We are connecters, consumer educators, reminders that we are all interconnected.
The purpose of this website is to start a world revolution based on compassion and personal responsibility.
Our vision is a world driven by the innate goodness of people and their values of justice, kindness, and compassion for other people, for the planet, and for animals.
I read an article listing the cleanest fruits and vegetables to buy if you don’t want to buy organic, but don’t want a mouthful of chemicals. It explained how you can stay healthy and save a buck. The article missed the point…
Buying organic isn’t about ‘me! me! me!’ Buying organic is about protecting farm workers and their families; it’s about keeping chemicals off the land and out of our water; it’s about protecting wildlife; it’s about saving rivers and oceans; it’s about clean rain and air; it’s about dismantling the giant chemical/gmo companies (like Monsanto and Dow ) that are destroying farmers around the world; it’s about survival of the planet; it’s about the future of food; and it’s about future generations.
Some will complain, “But I can’t afford to buy organic”. Cesar Chavez (founder of United Farm Workers and one of my heroes because he understood social justice as one interconnected movement) never made over $6000 in a year, never owned a home, and still he made organic and vegan choices. I asked his granddaughter Julie Chavez Rodriguez how Cesar would respond to “But I can’t afford it”. Without skipping a beat, she replied, “He’d say, ‘You pay for it now, or you pay for it later.’”
Cesar understood that when you buy something you are supporting it, you are subsidizing it, you are saying, “More of the same, and do it in MY name!”
Buying chemical foods is making the worst food the most available food — and it’s killing people, the planet, and animals. It’s setting up a disastrous future (and present!) where real food will be a thing of the past.
This isn’t about ‘you’ or ‘me’… it is about us. We’re all one.
Can’t afford to buy organic? We can’t afford NOT to.
From the inspiring Julia Butterfly Hill, a very nice description of the desperate need for reconnection. Our interconnection is real — like gravity. This is the nature and purpose of Nonviolence — the active support, connecting and reconnecting, of our fundamental interconnection with one another.
It’s interesting, watching this with someone else, they wondered why Julia didn’t say “and animals.” I know from my study of and belief in Nonviolence and interconnection, I’ve come to automatically imagine all people, all non-human animals, and all of nature when I hear “one another.” It’s now just automatic for me. My guess is this is what Julia pictures, too. I know that’s where her heart is.
“One another,” “each other,” “life”… some may picture their immediate family or their social justice group or national community or human community. But it’s really just one community… called Earth. We’re all in this together.
In the current difficult times of which we’re all a part, “So what” is a very popular attitude. For those of you who teach, do activist outreach, speak in front of groups, or even just try to talk with anyone these days about the important work at hand trying to make the world a better place, I thought you might appreciate this insightful acknowledgement and explanation of those blank stares and skepticism.
It is a short excerpt from an excellent book by Cynthia Kaufman, Ideas for Action: Relevant Theory for Radical Change.
Kaufman writes, “One of the attitudes toward life that’s most popular on television as I’m writing this is cynicism. Connecting with real people involves emotional vulnerability, and knowing about the world takes work. To protect oneself from either of those challenges, it’s attractive to adopt a worldview that says all human concepts are corrupt and that the outside world isn’t worth knowing about; that the world is corrupt and unchangeable, so informing oneself about it won’t do any good; that anyone who cares about anything is a sucker; and that people involved in social movements are a bunch of hypocrites and won’t accomplish anything anyway. Therefore, the best strategy is to be aloof, to make fun of people who try to take the world and their existence in it seriously, and to find pleasure and humor in distancing oneself from everything. While in many ways this cynicism appears to be a safe strategy, it rarely compensates for the loss of personal integrity and the social isolation that come with it” (252).
After reading Ideas for Action, I’ve added it to my own very small collection of what I found to be important books. I highly recommend it to anyone who wants a firm understanding of social justice issues as well as hundreds of helpful resources for further learning, strategizing, and envisioning the future of social action.
Kaufman offers an excellent introduction and summary of social movements from a sociological perspective. While the book is over 300 pages, the subsections are quick and understandable. She begins by making us aware that we each carry a distorted view of the world based on our cultural norms, ideologies, upbringings, etc. Her use of surprising historical facts (like the rise of racism only after the conquering of the Americas as a product of capitalism in its infancy) and social facts (like one in every four homeless people have a job) are an effective reminder that we don’t know everything, that we need to keep questioning, and that there is always more to the story.
Kaufman’s theme is that the more we’ve learned from history and the better we understand the context and shared interests of all social movements, the better we will be at designing and carrying out social change.
Kaufman, Cynthia C. 2003. Ideas for Action: Relevant Theory for Radical Change. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
Thanks for tuning in… and thank you for all that you do!
