By Dan Bloom
CHIAYI CITY, Taiwan — Edward L. Rubin is a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School and a former dean there. He is also the author of several important academic books, among them Soul, Self, and Society: The New Morality and the Modern State, published last year by Oxford University Press.
Born in Brooklyn and raised “in the Jewish prophetic tradition” as he told me in a recent email, Rubin says that some important stories from the Bible remain with him even today.
”I remember being impressed when I was a teenager with the enormous courage that Nathan shows when he accuses King David of murder, and that Jeremiah shows when he tells the people that disaster is coming and that it is their own fault,” he told me. “And the main character in a novel I am publishing soon is named Daniel, and is loosely based on the Biblical figure, who is wise, loyal to his friends, and true to his principles.”
In a related legal news issue, a friend of mine in Britain, an environmental lawyer named Paul Collins, 42, has recently published a letter to the editor in Resurgence and Ecologist magazine making a heartfelt plea for an important kind of “climate apology” that has been long overdue. In addition, he has written a short story titled “The Apology” along the same lines as the letter and it is set to be published in the fall in a climate-themed anthology of short stories.
“Over the past few years, we have witnessed a number of apologies offered by nations for historical and more recent injustices, ranging from enslavement to war crimes,” Collins wrote in his letter. “It’s now time for nations to apologize for environmental injustices, including the effects of climate change.”
Citing the U.S. as a prime example of a nation that needs to say “sorry” and lead by example, Collins wrote: ”There is a long list of historical environmental injustices that [America] has inflicted upon its own peoples and cultures, and globally.”
“Environmental racism, where environmental laws, policies and practices have differentially affected individuals, groups or communities based on race or color, the watered-down approach of American companies towards corporate social responsibility, and its significant contribution towards climate change all form part of a shameful record,” he added.
“The United States of America is a proud nation, a courageous nation. But it must be honest with itself. Its future must be based on mutual respect, mutual resolve and mutual responsibility. The damaging and dangerous notions, fantasies and myths of American exceptionalism and manifest destiny that continue to influence political ideology must be consigned to history.
”Patriotism demands embracing a sense of belonging to a community and showing an allegiance through meeting its moral obligation to make amends for a nation’s past wrongs,” Collins said. “Only by willingly acknowledging its responsibility for discharging its moral obligations to apologise can America take pride in itself and restore and maintain its dignity and self-esteem.”
I asked Collins what he hopes his letter to the editor and his short story will achieve, in terms of raising awareness of global environmental injustices.
He told San Diego Jewish World in a recent email: ” I hope, at least in some small way, to raise the potential role of an apology — a sort of green repentance, if you like — in properly acknowledging the harm inflicted on the victims of such injustice and enriching the political dialogue on environmental injustice, to achieve a lasting and positive change.”
Wanting more amplification about the legal issues involved here, I asked Professor Rubin at Vanderbilt how he saw Collins’ letter and the ideas it raises.
“Collins is raising a fascinating issue, and it’s complicated,” Rubin told me. “I’ve actually thought of writing an academic book about the issues some day. ”
“I have a distinctive view, e.g., the United States does not owe African Americans reparations for slavery, but does owe reparations to them for failing to break up the plantations and distribute the land to them following the Civil War (Sherman did this when he marched through South Carolina, but Congress reversed him).”
”The basic idea is that, to hold a nation responsible for reparations on the basis of a past wrong, two conditions must be met: 1. It must be the same nation, although not necessarily the same government and 2. the wrong must be recognized as a wrong when it was committed.”
”So I’d conclude that the US doesn’t owe reparations for slavery because the first condition doesn’t apply; North American slavery was instituted by Britain when there was no US. It took us 60 years to work our way out of it, but that’s not a long time to dismantle an entrenched economic system, and we were willing to fight a savage war to achieve the goal. But we owe reparations for failing to give the former slaves enough land to secure their independence; we’re obviously the same nation, and we knew the freed slaves would be vulnerable to domination by landowners if we didn’t (Russia freed the serfs at the same time, and it did provide them with land). ”
So here’s what Rubin said he thinks about Collin’s letter.
