I find it so interesting that you are raising this. The points of inclusivity, broad spectrum appeal and bridging the political gap are all very valid, and you are entirely correct that mass appeal to the mainstream of society is essential to this cause. However, I'm really struck by some of the language and phrasing that you use, and how it somehow seems to reflect the value that has been placed upon "hippies" and alternatives to mainstream society, and some internalisation to this effect. What this movement is trying to do (through and beyond it's three main objectives) is to revive values of care, contribution, eco-centrism etc. I feel that proclaiming hippies as potentially damaging to an environmental movement that has so much of its own potential is just feeding into outdated operating systems of judgement and discrimination. For so long now, the ethos of reciprocity has been lauded by the mainstream, values of care and tending and nourishment have been seen as "less than". Don't you think that those are exactly what is needed now, at this time? Do you value the ethics of those who live outside of the main? (These are genuine questions, though I know you live outside of the main yourself). Putting SO much value and credibility into the current modus operandi is understandable. Yes we need doctors and nurses and teachers and farmers and everyone to support the movement, which they likely will once armed with the true knowledge of the situation, but we should also be practicing equality at every available opportunity. Xr has been criticised for being too homogeneous, and is absolutely not faultless, but in acknowledging the right of *everyone* to a healthy planet, the right of everyone to care for and act on behalf of Earth, replaying stereotypes of a certain faction of society, is quite simply biased. A curious conversation, but one I feel is quite deeply rooted in conditioning.
I dont think its the 'hippy' thing that is the problem as such, in the Anti Vietnam War movement it was the hippies and radicals first, then they got the Veterans on board, the parents , the 'workers', till it won. I think the bigger problem is getting the ( ahem, I hate these expressions) working class. I say that as a northener in a working class northern city with high unemployment and low wages. No schools went on strike up here, no large estates of houses and flats identify with the green movement , and possibly the green movement doesnt identify with them. It seems so far, that there are lots of educated people involved in the Greens , and well spoken people and so on (im generalising of course) but there can be no green revolution without a total committment to fighting poverty . The two are linked. Why or how will a geezer give up a eco unfriendly job, be it logging to making plastic , if there are, or until alternatives are there, and how will whole communities affected by unemployment, massive welfare cuts and so on have any interest in helping green a planet they feel they are cut off from. Just saying, all positive movements need to bring everyone with them and not be excluding the working class.. just saying..so forget the tie wearing and suiting up, the mass of people do not do that, just get out and active in the communities that are actually naturally greenest, in that they have little cash and therefore cannot buy loads of junk..or fly around the world, or have huge houses..or own land..
There's something in that. When I went to an Extinction Rebellion protest I found myself wondering the same, despite feeling very at home in the crowd. It's a good thing however, that those involved are peace-loving people & have conducted the protests without recourse to angry confrontation. On the contrary, the party atmosphere is entirely appropriate & possibly even essential. After all, unless we all radically change our attitude to the world, there won't be much to celebrate in the future. And if, one day, I find there are skinheads & people in suits protesting around me for our shared future I'll be delighted. This is about our children & grandchildren, not about our politics or fashion sense.
Really appreciating your clarity. I get it (I'm a total hippy myself ha!) but it's so important that we find a way to bridge the gap... to reach the hearts of minds of the main populace. Thanks for sharing.
You need some centre right people who have some agreements on environmentism. What far and centrer right believes are comparable with environmental concern
You mean middle class, same problem with the British Labour Party, which is now a middle class lefties hobby, you need more soccer hooligans, that's when you know your winning
I find it so interesting that you are raising this. The points of inclusivity, broad spectrum appeal and bridging the political gap are all very valid, and you are entirely correct that mass appeal to the mainstream of society is essential to this cause. However, I'm really struck by some of the language and phrasing that you use, and how it somehow seems to reflect the value that has been placed upon "hippies" and alternatives to mainstream society, and some internalisation to this effect. What this movement is trying to do (through and beyond it's three main objectives) is to revive values of care, contribution, eco-centrism etc. I feel that proclaiming hippies as potentially damaging to an environmental movement that has so much of its own potential is just feeding into outdated operating systems of judgement and discrimination. For so long now, the ethos of reciprocity has been lauded by the mainstream, values of care and tending and nourishment have been seen as "less than". Don't you think that those are exactly what is needed now, at this time? Do you value the ethics of those who live outside of the main? (These are genuine questions, though I know you live outside of the main yourself). Putting SO much value and credibility into the current modus operandi is understandable. Yes we need doctors and nurses and teachers and farmers and everyone to support the movement, which they likely will once armed with the true knowledge of the situation, but we should also be practicing equality at every available opportunity. Xr has been criticised for being too homogeneous, and is absolutely not faultless, but in acknowledging the right of *everyone* to a healthy planet, the right of everyone to care for and act on behalf of Earth, replaying stereotypes of a certain faction of society, is quite simply biased. A curious conversation, but one I feel is quite deeply rooted in conditioning.
I dont think its the 'hippy' thing that is the problem as such, in the Anti Vietnam War movement it was the hippies and radicals first, then they got the Veterans on board, the parents , the 'workers', till it won. I think the bigger problem is getting the ( ahem, I hate these expressions) working class. I say that as a northener in a working class northern city with high unemployment and low wages. No schools went on strike up here, no large estates of houses and flats identify with the green movement , and possibly the green movement doesnt identify with them. It seems so far, that there are lots of educated people involved in the Greens , and well spoken people and so on (im generalising of course) but there can be no green revolution without a total committment to fighting poverty . The two are linked. Why or how will a geezer give up a eco unfriendly job, be it logging to making plastic , if there are, or until alternatives are there, and how will whole communities affected by unemployment, massive welfare cuts and so on have any interest in helping green a planet they feel they are cut off from. Just saying, all positive movements need to bring everyone with them and not be excluding the working class.. just saying..so forget the tie wearing and suiting up, the mass of people do not do that, just get out and active in the communities that are actually naturally greenest, in that they have little cash and therefore cannot buy loads of junk..or fly around the world, or have huge houses..or own land..
Groovie man..I dig it..
There's something in that.
When I went to an Extinction Rebellion protest I found myself wondering the same, despite feeling very at home in the crowd. It's a good thing however, that those involved are peace-loving people & have conducted the protests without recourse to angry confrontation.
On the contrary, the party atmosphere is entirely appropriate & possibly even essential. After all, unless we all radically change our attitude to the world, there won't be much to celebrate in the future.
And if, one day, I find there are skinheads & people in suits protesting around me for our shared future I'll be delighted.
This is about our children & grandchildren, not about our politics or fashion sense.
Really appreciating your clarity. I get it (I'm a total hippy myself ha!) but it's so important that we find a way to bridge the gap... to reach the hearts of minds of the main populace. Thanks for sharing.
"Turn on, tune in, drop out" Its time for a revolution!
Good job
You need some centre right people who have some agreements on environmentism. What far and centrer right believes are comparable with environmental concern
You mean middle class, same problem with the British Labour Party, which is now a middle class lefties hobby, you need more soccer hooligans, that's when you know your winning