Democratic Forest Trusts (PDF)in Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2006. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Symposium; 2005 September 30-October 6; Anchorage, AK.Democratic trusts with leadership elected by citizen-members promise to solve many of the problems afflicting both traditional government and corporate ownership of forestlands. This article explores these issues in some depth.Complexity and the Dream of Human Control of Eco-Systems (PDF)in Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2006. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Symposium; 2005 September 30-October 6; Anchorage, AK.The title captures it. I then explore the kinds of institutions compatible with both nature and the modern world that are implied from this analysis.Rethinking the Obvious: Modernity and Living Respectfully With Nature (PDF)The Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy, Winter, 1997.Modernity is usually considered a wrong turn in terms of respect for and sustaining the environment. I argue the reality is more complex, for modernity has freed us from personal dependence on agriculture, ended the economic value of children, radically reduced the likelihood of large scale wat, and shifted much production to intellectual rather than material capital. This partially decouples society from nature, which gives us important opportunities as well as problems.Towards an Ecocentric Political Economy (PDF)The Trumpeter, Fall, 1996.This paper begins my effort at showing how liberal modernity can be harmonized with an ecocentric perspective on our relationship with the natural world. It is a corrective to much “free market environmental” literature that sacrifices Nature to money as well as to anti-liberal attacks by well-meaning but economically naïve environmentalists.Unexpected Harmonies: Self-Organization in Liberal Modernity and Ecology (PDF)The Trumpeter, Journal of Ecosophy, 10:1, Winter 1993This is my initial paper exploring how what I term ‘evolutionary liberal’ thought can be an important means by which society and nature can be brought into greater harmony. The other Trumpeter papers build on it.Deep Ecology and Liberalism: The Greener Implications of Evolutionary Liberalism (PDF)Review of Politics, Fall, 1996.Liberal thought and deep ecology are usually regarded as mutually exclusive. But the “evolutionary” tradition offers a way to integrate the two through commonalties in the work of David Hume, Michael Polanyi, Arne Naess, and Aldo Leopold, providing a stronger foundation for liberalism while strengthening the case for an ecocentric ethic.(Related subjects: Ecology)Saving Western Towns: A Jeffersonian Green Proposal (PDF)in Writers on the Range, Karl Hess and John Baden, eds., University Press of Colorado, 1998.Developmental pressures in the rural and small town West involve three groups: long term residents, new arrivals, and environmentalists. Today their interests often conflict. This conflict is in part the outcome of institutions which prevent harmonizing competing interests. The concept of developmental trusts, both for rural regions and for small communities offers a means whereby these interests can be harmonized for the benefit of all concerned.(Related subjects: Politics)Social Ecology, Deep Ecology, and Liberalism (PDF)Critical Review, 6: 2-3, 1992.Murray Bookchin is considered a leading radical environmental theorist. However, his analysis is incapable of leading humankind towards a more respectful and sustainable relationship with the natural world. Criticisms of Bookchin from both the deep ecology and evolutionary liberal perspective complement one another, pointing the way towards a better understanding of how modernity relates to the environment.The paper as a whole offers an early discussion of issues that are more clearly addressed in later papers, particularly Deep Ecology and Liberalism (1996) and the three Trumpeter articles in 1997, 1996, and 1993. However, there are other ideas in the article which have not been developed more thoroughly elsewhere.
Matt Ygelsias over at Think Progress has posted an interesting, if confusingly
colored, map showing what percentage of white men voted for Obama on a state by
state basis. He titles his headline “White Men
Aren’t Very Progressive.” His following discussion explored the allegedly “thin talent pool” from picking so
many candidates from such a supposedly thin selection of “liberal” voters.
This map is provoking discussion widely in the
blogosphere.
The information it provides is interesting, if poorly
presented color-wise, but the vacuity of the analysis discussing it that I have
read so far is depressing. This map provoked a misleading discussion – which argues white men are a lot
more conservative than other Americans – that white men are a BIG PROBLEM.
