Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Derrick Jensen at Vets Hall 03-29-06
Part 1 of a Talk given by Derrick Jensen at The Santa Cruz Vets Hall on 03-29-06.
Listen now:
Recorded by George Cadman
Edited/Uploaded by Skidmark Bob
Derrick Jensen, an American author who lives in Northern California, has published several books which challenge contemporary society and cultural values, including The Culture of Make Believe (2002), and many essays.
Jensen emphasizes the hate, dishonesty, and destructiveness in contemporary industrialized culture. He argues that this culture will soon collapse because of the damage being done to the planet.
Jensen proposes that a different way of life is possible, and it can be seen in many past societies including many Native American cultures. This different way of life is characterized by honesty, appreciation of beauty, and connection with the natural world.
Politically Jensen's work is in favor of a revolution in values, the self, and society. His ideas are often in line with eco-anarchism, anarcho-primitivism and neo-Tribalism.
Common themes in Jensen's work include discussion of his abusive father, the similarity of different forms of oppression in industrial society, the role of lying in maintaining systematic oppression, interspecies communication, and what he sees as the need to bring down civilization.
Related authors include Jack Forbes (Columbus and Other Cannibals), Dave Edwards, Daniel Quinn (Ishmael, The Man Who Grew Young), John Zerzan (Against Civilization: A Reader and Elements of Refusal), Neil Evernden (The Natural Alien), Stanley Diamond (In Search of the Primitive: A Critique of Civilization) and Lewis Mumford (Technics and Human Development and The Pentagon of Power).
He has taught creative writing at Pelican Bay State Prison and Eastern Washington University.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Edited/Uploaded by Skidmark Bob
Derrick Jensen, an American author who lives in Northern California, has published several books which challenge contemporary society and cultural values, including The Culture of Make Believe (2002), and many essays.
Jensen emphasizes the hate, dishonesty, and destructiveness in contemporary industrialized culture. He argues that this culture will soon collapse because of the damage being done to the planet.
Jensen proposes that a different way of life is possible, and it can be seen in many past societies including many Native American cultures. This different way of life is characterized by honesty, appreciation of beauty, and connection with the natural world.
Politically Jensen's work is in favor of a revolution in values, the self, and society. His ideas are often in line with eco-anarchism, anarcho-primitivism and neo-Tribalism.
Common themes in Jensen's work include discussion of his abusive father, the similarity of different forms of oppression in industrial society, the role of lying in maintaining systematic oppression, interspecies communication, and what he sees as the need to bring down civilization.
Related authors include Jack Forbes (Columbus and Other Cannibals), Dave Edwards, Daniel Quinn (Ishmael, The Man Who Grew Young), John Zerzan (Against Civilization: A Reader and Elements of Refusal), Neil Evernden (The Natural Alien), Stanley Diamond (In Search of the Primitive: A Critique of Civilization) and Lewis Mumford (Technics and Human Development and The Pentagon of Power).
He has taught creative writing at Pelican Bay State Prison and Eastern Washington University.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For more information:
http://www.derrickjensen.org/
Listen now:
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
I've attended three (I think!) talks by Derrick and have read all or part of several of his books. While I don't share his total anti-civilization critique, I really like the way he demolishes the ideology of non-violence. I don't know how much he dealt with that in Santa Cruz, but he covered it thoroughly in his talk at AK Press in Oakland last month. If nobody uploads a really good copy of that talk, I may upload mine.
Im not clear what ideology of nonviolence you are talking about. Nader would have supported US military actions in Rwanda and probably would also have acted similarly to Clinton against Serbia. "Liberals" scold radicals for violence at protests in a very paternalistic fashion but its not about pacifism since the same liberals support some US wars. Even when you go beyond military violence most centrist liberals also support much of the violence comitted by the police including violence directed against radical kids comitting small scale property damage (which its hard to really call violence).
When people like Ward Churchill and Derrick Jensen denounce "pacifism as pathology", they are just attacking a straw man in a very similar way to that done by right-wing talk radio. Sure some rich radicals exist who drive volvos, shop at Global Exchange, listen to NPR and talk in New Agey terms about non-violence, but its more a characture than a reality in terms of any large politically influencial group of people. MoveOn is too centrist to talk about non-violence on one side (since they wont even really oppose the US occupation) while groups like ANSWER and Global Exchange are too radical (since both support nationalist groups fighting the US).
The real violence vs nonviolence debate isnt about pacifism but tactical effectiveness of certain actions at protests. And strangely while Ward Churchill and Derrick Jensen both market themselves as bad-ass militants, they both openly admit they would never do anything since there is a need for a firewall between those preaching violence and those carrying it out (and while Jensen tells people to destroy dams in vague terms when asked for specifics his proposed actions are the same ones as the pacifists he makes fun of). While Churchill and Jensen may actually believe their own hype, they are missing the fact that the reason most people dont support violence at protests is exactly the reason that Churchill and Jensen would oppose violence at protests in which they take active roles (legal issues and getting a clear message to the media). Even stranger is that the class issues both talk about are backwards; rich kids can ideologically debate violence vs nonviolence in the abstract but those subject to violence by the police here (and the police and military in other countries) are more often in positions where turning the other cheak in the face of violence is required if one doesnt want to get killed.
One last thing on Ghandi (who Jensen likes to attack). 99% of the people who would claim to love Ghandi also support violence for political ends and in fact many of most right-wing militant parties in India are among those the most proud of Ghandi (despite his being killed by a group linked to the early RSS which is also linked to the current VJP and BJP). For racist white intellectuals in the US, Ghandi is a new age guru figure but the feel I get for him from Indian nationalists would be much more similar to Iranian views on Khomeini. For Ghandi, non-violence almost seems to have been part of the gimic that lead to his political influence since he played up Jainist ideas of Ahimsa in a way that made him an almost mythical figure
Here is a related article I found on this:
"Consciously or unconsciously, the Mahatma fully exploited the mass
psychology of the people.... He was exploiting many of the weak traits in
the character of his countrymen [like inordinate belief in fate and in the
supernatural. indifference to modern scientific development, etc.] which
had accounted for India's downfall to a large extent.... In some parts of
the country the Mahatma began to be worshipped as an Avatar [incarnation of
God]."
The appeal of Gandhi as a leader to the masses, as David Petrie Director
of the Intelligence Bureau, Government of India, from 1924 to 1931 rightly
said, "was semi-divine" and his "influence was far more religious than
political".
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/1997m11.a/msg00039.htm
Ghandi is today an inspiration for violence to the same extent that Jesus is; the logic of those in Gujarat was partly that of demonizing the evil violent Muslims as opposed to normally nonviolent Hindus and using this logic to justify violence (seems a bit too contradictory for people to actually believe but listen to right-wing religous radio here and you hear the same message about Muslims and US wars coming from Christians who will portray Christianity as being about peace and Islam about war in one segment and then use this to justify US wars in the next)
Someone like Jimmy Swagart (asking the public to do things or God would kill him) is much more similar to someone following the teaching of Ghandi than the straw man pacifists denounced by Churchill and Derrick Jensen.
