 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
Environmental Justice and Asian Americans
By Doug Brugge
The environmental justice (EJ) movement is often cited as having begun in the Southeastern US among Blacks who launched campaigns against hazardous waste sites in their communities. A defining point in the development of the movement was the publication in 1987 of the United Church of Christ study ‘Toxic Wastes and Race in the United States' which showed that there was disproportionate risk from commercial toxic waste. The key defining aspect of the movement was that it has turned the once white and middle class environmental ethic around to look at how poor people and people of color are affected. Of course, these populations have long fought environmental problems that they faced. The difference today is that these struggles are defined as environmental, giving them access to the broad interest and resources devoted to environmental causes.
Blacks and Native Americans have been the leading forces of the effort to draw attention to EJ concerns. When I was on the National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee to the US EPA, the leadership role of Blacks and even more so of Native Americans was apparent. This should surprise no one. The US was built on a legacy of genocide of Native peoples and theft of their lands (and lands from Mexico) and the importation of African slaves. The people who paid the dearest price for the building of this country and those with the closest ties to the land naturally emerged as the leaders. Indeed the EJ movement is a clear updating and extension of the earlier Civil Rights Movement, albeit thus far its impact has been less fundamental.
Asian Americans Join the EJ Movement
Asian American, Latino/Chicano and poor and working class white communities have also joined the EJ movement in some numbers, bringing their own flavor and interpretation to the cause. Exactly what falls under the rubric of EJ is a little vague about the edges and some people argue the definition. How poor does a white community have to be, for example, to qualify as part of the movement? What percentage of a community would need to be minority? But most of those who work day to day on these issues know it when they see it and seek an inclusive, broadly encompassing coalition. The issues that fit into environment also are sometimes in question. Clearly hazardous waste sites and air pollution from traffic are environmental problems that affect many poor and minority communities. On the other hand, these communities have pointed to problems that are not so clearly within the scope of environment. For example, are motor vehicle deaths on an Indian reservation an issue that EJ should address?
The impetus to broaden the definition of environment is a logical extension of turning attention from whales and forests to the impact on human lives. In fact, not just the impact on human lives, but importantly, the impact on the lives of people who face many types of difficulty and discrimination. Someone who lives in substandard housing is likely to see that as the greatest environmental problem that they face. Likewise, someone working at a hazardous job, say farm labor, will define that as his or her environment, despite the fact that the traditional environmental movement and labor movement have infrequently joined forces. Indeed from the EJ perspective environment can be seen to mean everything from the way a neighborhood looks to the social fabric of the community.
Doug Brugge is an assistant professor at Tufts University School of Medicine and a member of the steering committee of the Campaign to Protect Chinatown.
Photographs by Doug Brugge.
