Really Deep Thoughts

I returned to the intentional community that I live in (the Los Angeles Eco-Village) this week, after two weeks in Colorado. Curious to see how the most recent building committee meeting had gone, I navigated to our online listserve and read the meeting notes. Discussion topic number two was documented thus:

2. Short stay for 2 people from New Mexico August 26 through September 1. APPROVED. Also, 2 traveling teachers sometime in June. APPROVED. Are they angry vegans?

I’m certainly relieved that my community is asking tough questions about people that will be sharing our space. I know I don’t want any “angry vegans” in this building. What I don’t understand is why this question, with no answer, found its way into the meeting notes? Usually we document knowns and decisions, and if there is an unknown, someone’s name is usually ascribed to the unknown, because that person has agreed to follow up on the weighty question and report back to the community about their findings. Perhaps the point person on this question was erroneously left out of the meeting notes. If so, I would appreciate someone letting me know who the point person is. This is because I have some of my own concerns about these traveling teachers.

I want our point person to call up these teachers and ensure that they are not: terrorist Arabs, poor vehicle-maneuvering Asians, greedy Jews, irrational Women, criminal Blacks, promiscuous Queers, lazy Hispanics, stupid Poor people, unrealistic Liberals, or dirty Hippies. I don’t think we should invite anyone into this community who exhibits these characteristics. I know some of the Eco-Villagers might take a more lenient stand than I am, and claim that laziness or irrationality really aren’t that bad, but I’m willing to block any conversation on this matter at the next meeting because I have seen the kinds of problems that ensue when you begin associating with these Hispanics and Women, etc. All you have to do is turn on the television to see what I’m talking about. The evidence is everywhere. The Arabs, the Asians, the Jews, the Women, the Blacks, the Queers, the Hispanics, the Poor, the Liberals and the Hippies are nothing but trouble. The Vegans, however, I’m not so sure about. I haven’t seen as much evidence of the problems that they cause as the others that I have mentioned.

Clearly, we don’t want angry people in our community just as we don’t want criminals or greedy people. However, aside from the adjective “angry,” the noun “Vegan” indicates something that we DO want at the Los Angeles Eco-Village. Vegans are actively choosing an eating pattern that is the most sustainable eating pattern possible in this urban environment. Nearly three times as many resources are needed to produce a human’s omnivorous diet compared to an entirely plant-based diet. So . . . I’m willing to argue that we, in fact, don’t worry about angry veganism because we have the Conflict Resolution Committee to deal with anger from Vegans, but that we still look closely at the possible Black, Asian, Queer, etc. status of these teachers because being Black, Asian Queer, etc. does not redeem their criminality, poor driving, or promiscuity by our Eco-standards. We’re also not prepared to deal with people with these negative characteristics the way that we are prepared to deal with anger.

I would like to communicate with our point person to express my reservation regarding selecting out Vegans from the community while still allowing the Liberals, Jews, etc. to move in. Frankly, I think this reasoning is a little bit backwards, considering we are the Los Angeles Eco-Village. Yes to Vegans. They are “eco.” No to people of color, women, etc. They are not.

For more ironic negotiated readings of hegemonic messages propagated by residents of the Los Angeles Eco-Village, continue to support and not put in check the straight white males and the women that rely on patriarchy for a sense of worth in the community. These people have every interest in keeping the status quo of the greater society mirrored in our own community, and will, so long as the rest of us are complicit.