On Wed, 25 Jan 1995, Ronnie Hawkins wrote: > > > On Tue, 24 Jan 1995, James Roper wrote: > > > I think the very long messaged about FOES must be nonsense. To that > > effect, seems to me that it is merely having the effect of a chain letter > > and clogging up the network as well as our minds. > > > I'm very surprised and saddened that so far the only response to the > message concerning the hoped-for demise of the Endangered Species Act by > its many political "FOES" is that such a view "must be nonsense." Are the > subscribers to this list so insulated in their ivory towers that they are > not even aware of the well-organized movement under way to gut the Act? > > Many who have been activists in one way or another have seen this coming > for a long time. The foot-dragging of the Democrats that has resulted in > their failure to reauthorize the Act when they could have done so (maybe) > is inexcusable. Now there will be a real free-for-all--if you haven't > been acquainted with anthropocentrism at its ugliest and most ignorant, > just wait, it will soon be paraded on the evening news. The existence of > thousands of species, the lives of hundreds of thousands of nonhumans are > now dependent upon the human populace of this country coming to grips > with the processes underlying the "anthropogenic extinction of species" > and voluntarily deciding to step back and let those creatures that are > less adaptable than human beings go first for a change. Can Joe Sixpack > be brought to understand how it is that his lifestyle is in part bringing > about this extinction process, and, even more difficult, be convinced > that there are good reasons why (my take on this has to do with reasons > of justice and fairness among species, but perhaps even reasons relating > to self-interest will do) he and many others (all of us included in this) > should make changes in lifestyle so as to turn these processes around? > And, could it just possibly be that some of us "elite" that chat on this > net might have some responsibility in educating and convincing the > average citizen that this is an important issue, or is "ecofeminism" just > a topic for armchair debate? > > Ronnie > > Regarding the above letter: ecofeminism is both a "topic for armchair debate" and a way of living that should empower "elites" and "non-elites" alike to stand up for the Endangered Species Act. Believe me, it is definitely alive in my actions as a voter, student, friend, and even relative. I mainly wanted to reply with the cry that no, ecofeminism is not just an armchair debate topic. But I also would like to say that the views "Joe-sixpack", as Ronnie called her/him (Resorting to labels and name-calling, by the way, is exactly the tactics that Rush Limbaugh takes in his crusade against environmentalists, gays, and "femi-nazis.) are not easily dismissed in my mind and in the minds of many here in the Pacific Northwest. A few of our northern counties here in Washington state are going through the labor pains of enacting the Growth Management Act of Washington. And, let me assure you, the loud voices of property rights individuals such as "Joe-sixpack" have much influence over the "elite" county planners' decision-making processes. So by no means do I dismiss "sixpack's" war cries. S/he uses the same means of raising emotion as many right wing conservatives do today. Maybe we should say "dem's fightin' words" and engage in the long battle we are in for with the new Republican congress. Does ecofeminism include retaliation and our own set of "fighting words", or does it sit back and intellectualize about how we wish the Earth could be? Good question. I hope the answer is the previous option, not the latter, but I do not, however, agree with the use of name-calling and put-downs. If we are to make good use of our educations and educate others out there about the environment, and ultimately ecofeminism, we must not resort to non-educated means of communicating! Thanks for reading, and get out of those armchairs you warriors for the environment! >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jan 26 08:17:35 MST 1995 Date: Thu, 26 Jan 1995 10:26:48 -0500 From: Deborah Rudacille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FOES -Reply My first reaction to the FOES message was that it must be a parody, written by an environmentalist as a joke or as agitprop. However, given the rhetoric emanating from Washington these days, I'm no longer sure about that. Apologies to the list subscribers outside the U.S., but things are getting a little scary here. Deborah >>> James Roper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 1/24/95, 08:31am >>> I think the very long messaged about FOES must be nonsense. To that effect, seems to me that it is merely having the effect of a chain letter and clogging up the network as well as our minds. Jim _______________________________________________________________________ James J. Roper | "The infliction of cruelty with a University of Pennsylvania | clear conscience is a delight to Dept of Biology, Leidy Labs | moralists. That is why they invented Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018 | hell." [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Bertrand Russell