That white men are more conservative than Americans in
general is, I think, not open to challenge. This makes a difference in close elections, so I am not
making light of the issue. The
important questions are how significantly so and why? This map does not help much because it hides the really
important cultural differences within the US that answer both questions to a
large degree.
What the map does show is that Southern white men are far
out of step with white men elsewhere, except for Mormon white men and perhaps a
tiny number of Western welfare ranchers and such who play cowboy. (There are very few of them, but they
are common in the demographically tiny state of Wyoming and combined with
Mormons, give the impression of a huge reservoir of conservatism in a state
with under a half million citizens total. Number 50 out of 50.) Minus these two-and-a-fraction groups and white
men in the rest of the country, the overwhelming majority, did not vote for Obama much less than
white women. Pooling the white men
of Mississippi and the white men of Maine does a serious disservice to the
latter, and disguises the realities of what is really going on. And, of course, Southern white women do
not really hold the Democratic banner all that high, either.
The South has long been the cultural and political outlier
in America, its religion often out of step with American traditions, its
history often a celebration of treason.
Nothing like a majority of white women in the South voted for Obama
either. There are plenty of good
and reasonable people in the South, White and Black and Brown and Red, but we
do not make their task of promoting civilization any easier by bad analysis and
playing into the hands of authoritarian racists like Pat Buchanan and Rush
Limbaugh who seek to convince white men that they speak for them. Yglesias makes teir claims easier to accept.
Many left-liberals get uncomfortable talking about culture,
but culture is what shows through in this map, not primarily race and
gender. Culture is what ails us
and may yet tear this country apart.
And the Democrats and ‘progressives’ are scared to talk about it for
various interesting but ultimately dishonest reasons.
But there is something EVEN WORSE about this
interpretation. Yglesias writes
“Drawing from the relatively small pool of white male progressives means
drawing from a shallow talent pool.”
Part of what is wrong with this country is tied up with this
statement. It assumes that only a
tiny percentage of Americans are competent, and so we need huge ‘talent
pools’ to have a chance to get the best.
It is stupid elitism, “progressive” style. Apparently they believe they are somehow much more competent
than most everyone in the country and so need to do their thinking for
them. They are making the same
mistake their corporate and political equivalents to their political right are making: over
estimating their own intelligence while underestimating everyone else’s. The corporate and political ones do more
damage because they are in power and the Progressives are not, but the problem is deeper than which faction
holds office.
Across the board we are getting pretty low levels of talent
and competence in leadership positions in this country, and the problem has
nothing to do with gender or race.
Obama’s people clicked it up a notch, but that’s often still not very high. This country is over centralized, and dominated by huge organizations
who for the most part have insulated their leadership from being held
responsible for their actions, especially incompetent ones. A far smaller nation with a far more
exclusive group of white men gave us the American Revolution.
The problem is not the size of the “talent pool” it is the
degree to which millions of people of talent of all races and genders are
subordinated to the ingrown leadership of giant organizations – mostly
corporate but also political. For
historical reasons most of these incompetent and corrupt leaders are white men,
but anyone who believes Blacks or other races are somehow less subject to these
patters is fooling themselves and should read a little history. I suspect it is no different with
women, given the number of dishonest and manipulative ones that have risen in
the conservative movement of today.
It is this comfortable elitism on the part of many
‘Progressives’ who sincerely think they are part of the solution rather than
simply a more humane part of the problem that worries me even more than our
cultural divisions. It prevents
them from seriously considering policies that actually empower people and
weaken the power of the incompetent elite that dominates this country.
posted November 2, 2009 at 8:08 pm
I will remove “November 1st” after I post this – this blog has no room for the kind of stuff he added. As soon as he referred to “my own people” he entered territory that is verboten by my rules. I’m squelching a discussion I don’t want in this place.
posted November 3, 2009 at 11:40 am
Two more pieces of filth washed up on this site, and will be deleted as soon as I post this. Good bye “Keith” and “Mere_me.” Don’t bother to write.