When people like Ward Churchill and Derrick Jensen denounce "pacifism as pathology", they are just attacking a straw man in a very similar way to that done by right-wing talk radio. Sure some rich radicals exist who drive volvos, shop at Global Exchange, listen to NPR and talk in New Agey terms about non-violence, but its more a characture than a reality in terms of any large politically influencial group of people. MoveOn is too centrist to talk about non-violence on one side (since they wont even really oppose the US occupation) while groups like ANSWER and Global Exchange are too radical (since both support nationalist groups fighting the US).
The real violence vs nonviolence debate isnt about pacifism but tactical effectiveness of certain actions at protests. And strangely while Ward Churchill and Derrick Jensen both market themselves as bad-ass militants, they both openly admit they would never do anything since there is a need for a firewall between those preaching violence and those carrying it out (and while Jensen tells people to destroy dams in vague terms when asked for specifics his proposed actions are the same ones as the pacifists he makes fun of). While Churchill and Jensen may actually believe their own hype, they are missing the fact that the reason most people dont support violence at protests is exactly the reason that Churchill and Jensen would oppose violence at protests in which they take active roles (legal issues and getting a clear message to the media). Even stranger is that the class issues both talk about are backwards; rich kids can ideologically debate violence vs nonviolence in the abstract but those subject to violence by the police here (and the police and military in other countries) are more often in positions where turning the other cheak in the face of violence is required if one doesnt want to get killed.
One last thing on Ghandi (who Jensen likes to attack). 99% of the people who would claim to love Ghandi also support violence for political ends and in fact many of most right-wing militant parties in India are among those the most proud of Ghandi (despite his being killed by a group linked to the early RSS which is also linked to the current VJP and BJP). For racist white intellectuals in the US, Ghandi is a new age guru figure but the feel I get for him from Indian nationalists would be much more similar to Iranian views on Khomeini. For Ghandi, non-violence almost seems to have been part of the gimic that lead to his political influence since he played up Jainist ideas of Ahimsa in a way that made him an almost mythical figure
Here is a related article I found on this:
"Consciously or unconsciously, the Mahatma fully exploited the mass
psychology of the people.... He was exploiting many of the weak traits in
the character of his countrymen [like inordinate belief in fate and in the
supernatural. indifference to modern scientific development, etc.] which
had accounted for India's downfall to a large extent.... In some parts of
the country the Mahatma began to be worshipped as an Avatar [incarnation of
God]."
The appeal of Gandhi as a leader to the masses, as David Petrie Director
of the Intelligence Bureau, Government of India, from 1924 to 1931 rightly
said, "was semi-divine" and his "influence was far more religious than
political".
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/1997m11.a/msg00039.htm
Ghandi is today an inspiration for violence to the same extent that Jesus is; the logic of those in Gujarat was partly that of demonizing the evil violent Muslims as opposed to normally nonviolent Hindus and using this logic to justify violence (seems a bit too contradictory for people to actually believe but listen to right-wing religous radio here and you hear the same message about Muslims and US wars coming from Christians who will portray Christianity as being about peace and Islam about war in one segment and then use this to justify US wars in the next)
Someone like Jimmy Swagart (asking the public to do things or God would kill him) is much more similar to someone following the teaching of Ghandi than the straw man pacifists denounced by Churchill and Derrick Jensen.
> but tactical effectiveness of certain actions at protests.
No it's not. It's not about protest violence at all. The issue of violence at protests is moot. It has been settled by history for decades, some say centuries. Even the most successful use of protest violence in history has failed to topple the class system. It just gave the bosses' jobs to new guys, that's all. Usually, it doesn't even do that. Occasionally, it leads to mild, cosmetic reform. Usually, it accomplishes nothing.
This doesn't mean it's not fun, but it does mean it's not a very effective way to change the world. If it was, it would have happened by now. That's because violent protests are just as symbolic as non violent protests. Neither are a threat. Symbols are not threats. Non protest violence is a threat. Non protest violence is not symbolic. Non protest violence is is concrete. How effective it is depends on the its scale, timing and geographic distribution. The pathology of pacifism is that it prevents people who would like to see the world change, from being willing to do the ground word necessary to mount enough successful non protest violence, of sufficient scale, in enough places at the same time, to actually have an effect.
No it's not. It's not about protest violence at all. The issue of violence at protests is moot. It has been settled by history for decades, some say centuries. Even the most successful use of protest violence in history has failed to topple the class system. It just gave the bosses' jobs to new guys, that's all. Usually, it doesn't even do that. Occasionally, it leads to mild, cosmetic reform. Usually, it accomplishes nothing.
This doesn't mean it's not fun, but it does mean it's not a very effective way to change the world. If it was, it would have happened by now. That's because violent protests are just as symbolic as non violent protests. Neither are a threat. Symbols are not threats. Non protest violence is a threat. Non protest violence is not symbolic. Non protest violence is is concrete. How effective it is depends on the its scale, timing and geographic distribution. The pathology of pacifism is that it prevents people who would like to see the world change, from being willing to do the ground word necessary to mount enough successful non protest violence, of sufficient scale, in enough places at the same time, to actually have an effect.
"The issue of violence at protests is moot. It has been settled by history for decades, some say centuries. Even the most successful use of protest violence in history has failed to topple the class system."
What has?
"Non protest violence is a threat."
You mean like mugging people and rape or do you have something specific in mind. Jensen talks about blowing up dams but to tell anarchists kids to do that is basically telling them to do nothing since its unrealistic for just about anyone.
"Non protest violence is not symbolic."
Nost non protest violence may not be symbolic but most non proetst violence is not something I can see anyone supporting as moral (unless you happen to like bar fights, bullys beating up kids on the playground, managers intimidating employees etc...) Employees beating up corrupt managers may seem great, but the reason people dont do it isnt a matter of abstraction; Jensen talks about how society only sees violence as bad when it goes the wrong way on the power hierachy but thats less about ideology than practicality (if a mob boss bumps into you on the street nobody would see it as morally wrong for you to yell at him but that doesnt mean public moral views will protect you)
"Non protest violence is is concrete. How effective it is depends on the its scale, timing and geographic distribution."
No clear what your getting at. Once its organized its either a form of protest or its military action I guess.
"The pathology of pacifism is that it prevents people who would like to see the world change, from being willing to do the ground word necessary to mount enough successful non protest violence, of sufficient scale, in enough places at the same time, to actually have an effect."
