I posted this on another site.... I wanted to ask here, as well...

Why is it that most homesteaders consider themselves to be ultra conservative, and are abhorred to be called environmentalists???? I think its mainly degrees and semantics.

Most of us recycle. Most of us take very good care of our land and our animals. Most of us take only what resources we need. Quite a few of us generate our own power. We grow most of our own food. A few hunt and/or fish, but only for what we eat. Our first priority is very rarely profit. We don't like it when folks throw things out their car windows - and if it is anywhere near our fenceline, tend to pick up after them.

OK... Maybe we don't climb into rafts and attack whaling boats.... Maybe we don't chain ourselves to machines, or live up in trees.

But, don't we all rather resent a major corporation coming in and clear cutting the woods??? Do we really want the miners to STOP cleaning up the cyanide and arsenic used in mining? Don't we test our water to be sure its safe to drink?

I guess I just don't get the insult. I know that most if not all the 'homesteaders' here and elsewhere call it self-sufficiency. But it just seems to me that we are concerned about more than just ourselves, and to most modern definitions, that would make us those horrid creatures called bleeding-heart liberal environmentalists.

So... why do we hate the title so much?????

(Sorry guys... lots of upsetting things in the news this weekend... There will be a few of these posts today -)

-- Sue Diederich (willow666@rocketmail.com), April 23, 2001

Answers

I think it is because of a few vocal fanatics who do stupid things and are intolerant of everyone who doesn't agree completely with their radical ideas. I was surprised once to have a new friend refer to me as an animal lover. Of course I do love animals; I love God's green earth. But, unfortunately, nowadays, when you hear the term animal lover you don't think of people like us, you think of people like Peta.

-- mary, texas (marylgarcia@aol.com), April 23, 2001.

Well, I first want to say that I feel there are some very simple rules for living....treat the earth well, as God created it and we are to be it's custodians. The command was to go forth and subdue, not to go forth and rape and pillage. As to the bleeding heart liberal title, those whom would accept such an adage seem to be in denial of responsibility and consequence. Letting people get what's coming to them because of their own actions or inactions, is how I see it.

I don't get upset if someone calls me an environmentalist, because I am one. I care about the earth and I care about the effects of greed upon it. I don't think that the term is used any longer to describe a reasoned approach. Extinction is indeed a natural part of the creation. It will happen. I think it's ludicrous to put a particular brand of cockroach or bug on the endangered species list and raise revenue for environmental impact studies to be done on land that an individual has purchased to see if a cave bug might live there so the person can't build a home. This is happening in the Austin area, and I find it simply ridiculous. I do realize the cave cricket might see it from a different light, but they aren't even really endangered. There's bazillions of them.

It's being used to restrict individual property ownership and usage to get the land into the hands of both government and corporations who keep the government in their pocket, all to the detriment of the environment and the lifeforms that DO depend upon the earth...literally everything we know of, from what I can tell.

I honestly don't think it's possible for a bureaucracy to care for the land better than an owner. My opinion, anyway.

And a belated happy Earthday to you too! To me it's everyday;)

-- Doreen (bisquit@here.com), April 23, 2001.

Taking care of the earth is of the utmost importance, but so is taking care of humans. The "environmentalist" are out of balance. They(some not all) go nuts over killing baby owls, but have no problem aborting human babies. I believe some day we'll regret what we've allowed to happen to the earth.

-- Cindy (SE In) (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), April 24, 2001.

I couldn't agree more with what Doreen said about bureaucracies and owners... I guess I am a little more liberal than that, though. I think that the family who owns a woodlot for profit, a miner, farmer, yes, YES - they are in a much better position to take care of their own land. They usually are smart enough to realize that if they cut down all the trees in one year, all the replanting in the world won't produce an income for at least 20 more. (for example)

However, I am not too sure about corporations such as Potlach, BCC, power companies etc, whose bottom line is only the profit. If the public is uneducated, then how are they supposed to do these things? It is the major corporations in the country (and world, another subject altogether!) that do the research, but usually do not use or disseminate it. If law could be fair (and it never has been) then all those regulations would be applied equally...

Personally, I think they ought to abandon ALL of the environmental regs... Then, as someone else said - they'd all get what they deserve. But then would we be here to pick up the pieces??? I know I'd personally be laughing my buns off from one of the three places I would possibly be....

I don't support as many of the orgs as I used to - mainly because I don't like their little 'pet projects'. I just think that the vast majority of 'normal' Americans are too stupid and lazy to put their dollars where there mouths are, and therefore we really do NEED some (NOT all) of the regs right now. But, even in my own family, the term is akin to being Satan himself. Folks here would probably do that (stop buying from companies that hurt... people... environments... animals) - but I really don't think most others would.

Guess I just have way too much time on my hands lately.......

-- Sue Diederich (willow666@rocketmail.com), April 24, 2001.