“Racismo Ambiental” e Ecocídio : O que é isso?
E porque a terminologia é adequada: a luta dos povos pela terra
Completando a série, respondo a pergunta com mais clareza de qual é o fim do ativista que não escapa de quem se acha dono do seus lugar, e apresento mais uma (triste) evidencia de como os direitos humanos e ambientais não só estão integrados como na realidade são indissociáveis. Ou seja, na prática eles a luta por ambos é a mesma, assim como os crimes contra ambos dificilmente se separam, ou mais precisamente param apenas em dos dois tipo de violação:
“Eles identificaram os principais tipos de conflitos na região: aqueles vivenciados pelas comunidades atingidas por barragens; a tensão com os latifundiários, oriunda do problema da grilagem de terras públicas; conflitos em decorrência de políticas ambientais de viés conservacionista e da inexistência de implementação das Reservas Extrativistas; finalmente, os que atingem povos indígenas e quilombolas, causados por racismo ambiental, pois esses são impedidos de ter acesso a políticas públicas de direitos básicos, e pelo sucateamento da Fundação Nacional do Índio (Funai) e do Incra.”
Mas o que é esse tal de “racismo ambiental” citado na matéria?
http://www.pensamentoverde.com.br/meio-ambiente/voce-ja-ouviu-falar-conceito-racismo-ambiental/
E para dar a volta completa do mundo, no tempo e na história volto para o texto visonário de Thomas Paine Justiça Agrária:
E encerro com Malcolm X. Em dois momentos distintos, mas absolutamente complementares do seu pensamento vivo e construído como trajetória de vida.
Primeiro o discurso histórico de Grasssroots:
“I would like to make a few comments concerning the difference between the black revolution and the Negro revolution. There’s a difference. Are they both the same? And if they’re not, what is the difference? What is the difference between a black revolution and a Negro revolution? First, what is a revolution? Sometimes I’m inclined to believe that many of our people are using this word “revolution” loosely, without taking careful consideration [of] what this word actually means, and what its historic characteristics are. When you study the historic nature of revolutions, the motive of a revolution, the objective of a revolution, and the result of a revolution, and the methods used in a revolution, you may change words. You may devise another program. You may change your goal and you may change your mind.
Look at the American Revolution in 1776. That revolution was for what? For land. Why did they want land? Independence. How was it carried out? Bloodshed. Number one, it was based on land, the basis of independence. And the only way they could get it was bloodshed. The French Revolution — what was it based on? The land-less against the landlord. What was it for? Land. How did they get it? Bloodshed. Was no love lost; was no compromise; was no negotiation. I’m telling you, you don’t know what a revolution is. ’Cause when you find out what it is, you’ll get back in the alley; you’ll get out of the way. The Russian Revolution — what was it based on? Land. The land-less against the landlord. How did they bring it about? Bloodshed. You haven’t got a revolution that doesn’t involve bloodshed. And you’re afraid to bleed. I said, you’re afraid to bleed.
[As] long as the white man sent you to Korea, you bled. He sent you to Germany, you bled. He sent you to the South Pacific to fight the Japanese, you bled. You bleed for white people. But when it comes time to seeing your own churches being bombed and little black girls be murdered, you haven’t got no blood. You bleed when the white man says bleed; you bite when the white man says bite; and you bark when the white man says bark. I hate to say this about us, but it’s true. How are you going to be nonviolent in Mississippi, as violent as you were in Korea? How can you justify being nonviolent in Mississippi and Alabama, when your churches are being bombed, and your little girls are being murdered, and at the same time you’re going to violent with Hitler, and Tojo,and somebody else that you don’t even know?
If violence is wrong in America, violence is wrong abroad. If it’s wrong to be violent defending black women and black children and black babies and black men, then it’s wrong for America to draft us and make us violent abroad in defense of her. And if it is right for America to draft us, and teach us how to be violent in defense of her, then it is right for you and me to do whatever is necessary to defend our own people right here in this country.
The Chinese Revolution — they wanted land. They threw the British out, along with the Uncle Tom Chinese. Yeah, they did. They set a good example. When I was in prison, I read an article — don’t be shocked when I say I was in prison. You’re still in prison. That’s what America means: prison. When I was in prison, I read an article in Life magazine showing a little Chinese girl, nine years old; her father was on his hands and knees and she was pulling the trigger ’cause he was an Uncle Tom Chinaman, When they had the revolution over there, they took a whole generation of Uncle Toms — just wiped them out. And within ten years that little girl become [sic] a full-grown woman. No more Toms in China. And today it’s one of the toughest, roughest, most feared countries on this earth — by the white man. ’Cause there are no Uncle Toms over there.
Of all our studies, history is best qualified to reward our research. And when you see that you’ve got problems, all you have to do is examine the historic method used all over the world by others who have problems similar to yours. And once you see how they got theirs straight, then you know how you can get yours straight. There’s been a revolution, a black revolution, going on in Africa. In Kenya, the Mau Mau were revolutionaries; they were the ones who made the word ” Uhuru” [Kenyan word for “freedom”]. They were the ones who brought it to the fore.The Mau Mau, they were revolutionaries. They believed in scorched earth. They knocked everything aside that got in their way, and their revolution also was based on land, a desire for land. In Algeria, the northern part of Africa, a revolution took place. The Algerians were revolutionists; they wanted land. France offered to let them be integrated into France. They told France: to hell with France. They wanted some land, not some France. And they engaged in a bloody battle.