Thats what Republicans and many centrist liberals said about people who didnt support overthrowing Hussein. Its pretty hard to find a liberal pacifist, one finds new agey radical pacifists but few mainstream liberal pacifists. If you actually talk to the few pacifists out there I dont really see them as the type of people who would be into violent revolution if they did support the use of violence (more likely they would support things like Kosovo and Somalia) Talking about the pathology of pacifism is really just appealing to rich white guilt and allows people with boring mainstream lives to feel edgy (its really quite similar to the appeal of gangster rap or perhaps even professional wrestling)
The "violence" of blac bloc protests, the Black Panthers, Earth First! or even ALF can be productive but for purely symbolic reasons. The violence of Hamas, Sadr, the Taliban or Sri Lankan seperatists will perhaps result in change but in all cases the risks of new groups gaining power almost directly relate to power structures needed to coordinate violent action. Thats not to say that nonviolent action could resist US occupation better than violent action, but ultimately Iraq's future is up to Sistani and he keeps himself seperated enough from the common people that he could effectively lead a violent revolution while preaching nonviolence just as easilly as he could preaching armed struggle.
What has?
"Non protest violence is a threat."
You mean like mugging people and rape or do you have something specific in mind. Jensen talks about blowing up dams but to tell anarchists kids to do that is basically telling them to do nothing since its unrealistic for just about anyone.
"Non protest violence is not symbolic."
Nost non protest violence may not be symbolic but most non proetst violence is not something I can see anyone supporting as moral (unless you happen to like bar fights, bullys beating up kids on the playground, managers intimidating employees etc...) Employees beating up corrupt managers may seem great, but the reason people dont do it isnt a matter of abstraction; Jensen talks about how society only sees violence as bad when it goes the wrong way on the power hierachy but thats less about ideology than practicality (if a mob boss bumps into you on the street nobody would see it as morally wrong for you to yell at him but that doesnt mean public moral views will protect you)
"Non protest violence is is concrete. How effective it is depends on the its scale, timing and geographic distribution."
No clear what your getting at. Once its organized its either a form of protest or its military action I guess.
"The pathology of pacifism is that it prevents people who would like to see the world change, from being willing to do the ground word necessary to mount enough successful non protest violence, of sufficient scale, in enough places at the same time, to actually have an effect."
Thats what Republicans and many centrist liberals said about people who didnt support overthrowing Hussein. Its pretty hard to find a liberal pacifist, one finds new agey radical pacifists but few mainstream liberal pacifists. If you actually talk to the few pacifists out there I dont really see them as the type of people who would be into violent revolution if they did support the use of violence (more likely they would support things like Kosovo and Somalia) Talking about the pathology of pacifism is really just appealing to rich white guilt and allows people with boring mainstream lives to feel edgy (its really quite similar to the appeal of gangster rap or perhaps even professional wrestling)
The "violence" of blac bloc protests, the Black Panthers, Earth First! or even ALF can be productive but for purely symbolic reasons. The violence of Hamas, Sadr, the Taliban or Sri Lankan seperatists will perhaps result in change but in all cases the risks of new groups gaining power almost directly relate to power structures needed to coordinate violent action. Thats not to say that nonviolent action could resist US occupation better than violent action, but ultimately Iraq's future is up to Sistani and he keeps himself seperated enough from the common people that he could effectively lead a violent revolution while preaching nonviolence just as easilly as he could preaching armed struggle.
Hey Aaron
Put your version of this talk up, and send me an email to the link!
Put your version of this talk up, and send me an email to the link!
<<<And strangely while Ward Churchill and Derrick Jensen both market themselves as bad-ass militants, they both openly admit they would never do anything since there is a need for a firewall between those preaching violence and those carrying it out (and while Jensen tells people to destroy dams in vague terms when asked for specifics his proposed actions are the same ones as the pacifists he makes fun of). >>>
First of all, saying that Derrick Jensen "markets" himself as a "bad-ass militant" is completely off the mark and is, quite frankly, insulting to those of us who find Derrick's work to be life-altering. This is his life's work, not some marketing campaign. If his goal were to sell books for financial gain or to be perceived as a "bad-ass", there are many other topics he could write about (just as brilliantly) and many talks he could give that would actually accomplish this much more effectively. He truly sees the problem (and the solution) so clearly that he can't help but write and talk about it. Being a bad-ass militant is merely a side benefit. :::grin::: Seriously, the abuse he personally takes for saying what most of us feel and are too scared to actually express has to far outweigh any personal benefit for him.
And secondly, there is an old saying that goes something like: "Those who talk about it don't and those who don't talk about it...". I personally wouldn't attribute the fact that Derrick isn't blowing up a dam right this second to his belief in a "firewall", but to the fact that at this point his writing and touring accomplishes far more than any isolated event-- that could put an end to it--would. I think he's been rather clear that if he ever deems the circumstances to be different, that he could serve the planet in any better way, he would do whatever he felt was necessary to protect whatever portion of the natural world he could. I do believe a "firewall" exists, but I don't believe that Derrick has ever used it as a shield to hide behind instead of taking what some people would consider more drastic or direct action but as tool for his own effectiveness in recruiting for the revolution (which truly IS direct and drastic action) and in waking as many people up as possible.
Telling people to consult the land--their own bodies--about what they should specifically do and doing what his own landbase, body, and muse are leading him to do personally should not imply an absence or weakness of his "proposed tactics"--pacifist or otherwise. What Derrick would do, as someone who has spoken and written extensively and widely on bringing civilization down, has nothing to do with what I or anyone else would or should do given their own circumstances and individual conviction and depth of feeling. And not laying one's tactics out in a public forum--especially those actions and ideas deemed unacceptable by the culture one lives and operates in--simply seems intelligent. I would sincerely hope that most people would be smart and not talk about their specific tactics, or really even imply that they have them, in a public way unless it served their overall effectiveness. The best way to keep a secret is to never let anyone know you have one.
Over the last few years, I have seen many, many people attack Derrick for nearly everything he says or doesn't say, does or doesn't do. While we can disagree and debate on all of these things, most of us who come into contact with him or his writing at least see or feel on some level that the planet is dying (or more specifically, being killed). For some of us it is largely due to Derrick Jensen's work (and Ward Churchill's and others like them who do have the courage to speak publicly) and I'm very thankful he's made choices that enable him to continue what I feel is the most important work in the world.
First of all, saying that Derrick Jensen "markets" himself as a "bad-ass militant" is completely off the mark and is, quite frankly, insulting to those of us who find Derrick's work to be life-altering. This is his life's work, not some marketing campaign. If his goal were to sell books for financial gain or to be perceived as a "bad-ass", there are many other topics he could write about (just as brilliantly) and many talks he could give that would actually accomplish this much more effectively. He truly sees the problem (and the solution) so clearly that he can't help but write and talk about it. Being a bad-ass militant is merely a side benefit. :::grin::: Seriously, the abuse he personally takes for saying what most of us feel and are too scared to actually express has to far outweigh any personal benefit for him.
