.EDU
(8.6.9/8.6.9/CNS-3.5) with SMTP id FAA20966 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Mon, 24 Oct
1994 05:03:00 -0600
Received: by mason1.gmu.edu (5.65/DEC-Ultrix/4.3/GMUv3)
id AA16370; Mon, 24 Oct 1994 07:05:37 -0400
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 07:05:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Hello and What is Going On Here?
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Hello. My name is Jayne Docherty. I am a doctoral student at the
Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University
in Fairfax, Virginia. I subscribed to the list last week just in time
for the tail end of the vegetarian discussion and for the latest round on
diversity.
I joined the list because my major area of specialization is
environmental conflict resolution. I should say up front that I believe
that most of what passes for enviro conflict resolution is completely
inadequate because it simply supports the status quo. I find that many
enironmentalist voices are not included in the discussions and I want to
find better ways of dealing with conflicts so that as a society we can
learn to live within the environmental limits... As you can see, I am
NOT exactly a "neutral, third party". Rather, I see myself as a
committed "peacemaker" who wants to help people make peace with one
another and with the planet. I also have a strong committment to a
feminist perspective, which I have used in my own theory development and
conflict resolution practice.
What has struck me about the discussion thus far, however, is the
underlying tone of viciousness of some of the posts. Not all of them
have been this way, but enough that I am wondering if this is the "norm"
on this list or I just happened to "walk in" at a bad time.
I have found the discussion very interesting at times, but find the
underlying current of personal attack and anger quite distracting. I
have also felt that the personal attacks were frequently unfair and based
on the attacker having taken the "author's" point out of context. Could
someone explain the "rules of discussion" around here?
Thanks,
Jayne
