According to Wikipedia, people of color in the United States represent 26% of the total population. In August, Energy Action Coalition did a survey of 467 students and youth involved in the Campus Climate Challenge with 78.9% identifying themselves as white and 6.6% declining to answer. These numbers suggest that the green movement may not be as homogenous at the grassroots as it seems. However, a survey mentioned in Grist this week suggests that the demographics at the staff level for mainstream green groups are decidedly white. I’m not a sociologist, but experience tells me that when your staff lacks diversity, issues that are important to communities of color consistently stay off the agenda, whether the group is well-intentioned or not. Here is the skinny from Grist:
When it comes to race, the actual color of the green movement is decidedly white. According to a survey conducted from 2004 to 2006, more than one-third of U.S. mainstream green groups and one-fifth of eco-related government agencies have no nonwhite staff members. Minorities tend to join up with grassroots environmental-justice groups, leaving mainstream groups open to the consistent criticism that they are elitist. And while environmentalism was undeniably elitist in its beginnings — in the early 1900s, the movement was led by whites trying to protect wild land and animals from the masses — at this point, surveys indicate that nonwhites care just as much about eco-issues as whites do, from climate change to deforestation to pesticide use to air pollution. Success in the ongoing effort to bring everyone together will get results, says activist Charles Jordan: “Once society sees this is really going to be color-coordinated, I think we’re going to perform miracles.”
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Hey Josh, thanks for posting this. I think we agree that a diverse movement is essential to bringing about environmental change that is sustainable AND just. In the struggle for the climate and against dirty energy in particular, it’s important for the youth, especially, to continue to bridge our efforts and work together in solidarity across cultures and racial lines, speaking truth to systems of power and impacted communities involved. We know that.
Though, I have a few qualms.
As far as the Grist article is concerned, I’m not comfortable with the author’s use of language. To say, “When it comes to race, the actual color of the green movement is decidedly white,” in my opinion, is alienating to people of color and fails to honor and recognize that the environmental justice movement IS the “green movement,” that communities of color are organizing around these issues - and HAVE been..whether or not they’ve fallen into the mainstream - which is the real issue; The stories and struggles of communities of color are misrepresented and underrepresented within our movement and most of the mainstream, predominately white orgs.
…But we should be conscious of being so divisive with our words…And with certain words in particular, such as the term “minorities” which I feel incredibly uncomfortable with.
I may be raggedy, but I wanted to bring those thoughts to light. And lastly, I think this article by Marcelo Bonta, also featured in Grist, addresses this issue well and gives clear examples for moving forward: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/2/82747/54759
I had the privilege of meeting Marcelo at Summit 2007: Diverse Partners for Environmental Progress, the conference which he mentions in the article.
..I hope that’s productive and helpful. Thanks, again, Josh!!
So if the population is 26% colored, and the campus climate challenge is 78% that means we are only 4% off of the goal of equal representation?
im still confused as to why this is a huge issue. we all want green jobs, a better and more robust economy… the color of our skin shouldn’t matter. Lets unite around the issues. Lets get the anti-war, anti-racism, pro-economy and every other group involved instead of targeting people based on race
Right on Christine. Marcelo’s article has a lot of good ideas in it.
Anonymous, it seems as if I wasn’t entirely clear. The point of bringing in the Campus Climate Challenge survey was to contrast the relative diversity we do see at the grassroots of the youth climate movement with the lack of diversity in the staffs of mainstream environmental group. While surveys have shown that people of color care a great deal about environmental issues, that fact has not translated into diversity in who gets paid to do advocacy work for the environment. There are many reasons why that fact matters. Mainstream environmental organizations have a long history of making compromises at the expense of poor communities and communities of color. In his article, Marcelo offers several potential benefits to diversifying the environmental movement:
“Can you imagine if the environmental movement was effective at engaging people of color and leveraging their substantial support and talents? Millions of new supporters would surely translate into more political victories for the environment, more public support, more members, a larger volunteer base, richer partnerships and more financial support. In other words, the movement would be potentially more successful and influential than it ever has been before.”
While I agree that we need to unite around issues, how we address those issues and who is part of this unity is deeply affected by how racially diverse our movement and the organizations within it are. Trying to be “color-blind” in a society with such strong racial injustice and prejudices is what largely got us into this predicament in the first place.
Anonymous, you should know that the term “colored” that you use above is generally considered deragotory, as it is a term developed by white people during the colonial / slavery era, as opposed to a term in any way selected by the people reffered to, and in that sense objectives a majority of the world’s population.
The term “people of color” comes out of the civil rights movement and is preffered by many people.