And secondly, there is an old saying that goes something like: "Those who talk about it don't and those who don't talk about it...". I personally wouldn't attribute the fact that Derrick isn't blowing up a dam right this second to his belief in a "firewall", but to the fact that at this point his writing and touring accomplishes far more than any isolated event-- that could put an end to it--would. I think he's been rather clear that if he ever deems the circumstances to be different, that he could serve the planet in any better way, he would do whatever he felt was necessary to protect whatever portion of the natural world he could. I do believe a "firewall" exists, but I don't believe that Derrick has ever used it as a shield to hide behind instead of taking what some people would consider more drastic or direct action but as tool for his own effectiveness in recruiting for the revolution (which truly IS direct and drastic action) and in waking as many people up as possible.
Telling people to consult the land--their own bodies--about what they should specifically do and doing what his own landbase, body, and muse are leading him to do personally should not imply an absence or weakness of his "proposed tactics"--pacifist or otherwise. What Derrick would do, as someone who has spoken and written extensively and widely on bringing civilization down, has nothing to do with what I or anyone else would or should do given their own circumstances and individual conviction and depth of feeling. And not laying one's tactics out in a public forum--especially those actions and ideas deemed unacceptable by the culture one lives and operates in--simply seems intelligent. I would sincerely hope that most people would be smart and not talk about their specific tactics, or really even imply that they have them, in a public way unless it served their overall effectiveness. The best way to keep a secret is to never let anyone know you have one.
Over the last few years, I have seen many, many people attack Derrick for nearly everything he says or doesn't say, does or doesn't do. While we can disagree and debate on all of these things, most of us who come into contact with him or his writing at least see or feel on some level that the planet is dying (or more specifically, being killed). For some of us it is largely due to Derrick Jensen's work (and Ward Churchill's and others like them who do have the courage to speak publicly) and I'm very thankful he's made choices that enable him to continue what I feel is the most important work in the world.
"First of all, saying that Derrick Jensen "markets" himself as a "bad-ass militant" is completely off the mark and is, quite frankly, insulting to those of us who find Derrick's work to be life-altering."
Im not sure if he fully believes in his vision of himself as a vanguard of militants who need safehouses and the like or not. With Ward, I would have to guess that he doesnt since he has a seperate life as a well off academic. WIth Jensen he definitely does seem to believe that civilization will collapse soon, so its hard to know.
"I personally wouldn't attribute the fact that Derrick isn't blowing up a dam right this second to his belief in a "firewall""
I think he actually used the word firewall at his talk.
"at this point his writing and touring accomplishes far more than any isolated event"
Sure his stuff about the destruction of the environment is great. His overall effect is probably positive but the miiltancy is just show. As he stated he cant think of a single case of anyone having blown up a dam for environmental reasons and when asked on specifics of what people could do to effect change his examples were the same as nonmilitant envrionmentalists would give.
"I don't believe that Derrick has ever used it as a shield to hide behind instead of taking what some people would consider more drastic or direct action but as tool for his own effectiveness"
I dont think he conciously sees it that way but his reasons for not blowing things up is probably the same as the more mainsream environmentalists he makes fun of. Doing a one time action that risks not even working, that will put you in jail for life , and risks having negative consequences for others has to be weighed against what you can do that wont put you in jepordy and in Jensen and just about everyone else's case not blowing things up comes out as being the choice.
"What Derrick would do, as someone who has spoken and written extensively and widely on bringing civilization down"
His argument seems to be that civilization is going to crumble no matter what and we have to get prepared for what comes after that. Since the enviornment is getting destroyed at a faster and faster rate but there is litle risk of civilization just disappearing on its own Im not sure where the ideas he talks about leading. Does talk of ineevitable collapse (that will realistically never come) mean that one is encouraged to do less since or can it be a drive to live more sustainably? Im not sure.
"And not laying one's tactics out in a public forum--especially those actions and ideas deemed unacceptable by the culture one lives and operates in--simply seems intelligent."
Sure if one really has effective tactics that are illegal one cant talk about them. But there is another possibillity and that is that either nobody has any real tactics of this sort or that the few peopel who do dont have enough feedback to know what the effects will be (I cant really think of any significant effects that have come out of the small number of ELF and ALF actions). I knew a radical environmental professor in the MidWest whose lab was trashed by ALF even though she didnt work with animals. On immediately assumes that the attack was actually carried out at least indirectly by the FBI, but that doesnt mean that those carrying out the actions didnt believe that they were helping stop animal testing since highly secretive actions always have a risk in that the lack of public feedback can lead to highly unproductive actions.
"Over the last few years, I have seen many, many people attack Derrick for nearly everything he says or doesn't say, does or doesn't do."
I think he is a good speaker and dont really find anything he says offensive. Personally I wouldnt care at all if someone did hear what he said and go blow up a dam. His view of a post-apocalyptic vision reminds me a bit of William Gibson. The main thing that does seem strange to me is how many people share a belief that we are living in the end times and that nothing can be done to change thjings since we will all have to move to rural areas, arm ourselves and live off the land as the word collapses into a Mad Maxish state. I dont get offended by Christians who believe in the rapture and think I will be left behind since even if their vuision 9of the future damns me I dont actually believe it will happen. The same is true for Jensen; if one gets offended by his talk about civilization collapsing one has to at least see such a future as a posibility and if one doesnt the morality of collapse is irrelevent.
"on some level that the planet is dying (or more specifically, being killed)."
Dont get me wrong. Global warming will flood many major cities over the next several hundred years (although rich cities can do what Holland does) and the extinction of wild animals is unlikely to slow down. In 50 years there will likely be no wild salmon, no whales, no swordfish, and perhaps no wild large animals of any sort outside of the artic and really remote regions. But that doesnt equal the collapse of civilization. Oil will run out and just as destructive alternatives will come into use (like dams) so perhaps Exxon will disappear and be replaced by new multinationals. But just because Union Pacific has less power now than 100 years ago doesnt mean civilization is over. Perhaps it should be over but thats a different question than the possibility of it ending.
"Ward Churchill's and others like them who do have the courage to speak publicly"
Im always a bit unclear what Ward believes. DId US actions make 9/11 inevitable and were those in the WTC just as much collateral damage as those killed by US assaults on Afghanistan? I guess. But Im not sure where it leads one to focus on that. The stuff Ward writes about COINTELPRO seems useful but I do worry a bit that it leads to paranoia that disrupts actions and prevents groups from growing (since openness and public scrutiny is one way to prevent infilitrators from leading a group in a bad direction when ones actions are legal as they are with most activist groups). In terms of paranoia, Ward's ties to the Contras seem a but worrying. Maybe its not true... Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz's "Blood on the Border : A Memoir of the Contra War" seems to suggest he did take such a stand but maybe shes trying to smear him (I kinda doubt it and think Ward was mislead by he CIA rather than having worked for them... but since there isnt any response online from Ward to the charges its hard to know) I support much of what he says about mistreatment of Native Americans but beyond that Ward confuses me since his main effect seems to be to cause controversy and create paranoia without actually really saying anything related to current politics.
