Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

U. Washington Hosts Panel Talking About ‘Indigenous Perspectives in Environmental Justice’

U. Washington Hosts Panel Talking About ‘Indigenous Perspectives in Environmental Justice’

“Westerners consider people and the environment as separate entities while the Indigenous do not”

Have you noticed that the left thinks everything becomes more serious when you attach the word ‘justice’ to it?

The College Fix reports:

U. Washington panel explores ‘Indigenous perspectives in environmental justice’

The University of Washington recently hosted a panel on how the Native American community perceives environmental justice.

The April 4 UW School of Social Work-sponsored event featured local and Canadian Indigenous scholars who “stressed the difference” between Indigenous and Western “settler society” relationships with the environment, The Daily reports.

UW’s Michelle Johnson-Jennings, who is “heavily involved in land-based healing,” said Westerners consider people and the environment as separate entities while the Indigenous do not. Of the latter view she said “Unless the water is clean and the air is clean and Mother Earth is healthy — we cannot be healthy.”

The University of Manitoba’s Michael Yellow Bird said Native Americans have “gratitude” for the land … they see it “as a gift.”

“Indiginous [sic] people have been here forever, for millennia, created a relationship with the land, but also created structures, created trails, earthen mounds, [all] destroyed by settler colonialism,” Yellow Bird (left) said. He added that Western society is “rights based” while the Indigenous consider responsibility as paramount.

United Indians of All Tribes Foundation Executive Director Mike Tulee invoked the climate by claiming there’s a “pressing need” for renewable energy. He said “Native lands” could support wind turbine and solar panel infrastructure.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

“Have you noticed that the left thinks everything becomes more serious when you attach the word ‘justice’ to it?”

Judges can punish for stuff. The left is all about the lawfare.

    Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | April 11, 2022 at 11:27 pm

    Adding “justice” to something doesn’t make it a law. On the contrary, the legal system is notorious for being only about the law and not about justice. So that’s not it.

    The answer is that everyone knows justice is good, and has a natural yearning for it. So calling whatever it is you want a kind of “justice” makes a certain kind of person automatically support it, because how can you be against justice?

    My rule is that any “adjective justice” is unjust

      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | April 12, 2022 at 9:55 am

      Adding the word doesn’t make it a law. But it helps you make it a law later.
      Years of pretending there was such as thing as “illegal hate speech” resulted in actual laws against hate speech.
      Same for many “environmental crimes.”
      We just got out of a regime under which we were all “mandated” to wear masks by presidents, governors, and mayors, NONE of whom had any actual legal authority under any constitution to mandate that common citizens wear masks.
      Pretending something has legal force is prctically as good as giving it legal force.

        Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | April 12, 2022 at 10:37 am

        Years of pretending there was such as thing as “illegal hate speech” resulted in actual laws against hate speech.

        I don’t think this is true. In the USA there aren’t any laws against “hate speech”. And in other countries no “years of pretending” were required in order to make such laws; they just made them and the public accepted them.

Since when were the self-proclaimed indigenous people environmentalists, historically? That’s self-serving claptrap for “how can we steal from whites”, non-Western people were happy to over-hunt, clear too much forest, and perform other environmental “sins”.

Besides everything else wrong with this, which would be wrong even if the premise had some historical validity, the whole premise is garbage. This history of “indigenous people” bears no resemblance to reality. It’s not something any actual indigenous people would have recognized.

Also, it’s too long to fisk line by line, but this one is too good to omit. It is impossible to have a relationship with the land, because the land is inanimate. Any such relationship can only exist in the mind of the human “partner”. It’s like purporting to marry someone who’s in a coma, or who is dead; you may think you two have this wonderful relationship, but your partner knows nothing about it.