We have known for quite a while the environmental movement is stubbornly White. Most recently, Barbara Grady, of GreenBiz Group, noted that improvements are in the works, citing that the leaders of the EPA and NRDC were women of color. Unfortunately, this doesn’t address the elephant in the room.
Environmentalists don’t have a diversity problem, they have an identity problem. And it’s rooted in a racist history and unchecked biases.
The past is complex. Historians have noted that even in the early 19th century, long before the modern environmental movement began, racist rhetoric was used to push for clearing Native Americans from potential land preserves. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, published in 1962, did little to help. The book, often cited as the impetus for the modern environmental movement, filled readers with fear, as Carson described the horrid death of spring’s creatures in picturesque neighborhoods. These were the very neighborhoods to which baby boomers worked hard to escape in their white flight, and now they were threatened.
Environmentalists don’t have a diversity problem, they have an identity problem. And it’s rooted in a racist history and unchecked biases.
Consequently, the environmental movement became a movement for people of means, predominately White, middle-class citizens on a “do-gooder” mission to protect the natural environment. This forged identity created an imaginary dualism between those who cared about their environment and those who did not, and it largely ran along class and color lines. And because the “do-gooders” were doing good, privilege and power were never questioned, even when their actions went against the welfare of others. Instead, it was environmental justice activists, often people of color, who took up the call to protect communities harmed by environmental catastrophes.
To suggest that people of color haven’t been at the table because they haven’t been concerned or involved is a false narrative. In 1982, residents of Warren County, which was 75 percent African American, fought the dumping of PCB in their neighborhood. Despite losing part of the battle, the fight gained the attention of churches and leaders of color to examine civil rights discrepancies in relation to environmental issues. The end game was the same one that mainstream environmentalists fought for: a cleaner environment.
People of color are alive and well in the environmental movement. But even if they find a seat at the table, they must still fight to be heard. While some are gradually making their way to the frontlines, it is a slow and painful process. Often, they are the only non-White person in a room of environmentalists who say they want to listen – but then don’t seem interested in what the person has to say.
To make progress on this end, the rest of the table must be willing to confront the hegemony in place and accept that the forged identity of what an environmentalist should look like and should do is not static. Blair Underwood’s “Black Hiker” video is a great example of how the typical “environmentalist” responds to an encounter with a person of re not that interested in the uniform).
The movement must also be inclusive and holistic. In a field that ensures environmental educators are knowledgeable about local fauna and outdoor skills, there is little discussion concerning what educators know about the species with which they work most closely: humans. Take, for example, my work with “Bobby.” I was working with an environmental youth group testing water quality when I met “Bobby,” who complained of a headache and lingering toothache. In addition to these issues, I discovered that “Bobby” was struggling to graduate and that his family moved around quite a bit. His home was in a lower-income neighborhood, and it was clear that “Bobby” had more pressing concerns at the moment than our water-quality testing. Even if “Bobby” was able to experience “nature” during his time at the river, surely this time would’ve been more effective if he hadn’t been in physical pain.
The mainstream environmental movement leaves little room to consider human suffering. In fact, Carson herself was suffering from terminal breast cancer as she wrote her seminal work. Yet, we focus on the Spring. So, as we prepare to celebrate Earth Day (April 22), remember that the human species is among those that could likely disappear if this perilous journey toward climate disruption continues. I’m not suggesting environmentalists turn away from protecting other species; however, they must loosen their grip on their identity and reconcile that human issues are also environmental issues, that we are part of the natural world we are trying to protect, that harm inflicted upon it is harm inflicted upon us. Rather than hold firmly to a mission focused on protecting this planet, perhaps there is room to consider how protecting the planet is a means to protect ourselves as well.
When physical identity is forged with mission identity, the struggle to hold onto both is powerful. For people who have held onto an identity for so long, seeing it change might be akin to feeling lost. Perhaps this is why suggestions to expand the environmentalist mission and create room for new faces have often been politely countered with suggestions to create a different movement. But if the environmental movement wants to succeed, it must evolve as one powerful voice. Let’s diversify the table, not just to reach out to varied constituents in a continued “do-gooder” fashion, but to truly make a difference.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today during our fundraiser. We have 8 days to add 460 new monthly donors. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.