In what ways and in terms of what issues have the environmental movement and the social justice movement been on separate, even conflicting, campaigns? In what ways and in terms of what issues do the town movements actually have areas of shared concerns? Do the two movements actually need each other's help, or are they both better off working on their own?
Civil Rights movement focus on infrastructure improvements and needs.
Environmental issues have had blinders on, are narrow focused and one-dimensional. They need to broaden their vision.
Need to look at strategies and focus environmental issues more on civil rights.
You have to look at historical perspective. There are a lot of opportunities to overlap. Environmental groups have been too isolated.
Non-profit organizations are attempting to change their outward appearance and what they look like, but they're not trying to change their message.
The environmental movement almost started as anti-urban and anti-people. For environmental groups to switch to looking at human rights has been contradictory to their development. Their focus hasn't been on how to save humans, which is linked to saving the environment. The mainstream environmentalists have written off urban areas, they now focus on giving urbanities a means or place to escape.
They have had separate opinions on the establishment of nature reserves and land right of Native Americans. Their shared concerns are toxins, pollution, water issues and increasing population.
The two movements should remain parallel courses; one of the major problems is a lack of understanding in communities.
Uniting all the people in the decision-making process can link the two movements.
Separate dialogues have some value, but their issues should be brought together to have a larger impact on society.
Government structures are a vehicle to block community organizations, they discourage the collectiveness of all things.
Environmental communities have misunderstood cultural communities and often divides the two when they really share interest and could be working together. They should be working to move ideals of social and environmental justice into common, accepted everyday beliefs.
They share the concern that the quality of life needs to be emphasized in urban communities as well as rural.
People of Color were unaware of certain environmental issues Ü we've taken natural resources for granted.
Then environmental movement is stereotypically still white upper class.
The two movements have more in common because they affect the same groups of people in some way. There's only one earth, so we all need to pitch in and help each other out.
There is a misconception that POC are only concerned with toxic waste and the more serious hazardous issues. We are concerned with a variety of issues.
The spotted owl issue is an example of conflicting ideas. (What about the people who lost their jobs?)
Pollution is an area of commonality.
The two organizations could use each other's help. When they work together they have double the effort and double the concerns covered.
It seems that the focus is to separate the people from the environment instead of education them. The disconnection from the natural world has a major effect on our social structure.
The two are better off working together because there are lots of problems to overcome. They need to develop trust and understanding, take control and technological language and information.
Ethnocentric views must be put aside to find common issues.
Environmentalists are "nationals," justice workers are "locals." The environmental movement has become a corporation that the social equity movement must watch out for.
Environmentalist want certain LU results, social groups may have different LU outcomes in mind.
A lot of discussion and meeting are needed to identify the common concerns.
They need each other especially where environmental and human health are congruent. But, some social/cultural issues do seem to stand alone, and truly indigenous cultures still exist. Too often one group goes into an area and problem with and answer, not integrated with local concerns, issues, and traditions.
The two movements need each other, they have been conflicting. (Toxic dumps in poor communities of color)
Communities of color live in higher concentrations of environmental injustice
Social and environmental groups at odds because environmental groups come in and impose on culture and Native groups.
Social and environmental groups are at odds because environmental groups come in and impose on culture and native groups.
If you are not a principle player in environmental issues then the issues are split. "Crazies from extreme sides. Subject everyone in between."
"When the elephants fight it is the grass that suffers."
We have to get the "crazies out of power."
Environmentalists do not look at indigenous cultures when they came in with the intention of preserving land.
Grass roots people need to take control and tell people power to "shut up" because they are not representing indigenous people. We ignore certain parts of the country and allow them to deteriorate.
Need to develop trust/respect and inclusion in both movements.
Social values that are common to both groups is the appreciation of the value of subcultures and economic concerns.
We have a right to expect our access to resources not to be harmful. There should be equitable distribution of resources. People with lower incomes may be deprived of opportunities.
Don't appreciate urban parks, don't think that this too represents access to nature.
Most mainline wilderness preservation groups have ignored the practical uses of the landscape. They are against the logic and working assumptions of the operating capitalist.
One groups gain is another group's loss.
Preservation has very real costs and consequences for other people.
Discussions tend toward simplifying things and seeing things from only one point of view to make them manageable. There are distortions built in.
Landscape for use versus landscape to be appreciated aesthetically versus landscape as an operation system of forces and factors.
There issues are complicated in terms of cost. (i.e. water laws) So who should pay?
Who can lay claim to virtue?
Is it truly in human nature to exploit resources in their own interest? Or is it much more complicated that that and are there deeper and more difficult things to achieve that many people try for?
It seems to be a war of values--both acknowledged values and hidden ones that we act on but won't admit even to ourselves?
Are there some resources that should simply be left alone? Do we have to use and manage wilderness resources?
Do treaties always make sense and should they always be honored?
-Animas la Plata
Things are never as simple as people like to think, there are always costs and consequences.
Environmental and social justice movement may have common enemy Ü corporate
America Ü but may have different goals. The land legal system based on "loopy" idea that someone can "own" land.
Problem of "scientific management" is that we often find "unintended consequences" of actions. (e.g. rural zoning for 20-acre minimum has spread sprawl)
Need for general education of environmental education, politics, civics, sustainability, eco-tourism. Need for coming together to share information and power.
Is there such a thing as one unit called the "environmental movement," or the
"social justice movement"? What are the crucial elements of diversity concealed within each of those terms?
The social justice movement has tried hard to get a "rainbow" coalition. There are many groups trying to achieve different goals but the groups haven't come together to identify common issues. The environmental movement and the social justice movement need to combine.
The perception is that there are two different movements when really there is not.
The classification of movements is a disservice because it hides multiple interests.
We must work together as an umbrella group to encompass smaller community groups.
Equal opportunity, education, housing, and equity in every human endeavor denote social justice.
An element of diversity is that there becomes a "divide and conquer" attitude between people of color. Each ethnic group has their own agenda, so white people see this happening and allow it to happen rather than engage. People of Color have been splintered and are encouraged to stay that way.
Social justice involves people fighting for their rights. It includes underrepresented people trying to fit into a dominant power structure.
Mainstream environmental organizations do not address issues that are pertinent to people of color.
There is diversity within the movements, but in the sense that environmentalist's perspectives are not very diverse in the traditional sense.
Ethical and philosophical differences separate from racial, socio-economic, gender, geography.
Environmentalists are not very diverse in the traditional sense.
America wants everyone to assimilate, and not be bi-cultural.
Some groups of people have a larger poor group. This becomes a racial issue second because the majority of groups of color do not have the clout, they are not part of the prevailing culture and do not know how to break into that. Even the prevailing culture doesn't realize that it is not inclusive to other cultures.
Environmental justice is a bridge between the two movements. Redefine environmental movement to include grass roots movement and connect with social justice. There are a lot of privileged people in environmental movement who want to maintain their wilderness area
Many people do not get involved unless they are directly involved with the issues. Many times by the time the information is brought about it is too late.
Decisions are usually made to undo something already done or stop something someone else wants to do.
