History of cultural bias has led to a lack of diversity at liberal green groups

[cpzilliacus]

Washington Post: Study: History of cultural bias has led to a lack of diversity at liberal green groups

More than 50 years after the Kennedy administration found that the National Park Service had a single black ranger and bemoaned a serious lack of diversity in the federal conservation corps, not much has changed at public and private organizations that serve as stewards of the environment, according to a survey.

A report released last month said the nation's large, powerful and decidedly liberal green groups have failed to keep pace with the nation's expanding minority populations and remain overwhelmingly white.

Minorities represent nearly 40 percent of Americans, yet account for fewer than 16 percent of workers at the government agencies, nongovernmental organizations called NGOs and foundations that were studied.

The divide has resulted in two environmental movements. One is white and the other non-white, one rich and the other poor, one devoted largely to advocating on behalf of wilderness areas and the other for "environmental justice"  in core urban areas where minorities tend to live.

[jakeroot]

To me, it's not so much "diversity" as it is "inclusion". You don't need to exclude whites to include minorities.

Further, if these "groups" are doing their jobs well, why should we complain who they hire? Clearly they're doing something right.

BTW, is it just me, or is anyone else tired of the war on whitey?

[Pete from Boston]

To me, it's not so much "diversity" as it is "inclusion". You don't need to exclude whites to include minorities.

Further, if these "groups" are doing their jobs well, why should we complain who they hire? Clearly they're doing something right.

BTW, is it just me, or is anyone else tired of the war on whitey?

Tough being white, is it?

[spooky]

Further, if these "groups" are doing their jobs well, why should we complain who they hire? Clearly they're doing something right.

*nudge nudge* *wink wink* say no more.

[english si]

This isn't about diversity - it's lambasting the diversity of 'liberal green groups' as different groups take different approaches to meet different ends - instead they should all be the same sort of melting pot coming up with the same sort of stuff.

The article then confuses diversity of the superficials (colour) with diversity of values (culture). It is not about race - while the article frames it as a race issue, it's clear from the article that its really about culture, and (to a lesser extent) class.

Tough being white, is it?

It is if you are a poor working-class urbanite. It isn't so much if you are a rich middle-class suburbanite. Same as if you are black, yellow, red, brown, pink, orange or green...

Same issue as the article - a rather racist confusion of color with culture and class.

[cpzilliacus]

To me, it's not so much "diversity" as it is "inclusion". You don't need to exclude whites to include minorities.

During the decades of the ICC wars in Maryland, I do not think I ever saw a man or woman of color come to represent the Sierra Club in opposition to the project.

[The Nature Boy]

The big issue is that environmentalism is very much a white upper middle class cause. I suspect you'd find an underrepresentation of white people who grew up poor as well.

I once had an environmentalist tell me that she "didn't care about people" and only wanted to save the environment. She grew up pretty well off.

[Duke87]

The big issue is that environmentalism is very much a white upper middle class cause. I suspect you'd find an underrepresentation of white people who grew up poor as well.

Bingo. You don't get environmentalists coming from poor communities because the people there have more pressing and more personal things to worry about. Environmentalism is one of those "first world problems".

So what this really means is that minorities are underrepresented in the middle and upper classes.

[Pete from Boston]

The big issue is that environmentalism is very much a white upper middle class cause. I suspect you'd find an underrepresentation of white people who grew up poor as well.

Bingo. You don't get environmentalists coming from poor communities because the people there have more pressing and more personal things to worry about. Environmentalism is one of those "first world problems".

Spoken like a true well-off first-worlder.

There's actually quite a bit of environmentalism going on in poor communities.  These are the people that usually get the shit end of the stick as far as proximity to the worst environmental degradation.   

There is a ton of activism in Louisiana's Chemical Corridor, for example.  There is an abundance of what's called "environmental justice" movements in inner cities where poor communities bear the brunt of, say, highways generating the worst air pollution.  And even in the third world, there are environmental movements where they're needed most, in countries whose environmental regulations are back in the stone age.

What you are describing is, in fact, a first-world-isn't-paying-attention problem.

[The Nature Boy]

The big issue is that environmentalism is very much a white upper middle class cause. I suspect you'd find an underrepresentation of white people who grew up poor as well.

Bingo. You don't get environmentalists coming from poor communities because the people there have more pressing and more personal things to worry about. Environmentalism is one of those "first world problems".

Spoken like a true well-off first-worlder.

There's actually quite a bit of environmentalism going on in poor communities.  These are the people that usually get the shit end of the stick as far as proximity to the worst environmental degradation.   

There is a ton of activism in Louisiana's Chemical Corridor, for example.  There is an abundance of what's called "environmental justice" movements in inner cities where poor communities bear the brunt of, say, highways generating the worst air pollution.  And even in the third world, there are environmental movements where they're needed most, in countries whose environmental regulations are back in the stone age.

What you are describing is, in fact, a first-world-isn't-paying-attention problem.

I think you hit the hammer on the head there. These big organizations aren't interested in attacking local issues, they care more about the headline grabbing issues that really only affect a small amount of people. These are a few grassroots environmental organizations in poor communities but they are being poorly integrated with the mainstream movement. I suspect too that these people aren't environmentalists first, they care more about feeding themselves and staying employed. You aren't likely to see them protesting drilling ANWR or trying to protect our National Parks because it does not affect them directly.

The environmentalist movement has to be the worst movement I've ever seen at generating grassroots support.

[Pete from Boston]

The big issue is that environmentalism is very much a white upper middle class cause. I suspect you'd find an underrepresentation of white people who grew up poor as well.

