since the format of my latest post seems to have gotten lost in translation (more than usual), here's an easier to read version. feel free to give me your thoughts on this.
the final exam for my environmental justice class was a take-home essay of 800-1000 words that asked the question, "What did you learn in this class?" though i began this task as academically as possible, citing essays we had read for class, it quickly fell into the philosophical realm, leaving more questions than answers. my approach may not garner any hopes of a decent grade, but i felt it really tapped into the conscious & unconscious struggle of trying to figure out what is "right" or "just." here is what i wrote:
No Nocere
It seems that the idea of what is “just” should be an intuitive feeling more than a compilation of facts, figures, trial judgments, and semantics. It’s frustrating to know that justice is so often relegated only to those that have access to, and can afford to pay for, some type of legal system and that people who fight for justice on their own terms are often labeled as subversives, criminals, or terrorists. That, of course, is not to say that all people labeled with these terms are fighting for justice, only that the stories of good and just people are easily perverted to subdue the masses into believing they are powerless and the maintenance of the status quo is more important than doing what is right.
One such example of this belittlement is the case of the U’wa Nation of Columbia who organized to prevent the Occidental Petroleum Corporation from drilling on sacred U’wa territory. The former minister of mines dismissed these objections saying, “You can’t compare the interests of 38 million Columbians with the worries of the indigenous community,” (Gedicks, p.169). The Columbian military, instead of defending the rights of the native Columbians, placed landmines and troops around drilling site to protect the oil drilling machines. The case of what is just seems apparent in this situation, but the actions of the Columbian government suggest that it is the foreign oil company and their shareholders being treated unjustly and must be protected, instead of the people indigenous to the area who depend on the land for their livelihood.
The problem with the notion of “justice” is that it is rarely a clear-cut issue. At first glance, the fight for South Central Farm in Los Angeles would lead one to favor the farmers in their struggle to save their community garden, but it could easily be argued that the owner of the property retains the right to use his investment as he sees fit (Mark, The Central Question). In a truly just situation, the owner would recognize the benefit of the farm and donate it to the community, but the economic situation we, ourselves, have created through lifestyle and behavior patterns creates a situation in which justice for one person or group is in direct competition with the opposition’s notion of justice. Though I personally believe in the greater justice of food and people over business and profits, this situation points to one example where the idea of justice can be used to the advantage of either party.
What I most struggle with, in regards to fighting for justice, is where, or if, there is a limit to the actions that can be taken in the name of justice. No one could argue that writing letters or signing petitions isn’t an acceptable manifestation of protest, but what if the U’wa had chosen to use landmines to protect their rightful territory? On one hand, it could be argued that they have the right to defend what is theirs, but on the other hand, endangering human lives would put them in the same class as the Columbian military. Can murder ever be justified? And what about property? Is the destruction of property, such as setting fire to empty buildings or machines that perpetrate injustice, equivalent to purposely endangering human lives?
The discrepancy lies in the disparity between the haves and the have-nots. Our socio-economic system invariably discriminates against the people with the least monetary resources. The intangible idea of “money” as capital is considered more important than, or as a means of acquiring, something of actual value~ natural capital. People who are willing to live within the ecological system are superseded by those that have created an inaccessible and unsustainable economic system and those with the least means pay the highest prices in terms of health, wealth, and their environment.
But is true equality possible? If conflict didn’t exist (internal AND external), what, then, would be the benefit of living? If Life were entirely just, what would we have to strive towards? Would there be anything left worth living and dying for? As someone who feels that there are lessons learned from mistakes as well as accomplishments, who am I to know whether certain hardships are not a requirement to achieving justice? Something that seems terribly just or unjust today may turn out to be quite the opposite in the grand scheme of things. Without knowing the ultimate purpose to this Life of consciousness, my only option is to behave in a way that treats others the way I would like to be treated within the context of my current awareness.
Honestly (perhaps obviously), this class has raised more questions than answers. Justice is clearly a philosophical and moral issue more than a facts and figures issue, (not that facts and figures can’t be used to argue the case for justice), but justice is not something that can easily be quantified, much like the question of what I have learned in this class. Though I am more aware of the insidious ways in which injustice can be perpetrated, I can’t say that I am any more prepared to answer the question, “What is Justice?” nor can I say with certainty what is just or unjust. I can only defer to my intellect, empathy, and compassion for guidance and try my best to “Do No Harm.”
Works Cited
Gedicks, A. (2005). “Resource Wars against Native Peoples.” In R. Bullard (Ed.), The Quest for Environmental Justice: Human Rights and the Politics of Pollution (pp.168-187). San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Mark, J. (2006). The Central Question: Could the battle for South Central Farm be coming to a close? Retrieved 8 December 2006 from
www.grist.org/news/maindish...ark/index.html