”Even though the U.S. did a lot of environmental damage in the past, it didn’t know that burning fossil fuel would have disastrous climate effects until 1980 or so. We did know it made the air dirty, but we responded with the Clean Air Act. After 1980, we were entitled to a couple of decades to make sure the effects were real and work out ways to alter our embedded industrial and personal practices. But now we know, and we should have begun to take action.”
“Collins makes an excellent point. Maybe we can excuse ourselves for what we did in the past because we didn’t know that we were changing the climate, and then because we needed time to work out solutions.
“But we know by now, and we should have acted by now. We will definitely owe reparations in the future to other nations for every year from now on that allow national policy to be controlled by energy industry lobbyists and irrational climate change deniers. And future generations in our own nation will look back on us with the same shame and horror that we look back on slaveholders.”
*
Bloom, based in Taiwan, is an inveterate web surfer and an environmental advocate. You may comment to him at dan.bloom@sdjewishworld.com or post your comment on this website provided that the rules below are observed.
Care to comment? We require the following information on any letter for publication: 1) Your full name 2) Your city and state (or country) of residence. Letters lacking such information will be automatically deleted. San Diego Jewish World is intended as a forum for the entire Jewish community, whatever your political leanings. Letters may be posted below provided they are responsive to the article that prompted them, and civil in their tone. Ad hominem attacks against any religion, country, gender, race, sexual orientation, or physical disability will not be considered for publication. There is a limit of one letter per writer on any given day.
__________________________________________________________________
To the Editors: I noted that “city and state” are required for consideration of any comments, but the field for this is not provided. I hope that the insertion in the closing meets this requirement.
Dear Mr. Bloom:
I am grateful to you for calling attention to the ongoing “soft-pedaling” of the human role in climate change by nations and industry. Professor Rubin’s remark that he’s considered writing “an academic book about the issues some day” immediately caught my attention. I strongly encourage Professor Rubin to follow that instinct and to begin soon. Frankly, I would welcome the opportunity to assist with such a project.
To that end I would like to direct your attention – and his – to the 15th c. Vatican and the three Papal Bulls issued by Popes Nicholas V and Alexander VI forming a direct link to the promulgation of the “Doctrine of Discovery”. As noted by Michael Swan in his article in the “National Catholic Reporter” (Oct. 2, 2014) this is “a legal principle which has PASSED FROM CHURCH LAW INTO COMMON LAW”. (Emphasis added.) There can be no doubt that the effects of this doctrine continue to impact the lives of indigenous people, and indeed the entire planet more than 500 years later. Both climate change and the abomination of slavery flow directly from this doctrine – as do other horrors.
For around 30 years there has been an effort by indigenous people and others to urge the Vatican to rescind the three specific Bulls linked to the doctrine of discovery. To my knowledge, these efforts have met with little success. In Michael Swan’s article he notes that this was actually done by Pope Paul III as early as 1537 in “Sublimus Dei”. This was later followed by the quip that the Spanish and Portuguese kings seem to have lost “Sublimus Dei” in their spam folders”. Despite my reputation for having a marvelously quirky sense of humor, I was not amused. Swan went on to note that John Paul II had issued two very public apologies, with pleas for forgiveness of past wrongs. Although Swan certainly did not say this, I finished the article with a sense that demanding further action by Vatican is not really needed, Perhaps not “advisable at this time”?
Let me stress that this is MY conclusion, informed by a bit of additional online research that hinted at potential consequences for both governments and industry should the Vatican take such a formal step. I believe an investigation into the specifics of precisely who and what these potential impacts might be would be both fascinating and necessary. An earlier “NCR” article by Joan Chittister (April 24, 2009) speaks much more eloquently on the subject, prompted by a letter she received from Beatrice Long Visitor Holy Dance, a member of the International Council of Thirteen Indigenous Grandmothers.
There remain in the United States nearly 500 distinct indigenous cultures, broadly sharing the core belief that ALL of creation is sacred and that we are ALL related. Most Catholics brought up in the US learned core religious beliefs from “The Baltimore Cathechism” – presented in Q & A format. Among the first questions asked is “Where is God?” – answer: “God is everywhere”.
What might our world look like and how might we treat each other today had the “discoverers” of new lands approached the native populations with even a trace of humility and a willingness to learn from them how to care for each other and the planet?
Respectfully,
Bobbie Bouvier
La Quinta, CA