Dumping in Dixie

I feel that the author takes a very partially minded point of view to his book. He seems to be determined to label the black community as a victim and the government or dumping companies or whatever the racist perpetrator of environmental injustice. Sure in the South African-Americans tend to live in lower class neighborhoods, and sure the lower-class neighborhoods are where the majority of the dumpsites probably are in the South, but that does not necessarily suggest that there must be a connection there that would suggest that those responsible for dealing with our waste are prejudice against the black community.

He notes that the companies that are responsible for this injustice often deposit their waste in areas of least resistance. I would say that although this may be true, that does not necessarily imply that his cry of racism is founded. It is much more probable that the people who decide where to dump do so with the intent of finding the least resistance to their project, as he suggested. But they more likely choose the areas they do because of their lower financial means, not directly their race.

Black Nature Writing

Chiara and I just wanted to draw this symposium to your attention:

Black Nature

It's being held right here at Berkeley this week (March 4, 5), courtesy of the Berkeley Institute of the Environment (BIE), Berkeley's English Department and Doreen B. Townsend Center for the Humanities, and San Francisco State University.  Please let us know if you attend.

In "Dumping in Dixie," Robert Bullard's main focus is the hazardous living environment and how blacks face racial injustice because those hazardous wastes are dumped where they live. Bullard also point out that other factors, such as class, also affect where the wastes end up since it follows the path of least resistance. However, I feel that he trivializes those factors in comparison with race. Bullard points out that "poor whites along with their more affluent counterparts have more options and leverage mechanisms at their disposal than blacks of equal status" implying that while class is a factor, it is not as important compared to the racial factor. I do agree with him that race is a big issue, however I don't agree with him that class has little significance compared to race.

Class and race are intertwined when talking about environmental issues. It's because of their lower class that blacks end up in those horrid living conditions; they don't have the monetary means to move to a better location. I feel that while race is one of the biggest factors, class is also another big factor that shouldn't be dismissed easily. It's not like these hazardous wastes are also dumped into the middle class blacks backyard; these wastes are generally in the poor living conditions of the lower class.

Sea World news recalls Cronon's nature as avenging angel

I was eating lunch today when CNN started a news report on the killing of a Sea World trainer by one of the park's orcas (see this L.A. Times article).

This report also followed a goofy look at a dog that learned to surf.

Given that we've read a lot of Haraway, who in other writing stresses that the relationship between a trainer and his/her animals is one of the closest and most deeply respectful relationships we can have with our "companion species," what do we make of an event like this (and if you watch the press briefings, you'll see that this was not the first time this particular orca killed a human, and not the first time someone has died to the orcas at Sea World).  I actually found the press conference fairly interesting, because the Sea World spokesperson was standing in front of the tank, and the orcas were swimming back and forth behind him with obvious curiosity about what was going on!

Perhaps we should read Susan Davis's essay in Uncommon Ground that talks about Sea World's old advertising campaign, "Touch the Magic."

Not an Environmentalist, Nor Do I Work for a Living

Richard White challenges the a common view that environmentalism and human industry cannot coincide in his essay "Are You an Environmentalist or Do You Work for a Living?" It's true, by the commonly accepted definition of nature, as that unaltered by man, there is no way the world can uphold the environmentalist creed. Human civilization demands progress, which demands constantly altering of the face of the earth through industry, expansion, or exploitation of natural resources. In opposition to this, environmentalists must oppose work and therefore human progress, while supporting the recreational enjoyment of nature and making sure the relatively untouched continues to be untouched. But there is no way to live in the world without making an imprint upon it, one that naturally comes with living - of food intake and waste output. Nature is shaped by its components, the living and nonliving things. As beaver chop trees to build lodges and dams, so do humans construct and modify nature to facilitate their lives. If beaver lodges are acceptable to environmentalists, why isn't human architecture? As White points out, humans are a part of nature such that there is no area on earth not affected by humans. Even environments that are assumed to be formed by nature are not. Many deserts in the Middle East and Africa are product of cities, which deplete the soil. This is the sort of thing environmentalists want humans avoid, and usually the spotlight shines on whoever visibly "attacks" nature - miners, loggers, fishers, ranchers, laborers in short. White points out that white collar workers make footprints, too, by using the resources made readily available by the blue collar workers. Seeing as how work is fundamentally connected with life (working to live or working to make a living), working should not be seen in opposition to the environment. Nor should environmentalists shun work, but rather work in the most environmentally friendly manner - minimalizing their waste, remaining aware of where their resources come from - and encourage others to do the same. It is the most the environmental movement can hope for, because nothing but a compromise is possible in human civilization or nature. Thus, the real enemy of environmentalists becomes those who are not environmentalists and do not work for a living.