“A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time and space. [We experience ourselves, our] thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion of [our] consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us [excluding others, including animals]. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”
An excerpt from the documentary “King in Chicago”. Interviews with activists who worked with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. during the 1966 Chicago Freedom Movement.
I especially like the advice that Nonviolence requires that each of us recognize our own contribution to the problem. We must in a sense first point the finger at ourselves and remove our investment in the problem so that we may instead be part of the solution.
I recently read a chapter in Ira Chernus’ American Nonviolence in which he discusses the contributions of author Henry David Thoreau to the Nonviolence movement. I was surprised to learn that ironically, while people tend to count Thoreau among the heroes of Nonviolence, he “never actually embraced the principle of Nonviolence” (54). He supported violent revolutionary acts such as John Brown’s assault on Harper’s Ferry.
Neither did Thoreau have confidence in the efforts of social justice activists. Thoreau saw social justice activists, at least those working to change policy and institutions, as wasting their time – he thought it was more important to change “individual souls” rather than social institutions: he wrote, “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root” (52).
While I disagree with Thoreau’s confidence in violent activism, I agree with him that the success of the current revolution lies in the hearts of the people. He urged reformers to look within themselves and change themselves rather than trying to change others. I would expand his argument to include that we should still try to educate people in order to spread awareness (otherwise social change will wither on the vine) – but reminding people of their own values and showing them how to live their lives aligned with those values is hardly “changing” people; it’s waking them (I think Thoreau would agree – as I’ll explain below).
Thoreau did recognize that individuals were the building blocks of society and of societal institutions and that “one [person] expressing [their] own opinion amounted to the re-origination of many of the institutions of society” (53). What he finds to be of utmost interest and importance is waking each individual to follow their own conscience — even when this means breaking unjust laws.
His philosophy of commitment to conscience led to his own short stay (one night) in jail for refusing to pay taxes which supported the unjust U.S. war against Mexico and a government (the U.S.) that supported slavery. This experience led to his writing the infamous “Civil Disobedience” which in turn influenced Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Cesar Chavez, and countless Nonviolence activists. This contribution to Nonviolence theory is why Thoreau is still exalted as a Nonviolence theorist.
Thoreau’s way of thinking moves beyond the thinking of Thomas Hobbes, who believed that any government was better than no government. Hobbes believed that because people were innately selfish and brutish, we must transfer our right to self-rule (and even violence) to the state. Hobbes believed the government is a necessary evil. To Hobbes, there is no such thing as an unjust law because right and wrong is determined by the law.
Thoreau on the other hand, sees justice as our primary loyalty, not laws. He foresaw a day when this adherence to conscience by masses of individuals would lead to the obsolescence of the state — what Thoreau called a “glorious State.” Rather than looking to the state for guidance and punishment, each would look to themselves and their own good conscience for what is morally right. Through personal awakening, personal responsibility, and a shared commitment to our interconnected world, the state would wither and become unnecessary.
We will be held responsible for the future we build. And future generations will celebrate or suffer because of us. It’s up to each of us to live our conscience no matter how difficult that may be. As Thoreau put it, “Live your beliefs and you can turn the world around.”
All one,
:) m
Chernus, Ira. 2004. “Henry David Thoreau.” 45-55 in American Nonviolence: The History of an Idea. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Bobby Kennedy once said, “There is a Chinese curse which says, ‘May [you] live in interesting times.’ Like it or not, we live in interesting times…” It was 1966.
It was a turbulent time in the world. People were taking to the streets. Social movements were rising up and fighting for justice. Bobby Kennedy was a living example of how someone indoctrinated in a culture of “might makes right” could change their whole world view. After the murder of his brother, this man of power, privilege, and (some would say) arrogance turned his focus to serving those in need – the poor, the oppressed. His personal growth brought him to a point where he was willing to put his own life at risk to do what he thought was right. His transformation fascinates me. And I wonder how we can spark the transformation in others.
This month, June 2010, marks the 42nd anniversary of the assassination of Bobby Kennedy. Only two months earlier in April 1968, another Nonviolence teacher and leader, Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot and killed. What might have been had they lived? What might have been if the efforts they were leading were more focused on the movement and less upon the perceived leaders? What if movements didn’t die with their leaders? What if each of us realized that each of us is a leader?
A student activist recently asked me with hopelessness in his voice, “Is it really worth it? Is it too late? Can we really make a difference?” The question isn’t whether or not one person can make a difference – you ARE making a difference. The question is what kind of difference do you want to make? Just because we haven’t turned things around doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep trying. If we don’t try, we’re just as guilty as those doing harm. Being a member of the world community obligates us to try our best with the hope that whoever comes next might do better than we have.
I might as well have quoted the rest of what Bobby Kennedy said immediately after his remark about the curse of “interesting times” under which we live, “They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also the most creative of any time in the history of [humankind]. And everyone here will ultimately be judged — will ultimately judge [themselves] — on the effort [they have] contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which [their] ideals and goals have shaped that effort.”