Jensen and Ward are pretty different even though Jensen does say he was inspired by Ward. Jensen actually has immediate environmental actions he proposes (that are not really in line with a belief that civilization is on the vereg of ending) and the feelings of paranoia are lessened by his humor.
Im not sure if he fully believes in his vision of himself as a vanguard of militants who need safehouses and the like or not. With Ward, I would have to guess that he doesnt since he has a seperate life as a well off academic. WIth Jensen he definitely does seem to believe that civilization will collapse soon, so its hard to know.
"I personally wouldn't attribute the fact that Derrick isn't blowing up a dam right this second to his belief in a "firewall""
I think he actually used the word firewall at his talk.
"at this point his writing and touring accomplishes far more than any isolated event"
Sure his stuff about the destruction of the environment is great. His overall effect is probably positive but the miiltancy is just show. As he stated he cant think of a single case of anyone having blown up a dam for environmental reasons and when asked on specifics of what people could do to effect change his examples were the same as nonmilitant envrionmentalists would give.
"I don't believe that Derrick has ever used it as a shield to hide behind instead of taking what some people would consider more drastic or direct action but as tool for his own effectiveness"
I dont think he conciously sees it that way but his reasons for not blowing things up is probably the same as the more mainsream environmentalists he makes fun of. Doing a one time action that risks not even working, that will put you in jail for life , and risks having negative consequences for others has to be weighed against what you can do that wont put you in jepordy and in Jensen and just about everyone else's case not blowing things up comes out as being the choice.
"What Derrick would do, as someone who has spoken and written extensively and widely on bringing civilization down"
His argument seems to be that civilization is going to crumble no matter what and we have to get prepared for what comes after that. Since the enviornment is getting destroyed at a faster and faster rate but there is litle risk of civilization just disappearing on its own Im not sure where the ideas he talks about leading. Does talk of ineevitable collapse (that will realistically never come) mean that one is encouraged to do less since or can it be a drive to live more sustainably? Im not sure.
"And not laying one's tactics out in a public forum--especially those actions and ideas deemed unacceptable by the culture one lives and operates in--simply seems intelligent."
Sure if one really has effective tactics that are illegal one cant talk about them. But there is another possibillity and that is that either nobody has any real tactics of this sort or that the few peopel who do dont have enough feedback to know what the effects will be (I cant really think of any significant effects that have come out of the small number of ELF and ALF actions). I knew a radical environmental professor in the MidWest whose lab was trashed by ALF even though she didnt work with animals. On immediately assumes that the attack was actually carried out at least indirectly by the FBI, but that doesnt mean that those carrying out the actions didnt believe that they were helping stop animal testing since highly secretive actions always have a risk in that the lack of public feedback can lead to highly unproductive actions.
"Over the last few years, I have seen many, many people attack Derrick for nearly everything he says or doesn't say, does or doesn't do."
I think he is a good speaker and dont really find anything he says offensive. Personally I wouldnt care at all if someone did hear what he said and go blow up a dam. His view of a post-apocalyptic vision reminds me a bit of William Gibson. The main thing that does seem strange to me is how many people share a belief that we are living in the end times and that nothing can be done to change thjings since we will all have to move to rural areas, arm ourselves and live off the land as the word collapses into a Mad Maxish state. I dont get offended by Christians who believe in the rapture and think I will be left behind since even if their vuision 9of the future damns me I dont actually believe it will happen. The same is true for Jensen; if one gets offended by his talk about civilization collapsing one has to at least see such a future as a posibility and if one doesnt the morality of collapse is irrelevent.
"on some level that the planet is dying (or more specifically, being killed)."
Dont get me wrong. Global warming will flood many major cities over the next several hundred years (although rich cities can do what Holland does) and the extinction of wild animals is unlikely to slow down. In 50 years there will likely be no wild salmon, no whales, no swordfish, and perhaps no wild large animals of any sort outside of the artic and really remote regions. But that doesnt equal the collapse of civilization. Oil will run out and just as destructive alternatives will come into use (like dams) so perhaps Exxon will disappear and be replaced by new multinationals. But just because Union Pacific has less power now than 100 years ago doesnt mean civilization is over. Perhaps it should be over but thats a different question than the possibility of it ending.
"Ward Churchill's and others like them who do have the courage to speak publicly"
Im always a bit unclear what Ward believes. DId US actions make 9/11 inevitable and were those in the WTC just as much collateral damage as those killed by US assaults on Afghanistan? I guess. But Im not sure where it leads one to focus on that. The stuff Ward writes about COINTELPRO seems useful but I do worry a bit that it leads to paranoia that disrupts actions and prevents groups from growing (since openness and public scrutiny is one way to prevent infilitrators from leading a group in a bad direction when ones actions are legal as they are with most activist groups). In terms of paranoia, Ward's ties to the Contras seem a but worrying. Maybe its not true... Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz's "Blood on the Border : A Memoir of the Contra War" seems to suggest he did take such a stand but maybe shes trying to smear him (I kinda doubt it and think Ward was mislead by he CIA rather than having worked for them... but since there isnt any response online from Ward to the charges its hard to know) I support much of what he says about mistreatment of Native Americans but beyond that Ward confuses me since his main effect seems to be to cause controversy and create paranoia without actually really saying anything related to current politics.
Jensen and Ward are pretty different even though Jensen does say he was inspired by Ward. Jensen actually has immediate environmental actions he proposes (that are not really in line with a belief that civilization is on the vereg of ending) and the feelings of paranoia are lessened by his humor.
<<<"First of all, saying that Derrick Jensen "markets" himself as a "bad-ass militant" is completely off the mark and is, quite frankly, insulting to those of us who find Derrick's work to be life-altering."
Im not sure if he fully believes in his vision of himself as a vanguard of militants who need safehouses and the like or not. With Ward, I would have to guess that he doesnt since he has a seperate life as a well off academic. WIth Jensen he definitely does seem to believe that civilization will collapse soon, so its hard to know. >>>
Yes, this is one reason (beyond the fact that I've read all of his work, including several books which have not gone to print yet and find him to be very thorough and consistent) I know Derrick is not "marketing" himself in any way other than to be as effective as he can as a recruiter for the revolution. There would be no reason to work so tirelessly merely to seek rewards within a framework you know will not be there at some point and don't value to begin with. He doesn't try to sneak his premises by anyone and one of his main premises is that civilization is not and cannot be sustainable and needs to go.