A lot of good rebuttals to any claims of white superiority are attracted by the term “white men” on a headline.
posted November 3, 2009 at 1:10 pm
They never seem to pass up any opportunity to spread their filth. Thanks for deleting them.
posted November 3, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I think that regional cultures were more influential, politically speaking, in earlier decades. What’s going on is the endorsement of picked attributes of some regional cultures on a nationwide basis, primarily by mass communications media.
Many white men may respond to some of this re-fashioning of regional culture elements into mass political mobilizers because they resonate with previous and still remembered regional cultures.
The election in upstate NY, in which national political celebrities and media intervened seeking ideological purity in candidates over local/regional suitability is an example. The national interveners invoke attributes of regional cultures for national political goals.
Another way to look at this is to suggest that national political factions are overturning regional cultures in favor of national ideological trappings taken from those regional cultures.
But everybody is susceptible to this sort of manipulation, not just white men.
posted November 4, 2009 at 12:08 am
Without adding “my people” since only white people can’t stand up for our people, then lets have a conversation without adding “my people”. I doubt if I was black and said i’m going to stand up for “my people” (which I have a right) you’d care.
Ok, now. The whole idea of white men being the problem is ridiculous. The problem is not white men but a progressive hijacked left. Progressivism today is not the same progressivism of the past. Today, progressivism is not progress but has been hijacked by certain elements among the extreme radical-left.
By the way it’s very childish and racist of this site to remove comments like mine which weren’t even racist. The comment was removed because I said it’s time I stand up and place my people first (which I have a right to do) since it seems everyone else these days other then white men and woman do.
posted November 4, 2009 at 9:47 am
Your Name (presumably the deleted “November 1st”), the mistake you make is simple: In the United States of America, founded on the blood of the people who lived there at the time, the correct term is “the people”. Ownership and membership are irrelevant.
White people are not being oppressed. White people are losing their privileges, unearned and unjustified, from decades of being in the majority and using bully tactics to stay in power.
Signed,
A patriot who happens to be both white and male.
posted November 4, 2009 at 11:19 am
Your Name-
As a white man my removal of your post was hardly racist – especially since my original post criticized those who said white men are the problem. Nor was it childish – f you read this blog you know I allow far more personally insulting material to appear – so long as some REASONS with some EVIDENCE are attached.
“My people” is a code word. I think you know it. In the context you used it, the words distinguish from the “other people” who just happen to be brown or black or red or yellow. I am not one of your “people” even though I am white and male and don’t like leftist PC mindlessnes such as Yglesias demonstrated.
In my experience race and gender have nothing to do with a person’s value as a human being or their admirable or disgusting qualities. Culture is much more important. Individual character is even more important still.
Any knee jerk romanticization or denigration of ANY ethnic group or religion is tribalistic nonsense and not progressive at all. The PC left is about as bad as the racist right – they are often mirror images of one another and to a degree neither would find comfortable, they are symbiotic. The excesses of each push others into the other side.
posted November 4, 2009 at 9:41 pm
[[[Gus diZerega]]]
I don’t like getting into racial debate either. However, i’ve been drawn into this debate by the original title of the article. I don’t believe white men are the problem. People like “Franklin Evans” (who I presume isn’t white) only irritate me with lies and guilt. I have a right to defend my myself and my blood.
When I say “my” i’m not being politically correct. By “my” I mean “my”, no if, an, but, about it. I can’t deny that i’m white. I can’t deny what I am.
[[[[[White people are not being oppressed. White people are losing their privileges, unearned and unjustified, from decades of being in the majority and using bully tactics to stay in power.]]]]]
Privilege? What privileges?