Alright, we usually don’t delve into the philosophical… but here’s something from Jean Jacques Rousseau that is worthy of exploring.
I’ll try to keep it simple – think of it as a Cliffs Notes on Rousseau’s take on “the origins of inequality” and how we can all be supportive of one another through a “social contract.” It’s loooooong, but really is worth the read if you’re into strategizing on how to change the world (like we are!).
This summary comes from my listening to an audio lecture series by Professor Dennis Dalton (Dalton, Dennis. 1998. Power Over People: Classical and Modern Political Theory: Rousseau. Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company Limited Partnership).
Power Over People: Rousseau is a lecture series examination of Jean Jacques Rousseau’s works The Discourse on the Origins of Inequality and his subsequent Social Contract. Professor Dalton categorizes Rousseau as an Idealist (sharing company with Plato, Marx, and Thoreau) who would ask, “What kind of society is best? How do we get there?” contrasting him to the Realists (like Machiavelli and Hobbes) who instead ask, “How do people act? What will become of society because of the ways people act?” The Idealist has an optimistic view of human nature and the future of humanity. Rousseau challenged Machiavelli’s dour view of human nature and his claim that there was no relationship between morality and politics – in fact, Rousseau would argue that morality and politics are inextricably linked.
Rousseau strongly criticized modern society as corrupt, but thought we had vast potential for improvement, albeit trapped in a contemporary system. Dalton emphasizes that Rousseau was not simply a utopian thinker hoping for a brave new world; he had a plan (as do the other Idealists) to reach that better world – that plan was through EDUCATION. He believed strongly in the effectiveness of education (unlike the “realists”). He wrote of a “right” kind of education that teaches values and sees itself intimately connected to creating moral citizens who in turn see themselves as part of a community rather than a system building competition and control (reminds us of our project “A Life Connected”).
Rousseau saw three stages in our evolution toward the ideal society (what he called the “civil society” or the “civil state.” These three stages are: the past, the present, and the future:
The first stage is the “Past”: Dalton points out that many dismiss Rousseau as a “back to nature theorist.” But Rousseau didn’t want to go “back to nature;” he wanted to move forward to a civil society based upon what he imagined the ideal human to be before being corrupted by modern society. He identified two primary instincts or motivations. The first was that of self-preservation. The second was the “natural repugnance of seeing any sentient being… perish or suffer… as long natural man did not resist the inner impulse of compassion he would never harm another man or sentient being except in the legitimate instance of self defense.” This second instinct or motivation is key to Rousseau’s philosophy – it highlights his belief that humans have an instinct of compassion; that people are by nature generous, merciful, and humane.
The second stage in our evolution toward the ideal society is “Modernity”. Rousseau believes that modernity has corrupted us. This he attributes to our “vast cities, rampant commercialism, and the institution of private property” – all causing us to become alienated and isolated from one another. When we are disconnected from one another, it becomes easy to deny one another. But following Rousseau’s thought this insensitivity defies our deepest humanity. “For modern man, his fellow man can be killed with impunity underneath his very window; he needs only to place his hands over his ears and argue with himself (a little) in order to prevent nature, that innate nature to help another that cries out from within him that identifies with the man being tortured and killed.”
He sees private property as one of the first causes of the separation that now exists: “The first person who, having enclosed a plot of land, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him was the true founder of civil society. What crimes, wars, murders, what miseries and horrors would the human race have been spared, had someone pulled up the stakes or filled in the ditch and cried out to his fellow men: ‘Do not listen to this imposter. You are lost if you forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all and the earth to no one.’”
The third stage in our societal evolution is the “Civil State.” Rousseau envisioned a future of social justice, freedom, and equality by establishing a civil state through a new “social contract.” This social contract is something that would be taught (via the education system) and accepted by the larger community. This would happen through something he called “the general will” – a consensus of community spirit in which we all work for the good of others and of all.
Professor Dalton summarizes Rousseau’s philosophy of the general will when he says, “We need to define ourselves not in terms of things but in terms of relationships with others.” Rousseau saw the future with a new kind of freedom – a freedom that isn’t about acting however we want for our own selfish wants, but a freedom to help one another. Freedom isn’t about acting as we wish, he says, but instead adhering to a shared morality that includes a sense of responsibility. Dalton poetically calls this “the freedom to act as we *should* act,” liberating ourselves from the illusion of separateness. Dalton also points out that Rousseau echoed something Plato had hoped for – the creation of a society so unified that “just as a single person loses a limb the whole body suffers, so in this state we want to create a society that if one soul is lost, so too the entire society would suffer.”
Rousseau’s vision was that of undeniable interconnection.
Entries (RSS)