----------------------------------------------
<<<"personally wouldn't attribute the fact that Derrick isn't blowing up a dam right this second to his belief in a "firewall""
I think he actually used the word firewall at his talk.>>>
I wasn't disputing his reference to or the existence of a "firewall"...I was just pointing out that the fact that he would describe it that way in no way means he uses it as an EXCUSE. It's just a simple fact that talking about it as honestly and frankly as he does has already put him on watch lists, and made him vulnerable to being framed and/or incarcerated--a risk he's taking all the time. I was only wanting to make it clear that the way we often judge actions is by assessing effectiveness and risk. Right here/right now, talking and writing about the unsustainability of civilization and specifically attacking the motifs, tactics, ideas and egos of those in power pretty much immediately puts one at the lowest level in the American cultural hierarchy--labeled a "terrorist". The deeper point I'm hoping isn't overlooked and taking so many words to express is this: Derrick IS taking huge risks and taking very effective action every day.
--------------------------------
<<<"at this point his writing and touring accomplishes far more than any isolated event"
Sure his stuff about the destruction of the environment is great. His overall effect is probably positive but the miiltancy is just show. As he stated he cant think of a single case of anyone having blown up a dam for environmental reasons and when asked on specifics of what people could do to effect change his examples were the same as nonmilitant envrionmentalists would give. >>>
The fact that he can't think of a single case of anyone having blown up a dam for environmental reasons simply attests to the effectiveness (so far) of the dominant culture in convincing people that to do so would hurt them more than killing their landbase does. This IS the point. I think the mere (and often repeated) mention of blowing up dams and his extensive examination of violence and his ability and willingness to completely reframe what really constitutes "violent" action if one simply turns the tables and chooses the environment over economics are all examples of answers non-militant environmentalists usually won't go near.
Since Derrick has been quite open about wanting civilization to come down before it kills what's left of this planet, I would not assume his "militancy" would simply be "for show". I think Derrick is amazingly skilled at what he does and recognizes that the delivery method matters when one wants his message to really be delivered.
--------------------------------------------
<<<"I don't believe that Derrick has ever used it as a shield to hide behind instead of taking what some people would consider more drastic or direct action but as tool for his own effectiveness"
I dont think he conciously sees it that way but his reasons for not blowing things up is probably the same as the more mainsream environmentalists he makes fun of. Doing a one time action that risks not even working, that will put you in jail for life , and risks having negative consequences for others has to be weighed against what you can do that wont put you in jepordy and in Jensen and just about everyone else's case not blowing things up comes out as being the choice. >>>
I don't think it's the same. As I said above, I think he is in jeapardy. In many ways, an anonymous explosion could be way less risky in terms of personal legal repurcussions. We live in a culture where there have been many recent and highly publicized (on purpose) examples of people who have been arrested for saying things that would obviously fall under "freedom of speech" if that freedom were not being consistently trumped by our freedom to be deemed a terrorist at the drop of a word...um, hat, that is.
----------------------------------------
<<<"What Derrick would do, as someone who has spoken and written extensively and widely on bringing civilization down"
His argument seems to be that civilization is going to crumble no matter what and we have to get prepared for what comes after that. Since the enviornment is getting destroyed at a faster and faster rate but there is litle risk of civilization just disappearing on its own Im not sure where the ideas he talks about leading. Does talk of ineevitable collapse (that will realistically never come) mean that one is encouraged to do less since or can it be a drive to live more sustainably? Im not sure. >>>
If you are saying that the inevitable callapse "will realistically never come", we definitely disagree on something so fundamental that the lenses with which we look at most of Derrick's ideas would be completely backwards from each others'. I cannot speak for Derrick, but I'm pretty sure he is presenting the unsustainability and eventual crash of civilization as the problem, not an excuse to do less or to try to "live more sustainably" within the framework of the dominant culture. It simply can't be done. I am often amazed when we use phrases like "live more sustainably" when really, it's either sustainable or it's not. What we really mean is that we can live in ways that buy us more time or affect the crash in some way, etc. Of course, taking direct action against a civilization that one thinks will continue might look very different than direct action taken against a civilization that one thinks will disappear. Everyone who has ever given notice before leaving a job knows about the "short-timer" attitude. But, in any case, I don't think Derrick is focused on either scenario. He's encouraging us to act in whatever ways we feel are appropriate and that we are capable of against a civilization that is actively and efficiently killing more and more of the planet every second it exhists.
------------------------------
<<<"And not laying one's tactics out in a public forum--especially those actions and ideas deemed unacceptable by the culture one lives and operates in--simply seems intelligent."
Sure if one really has effective tactics that are illegal one cant talk about them. But there is another possibillity and that is that either nobody has any real tactics of this sort or that the few peopel who do dont have enough feedback to know what the effects will be (I cant really think of any significant effects that have come out of the small number of ELF and ALF actions). I knew a radical environmental professor in the MidWest whose lab was trashed by ALF even though she didnt work with animals. On immediately assumes that the attack was actually carried out at least indirectly by the FBI, but that doesnt mean that those carrying out the actions didnt believe that they were helping stop animal testing since highly secretive actions always have a risk in that the lack of public feedback can lead to highly unproductive actions. >>>
I don't think we should underestimate the power of people who are willing to risk their lives to save their lives. That's the framework the dominant culture removes from or restrains in its members--and it's precisely the framework we need now. And I think Derrick is providing it in every way he knows how.
----------------------------------------
<<<"Over the last few years, I have seen many, many people attack Derrick for nearly everything he says or doesn't say, does or doesn't do."
I think he is a good speaker and dont really find anything he says offensive. Personally I wouldnt care at all if someone did hear what he said and go blow up a dam. His view of a post-apocalyptic vision reminds me a bit of William Gibson. The main thing that does seem strange to me is how many people share a belief that we are living in the end times and that nothing can be done to change thjings since we will all have to move to rural areas, arm ourselves and live off the land as the word collapses into a Mad Maxish state. I dont get offended by Christians who believe in the rapture and think I will be left behind since even if their vuision 9of the future damns me I dont actually believe it will happen. The same is true for Jensen; if one gets offended by his talk about civilization collapsing one has to at least see such a future as a posibility and if one doesnt the morality of collapse is irrelevent. >>>
I have had some of these thoughts, too, and have wondered if the inevitable end hadn't been built into the "system"--and so many of the system's stories--from the beginning if it would have had to end at all. But then I realized that the seed to civilization is a thought that probably preceded and directly caused the need for the widespread and varied beliefs in "rapture", "salvation", "heaven" (Christian or otherwise) and "hell": separation. Humans are not separate from their landbases, the basic laws of ecology and biology, and the repurcussions for abherrant living, no matter how far removed time-wise they may seem. But we create whole belief systems to prove we are. I am not offended, but I am angry, that these beliefs are still allowing people to continue killing the planet.
------------------------------
<<<"on some level that the planet is dying (or more specifically, being killed)."