Is it a privilege that white schools and neighborhoods are racistly cleansed in the name of integration. Is it a privilege that non-whites are entitled to jobs, grants, and scholarships even if they didn’t earn it. Is it a privilege that racist laws like Affirmative action and racist Government quotas deny whites their basic property rights and their right to self-determination?
Is it a privilege that whites are tought to hate themselves in schools while non-whites have entire history months to celebrate themselves? What privilege? The whole culture, media, schooling of America is racist against white people and works to benefit non-whites. It’s ok for black or whatever to be proud of whom they’re. It’s ok for them to play racial politics with their own black tv & radio channles, newpapers, organizations, schools, and their right to be seperate in electing politcians which best represent them.
You have things backwards.
Most postions of power whites hold have been earned. White people have worked hard for positions of power they gained. Whites have had tons of influence on technological, science, space, and just about every sector of American society. Any positions we gained have been earned. If we didn’t earn it we would have gained it.
Also, the only people bullying people trying to gain power are non-whites. How can a black man become president in a nation blacks represent only 13%? Obviously you lie once again, because if we were bullies there wouldn’t be a black president, period.
[[[[Franlin Evans]]]]
It’s funny how you use “we the people”. According to what people consider racist on this site then own nations “white” founders would be racist. In fact, if I quotes the writers of the Constitution, Franklin, Jackson, or even Lincoln you soft head would probablly explode, because they’d be to racist for you.
By the way, please. Whites did’t kill the original occupiers of America. European settlemens 600 years older then Columbus have been found in Canada.
posted November 5, 2009 at 10:25 am
When are we EVER going to get past the issue of race in this world!?!
I celebrate my heritage and am proud of my ancestors. BUT – I never think of those of my race being “my people” and anyone of a different race are “those other people”. I am perfectly capable of being proud of myself without feeling that I’m somehow better than people of a different race. We are all of ONE race – the HUMAN race and according to the latest science, we are all descended from the same peoples so there’s no way to “place your people first”.
Everyone should be proud of who they are, and feel free to celebrate their individual cultural heritage. What does it matter what race a person was who invented this or that. Or what was done by whom in the past. How far do you want to go back? Egyptians had a complicated society with beautiful architecture thousands of years ago when my ancestors were running around painting themselves blue and throwing spears at each other. Arguing over what happened before any of us were born is a pointless, stupid waste of time. WHAT DOES IT MATTER NOW??? Is somebody keeping count for some kind of sick contest? How does it help anything? If you had cancer, would you shun a cure that was developed by someone of a different race than yours?
The point of progress is to become better PEOPLE, regardless of what we look like.
posted November 5, 2009 at 12:44 pm
People like “Franklin Evans” (who I presume isn’t white) only irritate me with lies and guilt.
I’m left to assume that you either do not read posts all the way through (regardless of their length), or that you decide I’m lying when I ended my post with
“Signed,
A patriot who happens to be both white and male.”
As for getting things backwards, there is not enough time in the day to illustrate the actual, factual history of non-white minority oppression in the US starting before the ink was dry on the Declaration of Independence… actually, before it was a gleem in some landed gentlemen’s eyes.
Good day to you, Nov. 1st. You might try reading “The Federalist Papers” some time.
posted November 11, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Franklin,
I have a feeling that according to Nov 1, you would probably be deemed, “not white enough”. He’d analyse yr picture and say yr cheekbones are too high or yr eyes are brown or yr hair too dark or your great great great great great great great granny was a quarter “red savage” and pronounce you “unclean” and not one of “his” people. “White” is a political construct, or to be less polite, BULLSHIT. no-one is “white” just like no-one is black. Like Gus, I know a code word when I hear it. But you hit the nail on the head when you said the white folk are fighting to maintain their privilege. The sense of entitlement is so deeply ingrained that they do sadly actually believe the nonsense they spout. Even the ones that think they’re liberal are often pretty damn racist and sexist under the paint. They will scream louder than a firework though if you point out that fact!
If they won’t even read a post though, how can we expect them to read the writing on the book of their own soul?