| Artemis Jones | Apr 17, 2007 06:46 AM (UTC) (edited on May 01, 2007 03:09 PM (UTC)) |
I'm excited about one of my classes this quarter, at Antioch Univ. Seattle, called Creating a Just, Peaceful and Sustainable Future. One of my burning desires is to help people make the connection between the deep prejudices embedded in our social systems, and its reflection in our socioeconomic relationships, and the current climate chaos we're experiencing. There is definitely a firm connection, I just need to put the pieces together a little bit better, so as to best illustrate it. I hope to somehow include this in our group's action project, which involves going to a mandatory facility for at-risk youth to talk about some issues around sustainability, perhaps healthier eating and the value of local economies (I wonder if Black Dollar Days is still around?), etc, etc, we're trying to think of how to appeal to them, and global warming is one topic.
There is a lot of talk in this class about the apparent disconnect between the predominantly "white" green/ sustainability movement, and those below "middle class" status, in that the analytical perspective often taken is one of "middle class America," i.e., those who can afford $15 packs of light bulbs, and shopping at PCC (organic, eco-healthy foods), etc.
What about the stunning amount of people who are trapped in poverty or near-poverty - or just waiting for the next unexpected health calamity?? That's overlooking a HUGE, latent mass of people who can really make a lot of changes and have a vast impact.... All you have to do is tie the issue of global warming/ sustainability to the economic concerns of the lower classes, and improving their conditions, in order to get their attention and participation. This is a very underserved population in more ways than one!!
To go much further, I would have to get into this whole theory of cultural transformation that I'm developing, but instead, I'll leave a sobering thought for anyone who thinks we live in a democracy - and this is dated info, 1999, I think?? It's actually worse now!! The following fact is precisely why the absolutely stupidest decisions are made, to benefit a precious few, and to the detriment of the collective:
In the United States of America:
One percent of the population owns 47% of the net wealth. ("Ruling class")
The next nineteen percent owns 44% of the net wealth. ("Managerial class")
Twenty percent owns 8.3% of the net wealth. ("Middle class" - this one is rapidly heading for extinction)
Twenty percent owns 2% of the net wealth. ("Working class")
FORTY PERCENT owns -1% of the net wealth. ("Dependent and the working poor")
We're talking wealth (assets, etc) not merely income.
So to break it down for you, 91% of the wealth of this nation is owned by 20% of its population, while the remaining 80% gets to struggle with the remaining 9% of the wealth.
Source: You Call This a Democracy? by Paul Kivel
| Phil Mitchell | Apr 19, 2007 07:42 PM (UTC) |
This is really important work, not only to bring more people into the climate movement but to expand our understanding of this issue and how it interconnects. So, ... I totally appreciate your enthusiasm.
But issues of race and class are inherently pretty hot, and it's vital to be careful with your facts. A "majority of people trapped in poverty or near-poverty"? The median income of the U.S. is over $46,000. And CFLs cost a couple of bucks, not $15.
Please keep doing this work! But please do it with balance and minimize the rhetoric.
| Artemis Jones | May 01, 2007 03:09 PM (UTC) |
thanks, Phil, I do agree with you there. I changed the post because I don't have time to go out and rigorously gather stats on how there could be a majority at or near poverty in ye olde "land of milk and honey."
I like Linda Stout's definition of poverty as "a lack of choices." If one accepts this definition then I would say that the U.S., as a collective, suffers from more of a spiritual poverty, than a material poverty, for, as a collective, we can do so much to change the inequity, both in our relationships with each other and to the Earth.
Perhaps I'm confusing LED lights and CFLs?? LEDs are quite a bit more than $15, too :-) I can't remember when that came up in class, but perhaps people had a higher wattage bulb I mind, than one might typically need?? (22-watt CFL illuminates something like a 100-watt incandescent, which is the >$5 sort you mention.) Either that, or $15 referred more to a 3- or 4-PACK of CFLs, than a single one. I'll go with the latter ;-)
| Artemis Jones | May 01, 2007 10:27 PM (UTC) |
Actually, you've reminded me of the need for equanimity (and I've been rather hard on myself lately...it's hard to be compassionate for anyone else, if you have no compassion for yourself.) Equanimity has nothing to do with objectification nor is it a cold removal of all feeling; rather, it allows one to see the Whole of a situation, both the Good and the Bad. Equanimity is the product of Love, which is inherently a connection to the greater whole (that greater whole being, by human perception, quite often rather "ambivalent.") But equanimity is a balm for the Soul, for it allows us to "joyfully participate in the sorrows of the world," as Joseph Campbell paraphrased the Dalai Lama. And whereas polemics evoke their polar opposite, true equanimity in practice invokes unconditional Love; and Love is the most powerful force in the whole Universe (IMHO).
It seems equanimity also speaks to the need to not take oneself so seriously! The "Creator" (howsoever one may wish to conceptualize the a priori of our existence) obviously has one hell of a sense of humor, thus, so should I! ;-) :-)
| Phil Mitchell | May 01, 2007 10:51 PM (UTC) |