Vanity Fair: The unbearable whiteness of green
Where are low-income and minority greens in the media? 21
-
Posted 1:17 PM on 20 May 2007
by Van Jones -
Posted in
-
Read More About
Related Stories
Climate Citizen: Majora Carter
Climate Citizen: Mary Stuart Masterson
Consumer Reports finds BPA traces in common canned foods
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Threaded
caniscandida Posted 9:54 am
20 May 2007
Of course the Vanity Fair issue's omissions cannot be blamed on poor Knut, who anyway is going through that awkward phase in which he is no longer cute, and is getting possibly dangerous to sleep with, but still needs his blanky. But Leonardo perhaps should have known better. Could he not have brought Oprah, or Whoopi Goldberg, or Denzel Washington on board? True, none of them is exactly poor, but it is the thought that counts.
I would add that while the success of the "movement" counts, it is not the most important thing. Doing the right thing is the most important thing -- as Spike Lee might say.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Davian Posted 4:37 pm
20 May 2007
Imagine if you will, the prospect that the color of the celebrity featuring the coolness of a chosen theme for the month goes beyond P.C. superficialities and the typical subscriber's perspective.
Instead of such superficialities, one might consider coverage of the disproportionately non-white populations and the horrors of environmental racism, not the least of which, is the economic reality that derives from toxification of the human environment and the high probability that a subscription to Vanty Fair is second choice to medications for asthma, bronchitis, and other chronic maladies. If the argument were to be made on cost, then point out most bankruptcies stem from crippling medical bills.
California's defeat of this green initiative cannot be summarized along the lines of being outspent by corporate strategists, without also realizing there is apparently no money in, or for, the battle beyond the hearts and minds of typical subscribers and voting homeowners.
That battle must also be waged door to door in the communities hardest hit, and in the institutions and foundations which go beyond the usual voter's "What's in it for me?" response. Democracy is a prerequisite to advances in environmental causes. Voter registration along with education is the key to positive change.
Until we 'get it' collectively, that what happens to any segment of society effectively happens to the rest of society, we will most assuredly fail in this mission. This is about community, including, but also far beyond the color of the celebrity on the cover of Vanity Fair.
Permalink
randino Posted 11:27 pm
20 May 2007
On to the unpleasant truth. The traditional conservation and environmental movement was often virulently racist. You can go through statements made by Teddy Roosevelt, John Muir and more recently Edward Abbey that would embarrass Don Imus. One of the only leading lights to take on the issue of racism in the use of public lands was Bob Marshall, a founder of the Wilderness Society, who in the 1930s challenged segregation in the use of the public lands. He was also a scion of a Jewish family who were prominent funders of civil rights causes and the founding of the Adirondack Park.
Recently we have seen in the Sierra Club those concerned with over population via immigration in an unholy alliance with the most virulent racist and nativist forces currenty active. Happily, the Sierra Club has repeatedly rejected these siren calls.
We have to stay conscious of this history, and work hard to counter it. We have to do it for two reasons. First and foremost it is right. Second, to be crassly opportunistic, is that any movement today that carries a "Whites only" sign on it has no future.
Randy Cunningham
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
osprey20 Posted 1:33 am
21 May 2007
I was encouraged to see such an article in a high-profile magazine such as Vanity Fair.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:41 am
21 May 2007
I live in a one bedroom apartment on Kent East Hill with a lot of other people who live in small apartments. We are not rich.
We use less energy than probably 80 percent of the readers of Grist.
We probably use as much energy in our complex of 30 buildings as Madonna, Leonardo di Caprio and Richard Branson used in their lifetimes.
The Poor are Green...they just don't have to justify it with spreads in Vanity Fair...
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Flamingo Posted 3:08 am
21 May 2007
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:19 am
21 May 2007
"If we let our movement be portrayed as solely a "white thing," it will be easier for demagogues to forge an alliance between polluters and the poor -- to derail our success."
I would like to suggest that environmentalists do not necessarily have a problem because they come across as "white" and neglecting the "poor". They have a problem because they come across as urban elites who have not only lost touch with the plight of the poor, but have lost touch with the plight of rural America (inhabited by poor and middle class) and appear to have little understanding of and compassion for suburbia (inhabited by poor and middle class).
You folks have a serious image problem.
Forward!
