RE: Diversity, Action and Experience (David Schlosberg's request)
For the past two years I have been actively involved in opposing
the clearcut logging of Canada's temperate rainforest by
transnational timber giant MacMillan Bloedel. In April 1993 the
provincial government of British Columbia decided to allow clearcut
logging in 74% of Clayoquot Sound one of the alrgest areas of
ancient temperate rainforest left in the world (located on the west
coast of Vancouver Island). During the summer of 1993 i worked
with a local grassroots organization (The Friends of Clayoquot
Sound) (there were approximately 10 active members at the beginning
of the summer) organized a protest camp and road blockades to draw
attention to the government's decision and the continued
clearcutting. During the summer over 12,000 people joined the
protests and approximately 850 were arrested and convicted for
blocking the road (the largest civil disobedience action in
Canadian history). Hundreds spent time in jail.
I could go on for pages but I'll try and focus my story....
We (The Friends of Clayoquot Sound) tried to ensure that the
protest camp was run according to feminist principles. We
attempted to build upon the lessons learned from Greenham Common,
the Pentagon Action, the Chipko, the civil rights movement etc. We
asked all who entered the camp to abide by a code of nonviolence
(six simple rules), operated all meetings by consensus and held
workshops on ecofeminism, civil disobedience, vegetarianism and
many other issues. We attempted to build coalitions with the
unions, First Nations and other local community groups. I believe
that our organizing style and strategy assured that the protests
were accessible to thousands of people from diverse backgrounds.
Prior to the summer of 1993 the majority of people arrested or
protesting logging in Canada were young able-bodied, middle class,
white activists. The people who came to Clayoquot in 1993 were all
ages (the oldest person arrested was an 87 year old women, the
youngest a seven year old boy), they were students, seniors,
loggers, business people, artists, writers, Native people etc.
So....how does ecofeminism contribute to alliances, activism and
networks? I believe that ecofeminist theory contributed to our
analysis of the issue in Clayoquot Sound (i.e. it's not just about
'wilderness', for the First Nations it's a struggle for
justice--I've learnt through alliance building some very simple yet
often invisible realities--that people don't live in 'parks' and an
ancient burial ground is not a recreational site) and also some
concrete organizing tools and an attitude or ethical framework
thorugh which to implement them. Standing on the road it is far
too easy to demonize the company officials or workers--ecofeminism
helped us to understand that we were protesting against systemic
domination under which these individuals were also
oppressed--conflict resolution workshops ensured that in five
months there was not once incident of violence.
I could go on and on but having given a bit of background I would
like to raise some questions of my own:
I have spent over a year building a relationship with the
Nuu-chah-nulth Chiefs (First Nations) and am currently exploring
land use options with them. In these meetings I represent an
environmental coalition and am employed by Greenpeace. I am having
a very difficult time balancing my ecological concerns with social
justice issues. The company is offering the Chiefs millions of
dollars and the Chiefs are slowly watering down their no logging
position. The furor caused by our protests put the Chiefs in a
very powerful position with the company and government which they
are using to their best advantage. The elected Chiefs are all men.
I don't believe that they necessarily represent thier communities.
In particular their are Native women's groups who have opposed the
Chiefs decisions to allow logging and their have been incidences of
violence against some of these women by their husbands. In respect
for First Nations finally getting a decisive voice in
decision-making over their own land do I continue negotiating with
the Chiefs formally even though I may disagree with their
decisions? Does repect for sovereignty mean that one should treat
the Native band as a government? does this mean you could protest
this governemnt? What insights does ecofeminist theory provide in
these situations? I find myself increasingly frustrated as I now
reread books I drew from before these experiences...YES i believe
the domination of nature and gendered oppression are interconnected
as are issues of racsim and classism but sometimes it leaves me
with a feeling of paralysis. I believe there are ecofeminism
insights related to the importance of context, agency, and place
which are useful but I am struggling with the bridge between theory
and practice.
If anyone has any insights or references to suggest (as I am
analysing my experiences for my graduate thesisi) they would be
greatly appreciated. If you are interested in this issue there are
two new books out: "Witness to Wilderness: The Clayoquot Sound
Anthology ed. Howard Breen-Needham et al. Arsenal Pulp Press
Vancouver(I contributed some ecofeminist poetry) , 1994 AND
"Clayoquot and Dissent" Ronsdale Press, Vancouver (I wrote the
introduction), both are small presses but available through General
Distribution in Canada.