Dont get me wrong. Global warming will flood many major cities over the next several hundred years (although rich cities can do what Holland does) and the extinction of wild animals is unlikely to slow down. In 50 years there will likely be no wild salmon, no whales, no swordfish, and perhaps no wild large animals of any sort outside of the artic and really remote regions. But that doesnt equal the collapse of civilization. Oil will run out and just as destructive alternatives will come into use (like dams) so perhaps Exxon will disappear and be replaced by new multinationals. But just because Union Pacific has less power now than 100 years ago doesnt mean civilization is over. Perhaps it should be over but thats a different question than the possibility of it ending. >>>
True, civilization is a state of mind as well as a set of physical structures and destructive dynamics, but the natural world and our own stupidity can do wonders for removing us if we don't serve our own communities in the long run. We've proven that we don't. With the facts you state above about extinction, etc., I am left wondering why there is a question of it ending. I don't know of an organism that can survive without its environment. And the possibility of Exxon being replaced with other multinationals is a very good example of why humans should help, not hinder, a collapse. How many multinationals does it take?
----------------------------------------
<<<"Ward Churchill's and others like them who do have the courage to speak publicly"
Im always a bit unclear what Ward believes. DId US actions make 9/11 inevitable and were those in the WTC just as much collateral damage as those killed by US assaults on Afghanistan?
I guess. But Im not sure where it leads one to focus on that. The stuff Ward writes about COINTELPRO seems useful but I do worry a bit that it leads to paranoia that disrupts actions and prevents groups from growing (since openness and public scrutiny is one way to prevent infilitrators from leading a group in a bad direction when ones actions are legal as they are with most activist groups). In terms of paranoia, Ward's ties to the Contras seem a but worrying. Maybe its not true... Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz's "Blood on the Border : A Memoir of the Contra War" seems to suggest he did take such a stand but maybe shes trying to smear him (I kinda doubt it and think Ward was mislead by he CIA rather than having worked for them... but since there isnt any response online from Ward to the charges its hard to know) I support much of what he says about mistreatment of Native Americans but beyond that Ward confuses me since his main effect seems to be to cause controversy and create paranoia without actually really saying anything related to current politics. >>>
On the 9/11 stuff, I have mostly heard Ward making points about how the "collateral damage" the US military is rationalizing in Iraq (and many other instances prior to the current "gulf war") are humans who are no less innocent or valuable than those who died in the WTC. I think, like Derrick (though I'm much much less familiar with Ward's work), that he's dealing with and expressing more foundational ideas than the specific "controversies" he's involved in represent.
---------------------------------------------
<<<Jensen and Ward are pretty different even though Jensen does say he was inspired by Ward. Jensen actually has immediate environmental actions he proposes (that are not really in line with a belief that civilization is on the vereg of ending) and the feelings of paranoia are lessened by his humor. >>>
I think Derrick's proposed environmental actions are completely in line with his belief that civilization will end. What doesn't make sense is doing nothing. Or merely being or believing oneself paranoid in the face of so much destruction.
Im not sure if he fully believes in his vision of himself as a vanguard of militants who need safehouses and the like or not. With Ward, I would have to guess that he doesnt since he has a seperate life as a well off academic. WIth Jensen he definitely does seem to believe that civilization will collapse soon, so its hard to know. >>>
Yes, this is one reason (beyond the fact that I've read all of his work, including several books which have not gone to print yet and find him to be very thorough and consistent) I know Derrick is not "marketing" himself in any way other than to be as effective as he can as a recruiter for the revolution. There would be no reason to work so tirelessly merely to seek rewards within a framework you know will not be there at some point and don't value to begin with. He doesn't try to sneak his premises by anyone and one of his main premises is that civilization is not and cannot be sustainable and needs to go.
----------------------------------------------
<<<"personally wouldn't attribute the fact that Derrick isn't blowing up a dam right this second to his belief in a "firewall""
I think he actually used the word firewall at his talk.>>>
I wasn't disputing his reference to or the existence of a "firewall"...I was just pointing out that the fact that he would describe it that way in no way means he uses it as an EXCUSE. It's just a simple fact that talking about it as honestly and frankly as he does has already put him on watch lists, and made him vulnerable to being framed and/or incarcerated--a risk he's taking all the time. I was only wanting to make it clear that the way we often judge actions is by assessing effectiveness and risk. Right here/right now, talking and writing about the unsustainability of civilization and specifically attacking the motifs, tactics, ideas and egos of those in power pretty much immediately puts one at the lowest level in the American cultural hierarchy--labeled a "terrorist". The deeper point I'm hoping isn't overlooked and taking so many words to express is this: Derrick IS taking huge risks and taking very effective action every day.
--------------------------------
<<<"at this point his writing and touring accomplishes far more than any isolated event"
Sure his stuff about the destruction of the environment is great. His overall effect is probably positive but the miiltancy is just show. As he stated he cant think of a single case of anyone having blown up a dam for environmental reasons and when asked on specifics of what people could do to effect change his examples were the same as nonmilitant envrionmentalists would give. >>>
The fact that he can't think of a single case of anyone having blown up a dam for environmental reasons simply attests to the effectiveness (so far) of the dominant culture in convincing people that to do so would hurt them more than killing their landbase does. This IS the point. I think the mere (and often repeated) mention of blowing up dams and his extensive examination of violence and his ability and willingness to completely reframe what really constitutes "violent" action if one simply turns the tables and chooses the environment over economics are all examples of answers non-militant environmentalists usually won't go near.
Since Derrick has been quite open about wanting civilization to come down before it kills what's left of this planet, I would not assume his "militancy" would simply be "for show". I think Derrick is amazingly skilled at what he does and recognizes that the delivery method matters when one wants his message to really be delivered.
--------------------------------------------
<<<"I don't believe that Derrick has ever used it as a shield to hide behind instead of taking what some people would consider more drastic or direct action but as tool for his own effectiveness"
I dont think he conciously sees it that way but his reasons for not blowing things up is probably the same as the more mainsream environmentalists he makes fun of. Doing a one time action that risks not even working, that will put you in jail for life , and risks having negative consequences for others has to be weighed against what you can do that wont put you in jepordy and in Jensen and just about everyone else's case not blowing things up comes out as being the choice. >>>
I don't think it's the same. As I said above, I think he is in jeapardy. In many ways, an anonymous explosion could be way less risky in terms of personal legal repurcussions. We live in a culture where there have been many recent and highly publicized (on purpose) examples of people who have been arrested for saying things that would obviously fall under "freedom of speech" if that freedom were not being consistently trumped by our freedom to be deemed a terrorist at the drop of a word...um, hat, that is.