Permalink
Environmentman Posted 3:41 am
21 May 2007
Environment Man
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 6:25 am
21 May 2007
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
kyotousa Posted 6:36 am
21 May 2007
Prop 87 did not go down to defeat because working people voted no. It failed because many unemployed, under-employed and average working people simply didn't see any good reason to vote at all. In the November 2006 elections, less than 40% of Californians eligible to vote did so (and only 56% of registered voters bothered to cast a ballot). And who are those voters generally? For the most part they are people with decent incomes who feel they have a stake in the system. The failure to turn out voters who are most affected by poverty, pollution, and a sense that their votes are meaningless does not rest on the shoulders of those working on environmental issues. It does, in my view, fall at the feet of a political system that fails to provide adequate voice and representation to the millions of ordinary Californians who have been shut out of the system.
Can that trend be reversed? It is a tough nut to crack, but environmental groups may be able to play a part in achieving a better turn out by ensuring that their message to legislators always includes a demand for good jobs, cleaner air and water, and environmental justice - and, of course, not giving up on those demands when it comes tiime to make the deal.
Tom Kelly
Permalink
jadehoward Posted 9:09 am
21 May 2007
I see so many progressive people wringing their hands about being inclusive when it comes to important social issues, about how we need to reach out and see more minority faces represented. But here's the thing - I do not have the luxury of arms-length pity or guilt. Unlike many progressive whites, who live in cocoon communities far away from the dark corners of society, I am not on the outside looking in. I'm right in the middle of the problem.
And here's what I see....
The black community, in general, is a million miles away from "going green." It has nothing to do with the media or whether Oprah or Denzel is photographed next to a hybrid. The fact is, most low-income blacks are still squarely focused on basic survival and simple economics.
In my suburban town, for example, most black residents choose to shop at a discount grocery store rather than our excellent local farmers market, because they wrongly assume that the market is more expensive. Many of them exist on nothing but cheap, processed foods, usually because they can't afford anything better or they don't have time to make something more wholesome.
Working class people don't buy organic bananas or fresh wild salmon or small batch cheeses. Most have no idea why they should.
So then the local grocery store quits stocking products it can't sell. People like me stop shopping there because we can't find the products we want. (Eventually, some will give up and move away.) And what's left is a grimy bargain den that sells nothing but cheap, processed food. No Vanity Fair here. Just a community on the downslide.
Meanwhile, progressive whites live far across town, huddled around like-minded neighbors, just down the road from Whole Foods. And I don't blame them. Why not live in a clean, shiny place that makes it easy to support your values?
The problem is, you cannot exist solely in one world and expect to influence those who live in another. You can't dictate ways of living and believing, no matter how just, if you have nothing in common with the people on the other end of your message, especially when those people have life challenges that are way more pressing.
And let's be clear: the black community has MANY challenges. Very few blacks are focused on the environment because many are still trying to solve basic issues like family, crime, jobs, and education. In my neighborhood, 50% of the local elementary school population will come and go before year's end. And let's not forget the national statistic: nearly 70% of African-American babies are born out of wedlock.
So what's a concerned, progressive person to do?
Number one, quit preaching and fussing from afar. If you want blacks to hear your message, then come and hear theirs. Buy a house or start a business in a mixed community like mine, then work on a fundamental level to build trust, make friendships, and slowly educate by example. When you learn what's important to minorities, you'll be better able to frame issues in a way that's meaningful to them.
Number two, shun the worn-out liberal belief that those who need saving shouldn't be expected to participate in their own salvation. That's baloney, and it does more harm than good. If we hope to include the working class in this great push toward sustainability and global health, then we should also charge them with some level of personal responsibility. (Something as simple as fees on all plastic grocery bags would be a start.)
Number three, keep moving forward. Those of us who are informed and who can afford to embrace eco-friendly living should continue as planned, even if one portion of the population isn't yet on board. Gradually, capitalism will catch up, and at some point, wholesome, organic, and sustainable products will become affordable for the masses.
Until then, it's our job to reach out, to become a friend and neighbor, and to take the time to listen. That, all by itself, will prove far more powerful and lasting than anything the media or any corporate interest can produce.
Permalink
fouchnickens Posted 1:46 pm
21 May 2007
Download the report here: Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty
As to the supposed lack of people of color in environmental movements in the United States, that is simply untrue. Most activist groups for people of color don't separate environmental justice from social justice since the cause of these injustices is the same. The last time a group of black people made a real fuss about the social and environmental conditions they lived under, the FBI made sure that future generations of African Americans would think twice about raising their voices against the system. But not wanting to leave a leadership vacuum, the nice white folks in politics and media made sure to name Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton as "the head negroes in charge."