Tzeporah Berman
R.R.#1 K32
Bowen Island
British Columbia
V0N 1G0
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Nov 17 21:13:50 MST 1994
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 16:54:03 +1200
Subject: Re[2]: anarchy
anne jordan dashiell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
anne jordan dashiell;
Do you say that you would like a technology free society? Technolgy seems to me
to have started in the times humans first discovered a tool, learnt to make fire
and discovered how to grow crops and domesticate animals. I don't think that
technological advancement has been fueled by reliance on the technologies we've
gradually learned but more because we humans are curious and we want to
understand how things around us work. Some people get their kicks out of making
cogs turn or in making chemical reactions -others like to try and explain how
societies, people, political systems work. And for either sort there's
satisfaction in applying the principles ofwhat you've learnt to our environment.
Why is it any better to sit around contemplating our existence and relationship
to everything than to sit pondering what makes an insect fly or how you might
try to understand the dynamics of tropical rainforest destruction with a
computer model?
And how do you define and separate out technology?
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Nov 17 22:36:25 MST 1994
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 1994 00:39:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Jayne S Docherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: anarchy
To: anne jordan dashiell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Thu, 17 Nov 1994, anne jordan dashiell wrote:
> defending women at clinics is something all the lazy democrats out there
> who vote for anti-demonstators legislation thinking their taking some
> stand for womens' rights should be getting out in the street to do. there
> are few more powerful political demos i have been involved with than
> unified PHYSICAL blockades of operation rescue crazies at clinics. let
> the people stand up for ourselves! laws like clinic defense are
> encouraging us to sit back and let more people get run thru the legal
> system when we should be defending women with our BODIES and resisting
> these people through face to face confrontation.
So, perhaps we should all simply arm ourselves with AK47s and shoot it
out with Paul Hill and others like him? I am not saying that this is not
a useful tactic, but I question whether it is completely adequate.
Perhaps we need both?
> > The medical technology that saved my life and that of my ten year old son
> > at the time of his birth is another... 100 years ago we would have been
> > one of the sad statistics of mother and child lost in childbirth. I have
> > no desire to return to that kind of non-technological society.
>
> okay, i hope this doesnt totally offend you, but two things: i feel sad
> for you that you have come to "like" the internet because it exists only
> because of our dependencies on efficiency and verbal communication and
> technology.
Then, why do you participate on the Internet? Why feed a "dependency"?
also, maybe 100 years ago, the sad statistics were just natures
> birth control. these days too many people have too many kids who arent
> sposed to be born. no, i dont think we should just "let them die"...im
> just saying that the only reason we humans think having children should be
> something perfected and facilitated in any way possible (test tubes,
> artificial insemination etc..) and that infant mortality is something
> that should be prevented AT ALL COSTS shows how important we think we are
> as a species. do wolves have these attitudes? no..they mourn over lost
> lives sure, but they go on with life and hope to have successful births
> next time.
Easy to say, if it is not your life and your child. I did not say AT ALL
COSTS, either.
Does this mean we
should continue to give poor medical care to women and children in
developing countries? Let nature take care of them? Weed them out?
> > the rest of nature... Poltically, however, I would argue that it is
> > possible to build from within institution *and* alongside of them and
> > that there are multiple paths to the same goal...
>
> yeah, i agree..and sometimes i think about things i want to do in the
> future along those lines...i just am wary of people who want to work WITH
> the system (as in with the consent) in order to SELL "alternative"
> lifestyles and philosophy to the masses...
I'm not sure where this is coming from since *I* certainly wouldn't
advocate or condone "selling" alternative lifestyles and philosophies --
alternative lifestyles are *created* not purchased..
> also i never said anything about non-anarchists not being allowed into
> the discussion...if i believed that id be very lonely!! -anne
You didn't say it, but you have implied it numerous times by dismissing
their ideas and by attributing to them ill-motives and evil intentions.
I think we are *all* subject to mixed motivations -- you included -- and
we could all benefit from a place in which to dialogue and explore our
motivations, the consequences (intended and unintended) of our actions,
and examine other possible courses of action. I don't think we create
that space by name-calling.
Jayne
