Skip to main content

The problem with advocating for future generations and nature

"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don't ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.'


Dave Barnhart


I spotted this quote doing the rounds on the internet a few months ago. I think it has been widely shared because it tells a very clear truth that is worth speaking out loud. But I actually don't want to talk about abortion in quoting this. Because what struck me about this quote is how it could apply to white climate activism:
"Future generations" and animals and nature are convenient groups to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don't resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike people in the majority world they don't question your imperialism and white supremacy; unlike the poor they don't ask for your generosity of question your capitalist system, unlike black people and people of colour they don't bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike. They allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships. You can love animals and nature and generations to come and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. 
The key part of this I think is "they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships". I think a few years ago I literally had this thought, I thought "if I do environmental activism I can feel like I'm doing some good without having to do the difficult work of people". My white privilege and seeking of what seemed like an easy life led me to that thought process, but I was wrong. You can't do activism work, you can't make a difference in the world without dealing with the messy world of other human beings, and when you do that you other people will make demands of you. Other people will tell you when you're wrong. Other people will call out your bullshit. Other people will not let you feel good about yourself all the time. Other people will stop you feeling like you're a good person all the time. 
I think this is where white climate activism can go a bit wrong, and just feel a bit... icky. It's this moral certainty that we are good people doing good things and no one can tell us otherwise. Of course there's an element of truth in it, we do have to create change to combat the climate crisis, we do have to do activism, but when it's activism that is not rooted in creating or maintaining relationships then there's a way in which it just doesn't quite work, and ends up putting people's backs up.
White climate activism, while it is rooted in a sense of moral superiority in advocating for animals and nature and future generations, will always have an element of inauthenticity about it. It will always seem more like it is about proving the moral purity of white activists than actually creating the world we need to create.
The alternative is a climate activism that is rooted in advocating and giving voice to the majority world, the global poor, indigenous peoples, climate-vulnerable nations. But the difference is these people are able to speak for themselves and so white activism will primarily be about getting out of the way to lift up those voices of those people. And it will sometimes involve white people being told they're getting it wrong, and need to change language or approach or activities. It will not be as comfortable for white climate activists as we will feel less morally pure and right. It will not fed our egos in the same way. But it will be rooted in real relationship, in growing human community, in creating solidarity, and ultimately I think that will be more likely to be effective and create the world we're wanting to build.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Radical?

When I started this blog nearly 4 years and nearly 300 posts ago one of the labels I used for it/me was "radical." Perhaps I used it a little unreflectively. Recently I've been pondering what radical means. A couple of things have made me think of this. Firstly this blog series from my friend Jeremy, which explores a distinction between "radical progressives" and "rational progressives." There is also this definition of radical, liberal and conservative from Terry Eagleton quoted at Young Anabaptist Radicals : “Radicals are those who believe that things are extremely bad with us, but they could feasibly be much improved. Conservatives believe that things are pretty bad, but that’s just the way the human animal is. And liberals believe that there’s a little bit of good and bad in all of us.” What interests me is finding a way to express the tension I feel sometimes between myself and the wider Unitarian movement. One way to express this is to say I tend

What does it mean to be non-creedal?

Steve Caldwell says "The problem here isn't humanism vs. theism for theist Unitarian Universalists -- it's the non-creedal nature of Unitarian Universalism" This is a good point. We need to think much more deeply about what it means to be a non-creedal religion. The first thing I want to say is that there is more than one possible understanding of non-creedalism. The Disciples of Christ are a non-creedal church, they say here : " Freedom of belief. Disciples are called together around one essential of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Persons are free to follow their consciences guided by the Bible, the Holy Spirit study and prayer, and are expected to extend that freedom to others." Quakers are also non-creedal and say here : Quakers have no set creed or dogma - that means we do not have any declared statements which you have to believe to be a Quaker. There are, however, some commonly held views which unite us. One accepted view is that th

What is Radical Christianity?

Radical Christianity is about encountering the God of love . It is first and foremost rooted in the discovery of a universal and unconditional source of love at the heart of reality and within each person. God is the name we give to this source of love. It is possible to have a direct and real personal encounter with this God through spiritual practice. We encounter God, and are nourished by God, through the regular practice of prayer, or contemplation.  Radical Christianity is about following a man called Jesus . It is rooted in the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet living under occupation of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago. It understands that's Jesus' message was the message of liberation. His message was that when we truly encounter God, and let God's love flow through us, we begin to be liberated from the powers of empire and violence and encounter the  "realm of God" - an alternative spiritual and social reality rooted in love rather th