It is the continued racist assumption that people of color don't "know any better" or just need to be "shown the way" that peppers the ideology of even the most well-meaning white people which is a huge turn-off to even the most highly integrated person of color. Take, for example this statement posted above by jadehoward:
"In my suburban town, for example, most black residents choose to shop at a discount grocery store rather than our excellent local farmers market, because they wrongly assume that the market is more expensive. Many of them exist on nothing but cheap, processed foods, usually because they can't afford anything better or they don't have time to make something more wholesome.
Working class people don't buy organic bananas or fresh wild salmon or small batch cheeses. Most have no idea why they should."
There have been several conclusive studies by various nutrition researchers that completely debunk this commonly held, yet completely erroneous belief. In the most recent study, the researchers were astounded by the level of nutrition knowledge among the respondants (single, low-income mothers of African American descent). The primary issue that determined the food buying strategies of these women was getting more bang for their meager buck.
I had a similar, anecdotal experience during a medical missionary trip to the Caribbean. The women knew what foods were better to feed their families, but with no way to guarantee that the fresh food they purchased would not spoil quickly, canned foods were more attractive. The harsh rules of survival dictate that calories become the objective, not mineral nutrients.
Let's look at the real issues for a moment, shall we? Lower-class people do not purchase fresh foods because of the rate of spoilage. In past generations, their grandparents would plant a subsistence plot as a low-cost means to add fresh produce to their diets. However, this is not possible in many lower-income communities without soil remediation, thanks to small business toxic waste dumping. Anyone who has had to deal with soil remediation and EPA enforcement in an inner-city or low-income community knows that it is often a difficult fight, spanning years -- if not decades.
But let's put the victory gardens aside for a moment and discuss the local farmers market. It is only within the last few years that food stamps could be used at farmers markets -- that fact may have escaped many meaningful middle-class people's notice. Yet the USDA has had an uphill battle getting more farmers markets to accept this form of payment. For the working poor, food stamps make the difference between sustanence and starvation.
Then there's the disconnect between what the farmer grows for the upper-to-middle class white shareholders and the different culinary tastes of people of color. The organization I worked for that sponsored farmers markets in low-income communities initially did not take into consideration that people from the Southern US, the Caribbean or Southeast Asia are not going to be interested in buying fresh produce that they do not use in their ethnic cuisines unless they are provided with cooking demonstrations and recipes. When the organization started growing okra, long beans, black-eyed peas, collards, and salad greens that catered to the customer base (watercress instead of mesclun), people started coming to the market with their food stamps. A smart farmers market organization could also offer classes on canning and sell canning supplies at cost as it is an easy method of storage that has been lost to most classes and races of people.
The white environmental movement won't be able to expand its base among people of color unless it evolves beyond its parochially narrow focus and confront the institutionalized racism that continues to plague American society. Blunt, I know -- but true.
Permalink
jadehoward Posted 4:10 pm
21 May 2007
I actually help run my local farmers market, so it has been my job to find out why we don't have more black shoppers. I have met with hundreds of local residents in their homes and in my own, so my assertions are based on that knowledge.
Working class blacks in my community don't embrace eco-friendly ideals (at least in their food habits) because they are more concerned with simply paying their bills and getting by. They purchase processed foods because they're cheap, and because they don't require a lot of preparation time.....something very valuable to a person working more than one job. None of them have EVER mentioned the issue of spoilage.
As for my statement about organic bananas and wild salmon, I was not implying that there's a lack of nutritional knowledge in the black community. Certainly not. What I meant was that, for many blacks, the environmental factors surrounding organic and sustainable production are simply not on the radar. Or if they are, they carry much less weight than the simple matter of dollars and cents.
As for my local farmers market - the top market in the state, by the way - we accept food stamps, run a farmer development program, host regular canning and gardening classes, donate large quantities of food to our local food bank, and go out of our way to celebrate okra, greens, and other foods unfamiliar to most white people.
On a daily basis, we are walking the walk of "confronting institutionalized racism," not from somewhere far removed, but from within the community, with black folks as our friends, neighbors, teachers, and collaborators.
That is the real issue.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:12 pm
21 May 2007
<<
The white environmental movement won't be able to expand its base among people of color unless it evolves beyond its parochially narrow focus and confront the institutionalized racism that continues to plague American society.
>>
As I wrote before, the "power" of the "movement" does not matter. And if environmentalists, white or not, are principally interested in "expanding their base," that means they are after power, and they intend to manipulate people, using people for the power that they can absorb from them, with no direct and principled intention to do anything by way of benefitting those people. And that means they are foolish at best, wicked at worst.
