Eric wrote:
>I think it would be a shame if "activist" is used simply to refer to people
>who are willing to take a stand for what they believe. Having backbone
>should be common, and an activist should be someone who is willing to
>actively pursue change rather than passively resist it.
Agreeing on the meaning of "activist" is important for communication
and i've found it useful in evaluating my thinking. At the same time
i think it is OK that everyone has a different definition. My
thoughts are now moving towards abandoning the word "activist"
Here are some tests:
Chomsky is a Jew and a firm believer in truth and freedom
of expression. He once supported the publishing of a book
saying the holocaust was myth. The book was totally repugnant
to him and his support of it has resulted in years of criticism
and hate mail. Is this activism?
At one time i was the worlds worst enemy. consumption was excessive
and my job was development of nuclear weapons. From a save-the-earth
standpoint the best thing i could do was change myself. Is this
activism? It is a process and it was not easy or passive.
The above examples don't fit classical activism very well. Do we
need a new word? They do have a big impact on the world
and i feel they are discounted in our society. We naturally
assume that "classical" activists are the motivators of change.
----
jeff owens, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.xprt.net/~jko
underground house, solar power, self-reliance, edible landscape
to leave ecopath: unsubscribe ecopath -> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PS... Chomsky is an interesting person. Has anyone else read
his books?
