>It may be so that ELF is giving direct action a bad name, but on the other
>hand, direct action does not equal violence, as you assert in your first
>paragraph.
>
> Destruction of property is not the essence of violence. Violence
>directly involves humans. Thus, property destruction is direct action that
>avoids harming people, thus, avoids violence. It is sad that our material
>society has so fully bought into the propertied class's conflation of
>violence with property damage. It's just not so. Ref. Ed Abbey on this.
>-Tc
I find the references to Edward Abbey pretty ironic. What little ethical
justification Abbey provided for eco-sabotage in his writings was based on
an argument from analogy to property damage inflicted upon peoples' homes.
Consider the following:
"If a stranger batters your door down with an axe, threatens your
family and yourself with deadly weapons and proceeds to loot your home of
whatever he wants, he is committing what is universally recognized--by law
and in common morality--as a crime. In such a situation the householder has
both the right and the obligation to defend himself, his family and his
property by whatever means necessary. This right and this obligation is
universally recognized, justified and praised by all civilized human
communities. Self-defense against attack is one of the basic laws not only
of human society but of life itself, not only of human life but of all life.
"The American wilderness, what little remains, is now
undergoing exactly such an assult. With bulldozer, Earth mover, chainsaw
and dynamite the international timber, mining and beef industries are
invading out public lands--property of all Americans--bashing their way
into our forests, mountains and rangelands and looting them for everything
they can get away with. . . .
" And if the wilderness is our true home, and if it is
threatened with invasion, pillage and destruction--as it certainly is--then
we have the right to defend that home, as we would our private quarters, by
whatever means are necessary. We have the right to resist and we have the
obligation; not to defend that which we love would be dishonorable. . . .
"How best defend our homes? Well, that is a matter of the
strategy, tactics and techniques which eco-defense is all about.
"What is eco-defense? Eco-defense means fighting back.
Eco-defense means sabotage. Eco-defense is risky but sporting; unauthorized
but fun; illegal but ethically imperative. Next time you enter a public
forest scheduled for chainsaw massacre by some timber corporation and its
flunkies in the US Forest Service, carry a hammer and a few pounds of
60-penny nails in your creel, saddlebag, game bag, backpack or picnic
basket. Spike those trees; you won't hurt them; they'll be grateful for the
protection; and you may save the forest. Loggers hate nails. My Aunt Emma
back in West Virginia has been enjoying this pleasant exercise for years.
She swears by it. It's good for the trees, it's good for the woods and it's
good for the human soul. Spread the word."
From _One Life at a Time, Please_, pp. 29-32 (NY: Henry Holt, 1988); these
excerpts also at: http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/Vines/9432/
Jim here: I'd hazard the guess that trashing peoples' homes--empty or
not--is hardly the kind of "eco-defense" Abbey originally had in mind.
For another view of similar ELF actions, see Ernest Partridge's essay, "Put
Down that Monkey Wrench!" (at
http://www.igc.org/gadfly/liberal/monkeywrench.htm ) which was inspired by
a previous discussion of this topic on this list earlier this year.
Jim T.
>
>Anthony R. S. Chiaviello, Ph.D.
>Assistant Professor, Professional Writing
>Department of English
>University of Houston-Downtown
>One Main Street
>Houston, TX 77009
>713.221.8520/713.868.3979
>"Question Reality"
>
>> ----------
>> From: Steven Bissell[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 9:26 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: ECOTERRORISTS STRIKE LONG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION SITE
>>
>> We had a growth initiative fail in the recent election. Apparently some
>> who
>> were for the initiative and claim to be ELF have been burning or
>> threatening
>> to burn houses in Boulder county. As I recall my reading of direct action
>> writers the idea of direct action (which really means "violence") is that
>> it
>> should be directed at the source of oppression and you should be willing
>> to
>> place yourself in danger of either harm or capture when you do it; hence
>> the
>> old idea of the bomb throwing anarchist, that is literally what you are
>> suppose to do. What ELF seems to be doing is not much more than vandalism,
>> and to disguise it as environmental direct action really pisses me off.
>>
>> I was involved in the Vietnam protest and direct action associated with
>> the
>> first Earth Day. I was threatened with arrest and placed on a list of
>> potential "terrorists" by the sheriff's office. I am not a pacifist nor do
>> I
>> shrink from civil disobedience of the more violent nature. From what I've
>> seen so far, ELF is giving direct action a bad name.
>>
>> Steven
>>
>>
|