That sounds pretty racist and classist -- were it true.
In fact, it is not at all true that all environmentalists are simply seeking power for their "movement," regardless of the moral costs.
Fouchnickens should give us an example of "institutionalized racism" operating within the environmentalist movement. My feeling is that the great majority of us have no intention to do anything that could be called "racist," and indeed would be horrified to discover that we were involved in any activity that could be called "racist."
Thanks to JadeHoward for his/her eloquent statement. Best wishes to you and your friends at your market! Please let us in the Gristmill community know what we might do, to encourage you all. Because the point is not "expanding our base," or acquiring power. The point is encouraging one another, supporting one another, making sure someone knows that someone else cares.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
slickricky Posted 12:54 am
22 May 2007
Hopefully these mags build awareness that will result in activism and/ or giving. Through acts of selflessness can we transcend issues of race and social status?
It seems to be "green" industry that most excludes groups other than rich whites? Whole foods, hybrid upcharges, LEED housing. Personally I hope by being a buyer of products with less of a footprint they will become more practical and available to a wide audience. I have been researching sustainable home building and find it extremely sad that this is only a realistic option for wealthy persons in up-itty areas.
When I have attended volunteer outings these tend to be more diverse then any store with a sustainable component.
Eric
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:00 am
22 May 2007
The only reason for "Green" is that the upper 3% is trying to hold on to power by somehow recasting themselves as Neo-Saints. This then justifies their egregiously disparate lifestyles in an Age when they should be toning it down, not up.
From Al Gore to Bill Gates, the cosmetic charity and "greeness" disguises a piggish lifestyle affordable almost none.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 2:29 am
22 May 2007
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
lizwuerker Posted 3:32 am
22 May 2007
If you can't afford a hummer, you won't use as much gas. If you share a studio apartment, you won't use as much electricity as a two house family. If you fly coach, you are nothing in comparison to the person with a private jet.
It isn't a problem for there to be a kind of elitism with this kind of green journalism as long as it explicitly mentions that choosing to consume less will be better for the environment. But I also don't know how good a job a magazine like Vanity Fair, that needs to increase consumption of luxury goods or cease to exist, will ever be a beacon of green journalism.
I also think it is important for conservationists to think critically on these class issues, to notice if a suggested environmental improvement or tax will hit rich and poor differently. All these proposed consumption taxes are regressive, and may not even make Madonna bat a fake eyelash, but represent a real added struggle for someone working at Walmart.
Permalink
lizwuerker Posted 3:37 am
22 May 2007
Also I have noticed a lot of activities that involve a high level of consumption being labeled "green" like green weddings. By deciding that a $30,000 destination wedding can be labeled green, you have already priced out almost everyone.
Permalink
fouchnickens Posted 3:48 am
22 May 2007
But I'm intrigued by the tone of your statements. What information are you using to come to the conclusion that my comments are somehow removed from the challenges of environmental awareness within the black community? Does the opinion of a person who decides to understand a problem on a systemic level hold less value than a person who decides to understand that same problem on a local level?
Then there is the concept of "insider/outsider" that pops up in various permutations in your comments. It may not have been clear to you that I also have professional and volunteer experience in farmers markets, community garden development, and environmental justice. The professional studies on nutritional knowledge supplemented the results of a survey that I too had conducted for an organization I worked with.
Again, I have to pose the question of validity: Are my comments not valid because I decide to focus on the issue and not my personal background? If I tell you that I also live in a low-income community, does that make my comments more palatable? How about the fact that my experience with the black community goes far beyond living next to and interacting with "them," as I am one of "them?"
To caniscandida: I don't actually care if predominantly white environmental organizations increase their ranks with people of color.
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 3:13 am
23 May 2007
If we go along with Proposition 87 as it is formulated now, we will continue destroying the Earth ecosystems in real time to feed our greedy cars and lifestyles. We will trick ourselves into believing that we are saving California and the planet. This monumental waste of time and public money will not move California toward energy independence.
Proposition 87 is centered on several biofuel delusions that must be confronted and debunked. For starters, we really need to stop driving the gas-guzzling Chevy Tahoes and Hummers. We also need to understand that feeding monstrous SUVs with E85 or biodiesel is bad for the Earth.
More:
http://www.venturebeat.com/2006/10/31/why-is-proposition- ...
And Robert Rapier said this ~
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/08/more-on-californi ...
Permalink