----------------------------------------
<<<"What Derrick would do, as someone who has spoken and written extensively and widely on bringing civilization down"
His argument seems to be that civilization is going to crumble no matter what and we have to get prepared for what comes after that. Since the enviornment is getting destroyed at a faster and faster rate but there is litle risk of civilization just disappearing on its own Im not sure where the ideas he talks about leading. Does talk of ineevitable collapse (that will realistically never come) mean that one is encouraged to do less since or can it be a drive to live more sustainably? Im not sure. >>>
If you are saying that the inevitable callapse "will realistically never come", we definitely disagree on something so fundamental that the lenses with which we look at most of Derrick's ideas would be completely backwards from each others'. I cannot speak for Derrick, but I'm pretty sure he is presenting the unsustainability and eventual crash of civilization as the problem, not an excuse to do less or to try to "live more sustainably" within the framework of the dominant culture. It simply can't be done. I am often amazed when we use phrases like "live more sustainably" when really, it's either sustainable or it's not. What we really mean is that we can live in ways that buy us more time or affect the crash in some way, etc. Of course, taking direct action against a civilization that one thinks will continue might look very different than direct action taken against a civilization that one thinks will disappear. Everyone who has ever given notice before leaving a job knows about the "short-timer" attitude. But, in any case, I don't think Derrick is focused on either scenario. He's encouraging us to act in whatever ways we feel are appropriate and that we are capable of against a civilization that is actively and efficiently killing more and more of the planet every second it exhists.
------------------------------
<<<"And not laying one's tactics out in a public forum--especially those actions and ideas deemed unacceptable by the culture one lives and operates in--simply seems intelligent."
Sure if one really has effective tactics that are illegal one cant talk about them. But there is another possibillity and that is that either nobody has any real tactics of this sort or that the few peopel who do dont have enough feedback to know what the effects will be (I cant really think of any significant effects that have come out of the small number of ELF and ALF actions). I knew a radical environmental professor in the MidWest whose lab was trashed by ALF even though she didnt work with animals. On immediately assumes that the attack was actually carried out at least indirectly by the FBI, but that doesnt mean that those carrying out the actions didnt believe that they were helping stop animal testing since highly secretive actions always have a risk in that the lack of public feedback can lead to highly unproductive actions. >>>
I don't think we should underestimate the power of people who are willing to risk their lives to save their lives. That's the framework the dominant culture removes from or restrains in its members--and it's precisely the framework we need now. And I think Derrick is providing it in every way he knows how.
----------------------------------------
<<<"Over the last few years, I have seen many, many people attack Derrick for nearly everything he says or doesn't say, does or doesn't do."
I think he is a good speaker and dont really find anything he says offensive. Personally I wouldnt care at all if someone did hear what he said and go blow up a dam. His view of a post-apocalyptic vision reminds me a bit of William Gibson. The main thing that does seem strange to me is how many people share a belief that we are living in the end times and that nothing can be done to change thjings since we will all have to move to rural areas, arm ourselves and live off the land as the word collapses into a Mad Maxish state. I dont get offended by Christians who believe in the rapture and think I will be left behind since even if their vuision 9of the future damns me I dont actually believe it will happen. The same is true for Jensen; if one gets offended by his talk about civilization collapsing one has to at least see such a future as a posibility and if one doesnt the morality of collapse is irrelevent. >>>
I have had some of these thoughts, too, and have wondered if the inevitable end hadn't been built into the "system"--and so many of the system's stories--from the beginning if it would have had to end at all. But then I realized that the seed to civilization is a thought that probably preceded and directly caused the need for the widespread and varied beliefs in "rapture", "salvation", "heaven" (Christian or otherwise) and "hell": separation. Humans are not separate from their landbases, the basic laws of ecology and biology, and the repurcussions for abherrant living, no matter how far removed time-wise they may seem. But we create whole belief systems to prove we are. I am not offended, but I am angry, that these beliefs are still allowing people to continue killing the planet.
------------------------------
<<<"on some level that the planet is dying (or more specifically, being killed)."
Dont get me wrong. Global warming will flood many major cities over the next several hundred years (although rich cities can do what Holland does) and the extinction of wild animals is unlikely to slow down. In 50 years there will likely be no wild salmon, no whales, no swordfish, and perhaps no wild large animals of any sort outside of the artic and really remote regions. But that doesnt equal the collapse of civilization. Oil will run out and just as destructive alternatives will come into use (like dams) so perhaps Exxon will disappear and be replaced by new multinationals. But just because Union Pacific has less power now than 100 years ago doesnt mean civilization is over. Perhaps it should be over but thats a different question than the possibility of it ending. >>>
True, civilization is a state of mind as well as a set of physical structures and destructive dynamics, but the natural world and our own stupidity can do wonders for removing us if we don't serve our own communities in the long run. We've proven that we don't. With the facts you state above about extinction, etc., I am left wondering why there is a question of it ending. I don't know of an organism that can survive without its environment. And the possibility of Exxon being replaced with other multinationals is a very good example of why humans should help, not hinder, a collapse. How many multinationals does it take?
----------------------------------------
<<<"Ward Churchill's and others like them who do have the courage to speak publicly"
Im always a bit unclear what Ward believes. DId US actions make 9/11 inevitable and were those in the WTC just as much collateral damage as those killed by US assaults on Afghanistan?
I guess. But Im not sure where it leads one to focus on that. The stuff Ward writes about COINTELPRO seems useful but I do worry a bit that it leads to paranoia that disrupts actions and prevents groups from growing (since openness and public scrutiny is one way to prevent infilitrators from leading a group in a bad direction when ones actions are legal as they are with most activist groups). In terms of paranoia, Ward's ties to the Contras seem a but worrying. Maybe its not true... Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz's "Blood on the Border : A Memoir of the Contra War" seems to suggest he did take such a stand but maybe shes trying to smear him (I kinda doubt it and think Ward was mislead by he CIA rather than having worked for them... but since there isnt any response online from Ward to the charges its hard to know) I support much of what he says about mistreatment of Native Americans but beyond that Ward confuses me since his main effect seems to be to cause controversy and create paranoia without actually really saying anything related to current politics. >>>
On the 9/11 stuff, I have mostly heard Ward making points about how the "collateral damage" the US military is rationalizing in Iraq (and many other instances prior to the current "gulf war") are humans who are no less innocent or valuable than those who died in the WTC. I think, like Derrick (though I'm much much less familiar with Ward's work), that he's dealing with and expressing more foundational ideas than the specific "controversies" he's involved in represent.
---------------------------------------------
<<<Jensen and Ward are pretty different even though Jensen does say he was inspired by Ward. Jensen actually has immediate environmental actions he proposes (that are not really in line with a belief that civilization is on the vereg of ending) and the feelings of paranoia are lessened by his humor. >>>
I think Derrick's proposed environmental actions are completely in line with his belief that civilization will end. What doesn't make sense is doing nothing. Or merely being or believing oneself paranoid in the face of so much destruction.
What are these effects?
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network