fwiw, I happened to be rereading RISK AND CULTURE (Douglas and
Wildavsky, 1982) last night and ran across the following passage in
the authors' discussion of the sectarian tendencies of
". . . It follows that in the course of its life history, the sect
engages from time to time in a debate on whose outcome hangs the
integrity of its purposes. This crucial debate is about the right to
use violence against oppressive government. Once arbitrary violence
wins over legitimate authority, the sect has betrayed its faith"
--from the chapter "The Dialogue is Political"
>FYI, I did some minor edits on this to make it more readable.
>|He Says He Wants a
>|A former ELF figure defends the historic role of violence in
>|BY AMY ROE
>_____ Craig Rosebraugh has an incendiary message for fellow activists:
>Violence may be necessary to achieve political change in America.
>"We must use a range of tactics, legal and illegal, violent and
>nonviolent," the former spokesman for the Earth Liberation Front told
>Rosebraugh is scheduled to speak on "The Legitimacy of Political
>Violence: Lessons in Reform and Revolution" at Laughing Horse Books at 7
>Friday, Jan. 10. The lecture will draw on his master's thesis on the
>history of political violence in America. He received his degree in
>Vermont's Goddard College.
>Bombing and assassination, Rosebraugh says, can in some circumstances be
>legitimate forms of self-defense against political oppression:
>"Terrorism can be OK, can be justified. We use terrorism in the U.S.
>every day. Our government does it every day. It can be effective. But I
>do believe you have to have letter writing. You can't draw a line
>and political violence."