Man Vs. Environment

Robert Bullard in “Dumping Dixie” explains the importance of environmental justice. Throughout these chapters he examines the role of race and income on such justice, or lack thereof. He presents evidence that only those within the upper or middle classes and/or Caucasians participate in environmental movements. Bullard explains that the existence of a racial divide and income differences create injustice for those less fortunate and more importantly, Bullard argues, those of color.

I found it interesting to compare the environment that Bullard writes about to other ideas of nature that we have touched on in class. As Bullard stated in an interview, “the environment is everything: where we live, work, play, go to school, as well as the physical and natural world.” Bullard strongly argues that the environment is all around us and therefore man is a part of the environment. In previous readings, such as Jack London’s “To Build a Fire,” man was among nature or the environment, but was very much so a separate entity merely living among it. He was disconnected from nature and eventually did not survive the environment in the story. This suggestion of mans disconnect from nature interested me because Bullard seems to argue there is a disconnect between man and nature but only in terms of rights and justice. As he states, the environment is nature and it is where we live. It should be important and therefore there should be justice for all to obtain a good, livable environment.

I also enjoyed comparing the visual images from Amy Stein’s photography album to the ideas of environment illustrated by Bullard. As previously stated, Bullard argues that the environment is where we live rather than just some place we envision as nature. Amy Stein often highlighted humans and their environment, such as fenced off areas with a house and a girl in them, and contrasted those areas with “nature” images of trees and containing wild animals. I thought it would be very intriguing to have such visual images that represented Bullard’s ideas of man against environment. For example, a black man photographed in his backyard with a power plant in the background or something of the sort.

Interview: http://www.ejnet.org/ej/bullard.html

Domesticating Wild

In Amy Stein's Domesticated series, I had trouble figuring out whether the photographed animals were taxidermied or not, though I figured they must be, as they were acting so tame around humans and being still enough to be photographed. I found this confusion that I felt interesting, but I saw it as representative of the confusion that humans feel with animals and the natural world. It is confusing that we as humans fear wild animals, yet still feel dominant over them. The Domesticated series shows a human interaction with "wild" animals as one with out fear. The irony of these wild animals is that they too have been domesticated but in an unseen way to the viewer of the photograph. Like myself, viewers of the Domesticated series probably feel iffy in deciding if the animals are alive or not because it is unnatural for wild animals to come in contact with humans without fearing them as well, though they look so realistic. The fear that both feel is gone when animals are domesticated, but so is a the relationship with the "natural" world that people seem to strive for.

I also found it interesting that neither the humans or the animals are perceived as completely "wild" in any of the pictures, though the "wildness" of each can be debated. The series shows human confrontation with the "wild" today, and how drastically it has changed due to the far reach of domestication and also technology. My personal favorite photo was the last, with the wolf howling at the streetlight, not only for its beauty in symmetry and contrast, but also the content. This photo, like many of the others in the series, shows the same confusion that animals have in this day and age in their own perception of what is natural. The human influence over nature has greatly affected animals everywhere, as they have to adapt to the situations that we inflect on their own habitats.

I really loved Amy Stein's Domesticated series, as not only was each photo interesting in the natural sense, it was also an amusing way to see how much our natural world as humans intertwines with the world of animals. I was slightly puzzled by the photos that didn't include any animals though, like 8, 13, and 21. Are these photos simply representing our influence on the natural habitats of these animals? Is it a more powerful statement that animals weren't included in the photos? And are the birds in photo 6 really taxidermied? Is the fact that these animals are taxidermied that prevalent to the overall meaning of the series?