Bingo. You don't get environmentalists coming from poor communities because the people there have more pressing and more personal things to worry about. Environmentalism is one of those "first world problems".

Spoken like a true well-off first-worlder.

There's actually quite a bit of environmentalism going on in poor communities.  These are the people that usually get the shit end of the stick as far as proximity to the worst environmental degradation.   

There is a ton of activism in Louisiana's Chemical Corridor, for example.  There is an abundance of what's called "environmental justice" movements in inner cities where poor communities bear the brunt of, say, highways generating the worst air pollution.  And even in the third world, there are environmental movements where they're needed most, in countries whose environmental regulations are back in the stone age.

What you are describing is, in fact, a first-world-isn't-paying-attention problem.

I think you hit the hammer on the head there. These big organizations aren't interested in attacking local issues, they care more about the headline grabbing issues that really only affect a small amount of people. These are a few grassroots environmental organizations in poor communities but they are being poorly integrated with the mainstream movement. I suspect too that these people aren't environmentalists first, they care more about feeding themselves and staying employed. You aren't likely to see them protesting drilling ANWR or trying to protect our National Parks because it does not affect them directly.

The environmentalist movement has to be the worst movement I've ever seen at generating grassroots support.

I'm a little confused.  You're acknowledging there is all this grassroots activity and people pursuing environmental issues, but say there isn't grassroots support for environmental issues.

I don't think the logic holds water, and I don't think the premise is true. 

Not every environmental issue pursued at the national/global level is tied to a specific injustice against a particular segment of society.   Plenty of them still have merit.
Moreover, in any movement, not just the environmental protection movement, there are going to be many local sub-issues that get integrated/nationalized to varying degrees.  You may not hear about all of them, but it doesn't mean they're not being addressed or supported by groups with a broader scope.  And a lot of them have very, very good grassroots support.

It's also a little silly to expect that poor people with a dump or dirty power plant in their back yard are going to rally for support of national parks, or that this fact represents some kind of failure.  Some of our national parks only exist because very wealthy white people donated the land.  Was it a failure that they did this instead of fighting for the living conditions of the poor, or could it be that both are important, and that some people in the position to advocate for some things that others are not?

Finally, lumping every piece of environmental activism together and declaring it all one movement that acts in a particular way distorts the reality much as it would if you lumped together everyone who believes in eating healthy as a single movement (which, unfortunately, some also erroneously try to do).  Just because there are varied actors pursuing different issues that share ideals and goals doesn't make them all one monolith.

[The Nature Boy]

The big issue is that environmentalism is very much a white upper middle class cause. I suspect you'd find an underrepresentation of white people who grew up poor as well.

Bingo. You don't get environmentalists coming from poor communities because the people there have more pressing and more personal things to worry about. Environmentalism is one of those "first world problems".

Spoken like a true well-off first-worlder.

There's actually quite a bit of environmentalism going on in poor communities.  These are the people that usually get the shit end of the stick as far as proximity to the worst environmental degradation.   

There is a ton of activism in Louisiana's Chemical Corridor, for example.  There is an abundance of what's called "environmental justice" movements in inner cities where poor communities bear the brunt of, say, highways generating the worst air pollution.  And even in the third world, there are environmental movements where they're needed most, in countries whose environmental regulations are back in the stone age.

What you are describing is, in fact, a first-world-isn't-paying-attention problem.

I think you hit the hammer on the head there. These big organizations aren't interested in attacking local issues, they care more about the headline grabbing issues that really only affect a small amount of people. These are a few grassroots environmental organizations in poor communities but they are being poorly integrated with the mainstream movement. I suspect too that these people aren't environmentalists first, they care more about feeding themselves and staying employed. You aren't likely to see them protesting drilling ANWR or trying to protect our National Parks because it does not affect them directly.

The environmentalist movement has to be the worst movement I've ever seen at generating grassroots support.

I'm a little confused.  You're acknowledging there is all this grassroots activity and people pursuing environmental issues, but say there isn't grassroots support for environmental issues.

I don't think the logic holds water, and I don't think the premise is true. 

Not every environmental issue pursued at the national/global level is tied to a specific injustice against a particular segment of society.   Plenty of them still have merit.
Moreover, in any movement, not just the environmental protection movement, there are going to be many local sub-issues that get integrated/nationalized to varying degrees.  You may not hear about all of them, but it doesn't mean they're not being addressed or supported by groups with a broader scope.  And a lot of them have very, very good grassroots support.

It's also a little silly to expect that poor people with a dump or dirty power plant in their back yard are going to rally for support of national parks, or that this fact represents some kind of failure.  Some of our national parks only exist because very wealthy white people donated the land.  Was it a failure that they did this instead of fighting for the living conditions of the poor, or could it be that both are important, and that some people in the position to advocate for some things that others are not?

Finally, lumping every piece of environmental activism together and declaring it all one movement that acts in a particular way distorts the reality much as it would if you lumped together everyone who believes in eating healthy as a single movement (which, unfortunately, some also erroneously try to do).  Just because there are varied actors pursuing different issues that share ideals and goals doesn't make them all one monolith.

The article's point is that representation of minorities in major environmental groups is severely lacking. These are the people who are making a living pursuing activism. My point is that people from poorer backgrounds are less likely to care about the kind of issues that these groups are pursuing so they're less likely to pursue a career in environmental activism (in so much as you can pursue a career in it).

I would say that major environmental groups should reach out to these grassroots groups, at least more than they are now. Maybe by contributing resources to help people who are trying to fight a new power plant in their neighborhood or something.