So I cite these various revolutions, brothers and sisters, to show you — you don’t have a peaceful revolution. You don’t have a turn-the-other-cheek revolution. There’s no such thing as a nonviolent revolution. [The] only kind of revolution that’s nonviolent is the Negro revolution. The only revolution based on loving your enemy is the Negro revolution. The only revolution in which the goal is a desegregated lunch counter, a desegregated theater, a desegregated park, and a desegregated public toilet; you can sit down next to white folks on the toilet. That’s no revolution. Revolution is based on land. Land is the basis of all independence. Land is the basis of freedom, justice, and equality.
The white man knows what a revolution is. He knows that the black revolution is world-wide in scope and in nature. The black revolution is sweeping Asia, sweeping Africa, is rearing its head in Latin America. The Cuban Revolution — that’s a revolution. They overturned the system. Revolution is in Asia. Revolution is in Africa. And the white man is screaming because he sees revolution in Latin America. How do you think he’ll react to you when you learn what a real revolution is? You don’t know what a revolution is. If you did, you wouldn’t use that word.
A revolution is bloody. Revolution is hostile. Revolution knows no compromise. Revolution overturns and destroys everything that gets in its way. And you, sitting around here like a knot on the wall, saying, “I’m going to love these folks no matter how much they hate me.” No, you need a revolution. Whoever heard of a revolution where they lock arms, as Reverend Cleage was pointing out beautifully, singing “We Shall Overcome”? Just tell me. You don’t do that in a revolution. You don’t do any singing; you’re too busy swinging. It’s based on land. A revolutionary wants land so he can set up his own nation, an independent nation. These Negroes aren’t asking for no nation. They’re trying to crawl back on the plantation.
When you want a nation, that’s called nationalism. When the white man became involved in a revolution in this country against England, what was it for? He wanted this land so he could set up another white nation. That’s white nationalism. The American Revolution was white nationalism. The French Revolution was white nationalism. The Russian Revolution too — yes, it was — white nationalism. You don’t think so? Why [do] you think Khrushchev and Mao can’t get their heads together? White nationalism. All the revolutions that’s going on in Asia and Africa today are based on what? Black nationalism. A revolutionary is a black nationalist. He wants a nation. I was reading some beautiful words by Reverend Cleage, pointing out why he couldn’t get together with someone else here in the city because all of them were afraid of being identified with black nationalism. If you’re afraid of black nationalism, you’re afraid of revolution. And if you love revolution, you love black nationalism.”
E o segundo a carta a meca:
“Você pode estar chocado por estas palavras virem de mim. Mas nesta peregrinação, o que eu tenho visto, e experimentado, me forçou a reorganizar muito dos padrões de pensamento que mantive anteriormente, e deixar de lado algumas de minhas prévias conclusões. Não foi muito difícil para mim. Apesar de minhas convicções firmes, eu sempre fui um homem que tenta enfrentar os fatos, e aceitar a realidade da vida quando uma experiência nova e conhecimento novo revelam isto. Eu mantive sempre uma mente aberta, que é necessária para a flexibilidade que deve andar de mãos dadas com toda busca inteligente pela verdade.
Durante os últimos onze dias aqui no mundo muçulmano, eu tenho comido do mesmo prato, bebido do mesmo copo, e dormido no mesmo tapete — enquanto oro para o mesmo Deus — com irmãos muçulmanos, cujos olhos eram os mais azuis dos azuis, cujo cabelo era o mais louro dos louros, e cuja pele era a mais branca das brancas. E nas palavras e nas ações e nos atos dos muçulmanos brancos, eu senti a mesma sinceridade que senti entre os muçulmanos negros africanos da Nigéria, Sudão e Gana.
“Nós éramos verdadeiramente todos os mesmos (irmãos) — porque sua crença em um Deus tinha removido o branco de suas mentes, o branco de seu comportamento, e o branco de suas atitudes.
“Eu pude ver disso, que talvez se os americanos brancos pudessem aceitar a Unicidade de Deus, então, talvez, eles pudessem aceitar na realidade a Unicidade do Homem — e parar de medir, e obstruir, e prejudicar outros em termos de suas ‘diferenças’ na cor.
“Com o racismo tomando conta da América como um câncer incurável, o coração dos supostos ‘cristãos’ americanos brancos devia ser mais receptivo a uma solução aprovada para esse problema destrutivo. Talvez isso salvasse a América de um desastre iminente — a mesma destruição que aconteceu com a Alemanha por causa do racismo que eventualmente destruiu os próprios alemães.”
É uma pena que esse “novo” Malcolm tenha sido assassinado tão logo tivesse voltado a América. Porque essa nova visão, menos nacionalista e mais cosmopolita, porém em nada contrária, mas ampliadora do seu entendimento e critica anterior, a tornaria ainda menos branca e segregacionista e mais negra e universalista ainda. Logo, mais revolucionária e libertadora que nunca.
Mas, mesmo assim, sem ter tido tempo para pregar sua visão crítica do mundo, ela, dura e crua, é ainda a mais lúcida e (infelizmente) a mais atual de todas.
Para quem tiver mais interesse na obra e vida de Malcolm segue excelente dissertação de mestrado no link abaixo:
