Dear All,
Can't quite recall everyone's stance on this issue but I don't consider
violence to be peculiar to people...what about the violence perpetrated
against eco-systems/the environment? Does development constitute an act of
violence?
Regards
Emma
>From: Steven Bissell <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: "This list has been established to provide a discussion forum,
> and information, for" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: ECOTERRORISTS STRIKE LONG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION SITE
>Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000 08:13:24 -0700
>
>Just to make it very clear; I *do not* equate destruction of property to
>violence against persons. That is your charge, not my position. If you have
>a response to my position, fine. But do not attribute opinions to me and
>then discredit them, you are engaged in the construction of straw men and
>it
>is not productive. I said nothing about materialism, neutron bombs, or
>capitalism. My position is simply that terrorism is violent whether or not
>the acts are against persons or property.
>
>For example, say I start calling you every night and threatening you. Then
>I
>burn a cross in your yard and vandalize your car. I follow you around and
>call you names; are you saying "No harm, no violence"?? Are you *really*
>taking the position that violence is *only* harm against persons?
>Steven
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: This list has been established to provide a discussion forum, and
>information, for [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
>Chiaviello, Anthony
>Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 4:36 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: ECOTERRORISTS STRIKE LONG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION SITE
>
>
>That's what EarthFirst! does: direct action. And I think they cite Abbey as
>their model.
>And though I'm not saying I approve of ELF or burning houses, I just cannot
>accept destruction per se as violence. It may be destructive, but it does
>not hurt people. Equating property with personhood is a capitalist ruse,
>now
>internalized by many in the materialist society. Destroying property
>without
>injuring people is arguably a more ethical way to conduct combat, also.
>Such is diametrically opposed to the neutron bomb of President Carter, for
>example, which would kill people but leave buildings intact: the essential
>capitalist bomb!
>-Tc
>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 5:25 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: ECOTERRORISTS STRIKE LONG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION SITE
> >
> > Asking someone in EarthFirst! about Abbey is beside the point. Why would
>I
> > consider EarthFirst! members as authorities on direct action or
> > non-violence?
> > Steven
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: This list has been established to provide a discussion forum, and
> > information, for [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
> > Chiaviello, Anthony
> > Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 4:19 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: ECOTERRORISTS STRIKE LONG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION SITE
> >
> >
> > Well, I beg to differ. Abbey is considered an inspiration, if not a
> > theorist, of direct action - just ask anyone in EarthFirst!
> > Also, having read his fiction, I wouldn't call it "good," fairly
> > commercial and entertaining, but hardly good fiction. I read Hayduke
>Lives
> > recently and was not impressed. I'm not familiar with his poetry.
> > But it is not deifying him to point out that monkeywrenching is
> > acknowledged as legitimate direct action and is not considered
>"violence."
> > I guess it would be if the bulldozers, for example, could suffer pain (a
> > la
> > Singer), but I think we're a ways yet from personifying machines (not
>that
> > an effort isn't on the horizon!).
> > -Tc
> > 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 5:10 PM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: ECOTERRORISTS STRIKE LONG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION SITE
> > >
> > > I really dislike this sort of thing. Taking a can of gasoline and
> > burning
> > > down a house is violence whether someone is in the house or not. And,
>as
> > > much as I admire Abbey's writing, he is not a reference for either
> > direct
> > > action or the use of violence; he was a writer of good fiction and bad
> > > poetry, let's not deify him.
> > > Steven
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: This list has been established to provide a discussion forum,
>and
> > > information, for [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
> > > Chiaviello, Anthony
> > > Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 3:01 PM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: Re: ECOTERRORISTS STRIKE LONG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION SITE
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > > 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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: This list has been established to provide a discussion forum,
> > and
> > > > information, for [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of
>Jim
> > > > Tantillo
> > > > Sent: Friday, December 08, 2000 6:27 AM
> > > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > > Subject: fwd: ECOTERRORISTS STRIKE LONG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION SITE
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Once again, I get the sense that the primary motivating factor here
>is
> > > not
> > > > so much love of nature as it is hatred of rich people. I don't
>think
> > > > ecoterrorists (Earth Liberators) (Nature Warriors) (whatever) do
> > anyone
> > > > any
> > > > good with activities and statements like these. just imho.
> > > > Jim T.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://ens-news.com/ens/dec2000/2000L-12-07-09.html
> > > >
> > > > ECOTERRORISTS STRIKE LONG ISLAND CONSTRUCTION SITE
> > > >
> > > > LONG ISLAND, New York, December 7, 2000 (ENS) - Last Friday, members
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > Earth Liberation Front (ELF) attacked a development site in Middle
> > > Island,
> > > > Long Island, leaving a trail of property destruction in their wake.
> > The
> > > > ELF
> > > > smashed more than 200 windows of houses already erected, pulled up
> > > survey
> > > > stakes to delay clear cutting, spraypainted structures with slogans
> > > > denoucing urban sprawl, and sabotaged 12 construction vehicles. The
> > > attack
> > > > aimed to protect some of Long Island's last untouched ecosystems
>from
> > > > urban
> > > > sprawl. Urban sprawl is responsible for the alteration of more than
>90
> > > > percent of all ecosystems on Long Island, either though paving,
> > > > introduction of toxic man made materials, or from human intrusion
>into
> > > > wildlife habitats, the activists charged. The ELF activists said
>their
> > > > action sets a precedent that Long Island's unique Pine Barren
> > ecosystem
> > > > will not vanish without a fight.
> > > >
> > > > "Urban sprawl not only destroys the forest and green spaces of our
> > > > planet,
> > > > but also leads directly to added runoff of pollutants into
>waterways,
> > > > increased traffic that causes congestion and air pollution, and a
>less
> > > > pleasing landscape," the activists said in an anonymous communique.
> > > "These
> > > > luxury homes are being built precariously close to the 320 acre
> > > Cathedral
> > > > Pines County Park. Long Island has the 2nd largest pine barren
> > ecosystem
> > > > in
> > > > the world. Our greedy and corrupt politicians are more than willing
>to
> > > > provide subsidies and allow construction in any area not under
>current
> > > > protection by the Long Island Pine Barren Protection Plan. Our
> > forests
> > > > also lay ontop of our aquifer which provides a large expanse of
> > drinking
> > > > water that is easily contaminated by pollutants and runoff. We will
> > not
> > > > stand by idly while our Earth is butchered for the monetary gain and
> > the
> > > > luxury of the wealthy elite."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > * * *
> > > >
> > >
> >
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
|
