Derrick Jensen: “Actions Speak Louder Than Words” (1998)
Every morning when I wake up I ask myself whether I should write or blow up a dam. I tell myself I should keep writing, though I’m not sure that’s right. I’ve written books and done activism, but it is neither a lack of words nor a lack of activism that is killing salmon here in the Northwest. It’s the dams.
Anyone who knows anything about salmon knows the dams must go. Anyone who knows anything about politics knows the dams will stay. Scientists study, politicians and business people lie and delay, bureaucrats hold sham public meetings, activists write letters and press releases, and still the salmon die.
Sadly enough, I’m not alone in my inability or unwillingness to take action. Members of the German resistance to Hitler from 1933 to 1945, for example, exhibited a striking blindness all too familiar: Despite knowing that Hitler had to be removed for a “decent” government to be installed, they spent more time creating paper versions of this theoretical government than attempting to remove him from power. It wasn’t a lack of courage that caused this blindness but rather a misguided sense of morals. Karl Goerdeler, for instance, though tireless in attempting to create this new government, staunchly opposed assassinating Hitler, believing that if only the two could sit face to face Hitler might relent.
We, too, suffer from this blindness and must learn to differentiate between real and false hopes. We must eliminate false hopes, which blind us to real possibilities. Does anyone really believe our protests will cause Weyerhaeuser or other timber transnationals to stop destroying forests? Does anyone really believe the same corporate administrators who say they “wish salmon would go extinct so we could just get on with living” (Randy Hardy of Bonneville Power Association) will act other than to fulfill their desires? Does anyone really believe a pattern of exploitation as old as our civilization can be halted legislatively, judicially or through means other than an absolute rejection of the mindset that engineers the exploitation, followed by actions based on that rejection? Does anybody really think those who are destroying the world will stop because we ask nicely or because we lock arms peacefully in front of their offices?
There can be few who still believe the purpose of government is to protect citizens from the activities of those who would destroy. The opposite is true:
Political economist Adam Smith was correct in noting that the primary purpose of government is to protect those who run the economy from the outrage of injured citizens. To expect institutions created by our culture to do other than poison waters, denude hillsides, eliminate alternative ways of living and commit genocide is unforgivably naive.
Many German conspirators hesitated to remove Hitler from office because they’d sworn loyalty to him and his government. Their scruples caused more hesitation than their fear. How many of us have yet to root out misguided remnants of a belief in the legitimacy of this government to which, as children, we pledged allegiance? How many of us fail to cross the line into violent resistance because we still believe that, somehow, the system can be reformed? And if we don’t believe that, what are we waiting for? As Shakespeare so accurately put it, “Conscience doth make cowards of us all.”
It could be argued that by comparing our government to Hitler’s I’m overstating my case. I’m not sure salmon would agree, nor lynx, nor the people of Peru, Irian Jaya, Indonesia, or any other place where people pay with their lives for the activities of our culture.
If we’re to survive, we must recognize that we kill by inaction as surely as by action. We must recognize that, as Hermann Hesse wrote, “We kill when we close our eyes to poverty, affliction or infamy. We kill when, because it is easier, we countenance, or pretend to approve of atrophied social, political, educational, and religious institutions, instead of resolutely combating them.”
The central - and in many ways only - question of our time is this: What are sane, appropriate and effective responses to outrageously destructive behavior? So often, those working to slow the destruction can plainly describe the problems. Who couldn’t? The problems are neither subtle nor cognitively challenging. Yet when faced with the emotionally daunting task of fashioning a response to these clearly insoluble problems, we generally suffer a failure of nerve and imagination. Gandhi wrote a letter to Hitler asking him to stop committing atrocities and was mystified that it didn’t work. I continue writing letters to the editor of the local corporate newspaper pointing out mistruths and am continually surprised at the next absurdity.
I’m not suggesting a well-targeted program of assassinations would solve all of our problems. If it were that simple, I wouldn’t be writing this essay. To assassinate Slade Gorton and Larry Craig, for example, two senators from the Northwest whose work may be charitably described as unremittingly ecocidal, would probably slow the destruction not much more than to write them a letter. Neither unique nor alone, Gorton and Craig are merely tools for enacting ecocide, as surely as are dams, corporations, chainsaws, napalm and nuclear weapons. If someone were to kill them, others would take their places. The ecocidal programs originating specifically from the damaged psyches of Gorton and Craig would die with them, but the shared nature of the impulses within our culture would continue full-force, making the replacement as easy as buying a new hoe.
Hitler, too, was elected as legally and “democratically” as Craig and Gorton. Hitler, too, manifested his culture’s death urge brilliantly enough to capture the hearts of those who voted him into power and to hold the loyalty of the millions who actively carried out his plans. Hitler, like Craig and Gorton, like George Weyerhaeuser and other CEOs, didn’t act alone. Why, then, do I discern a difference between them?
The current system has already begun to collapse under the weight of its ecological excesses, and here’s where we can help. Having transferred our loyalty away from our culture’s illegitimate economic and governmental entities and to the land, our goal must be to protect, through whatever means possible, the human and nonhuman residents of our homelands. Our goal, like that of a demolition crew on a downtown building, must be to help our culture collapse in place, so that in its fall it takes out as little life as possible.
Discussion presupposes distance, and the fact that we’re talking about whether violence is appropriate tells me we don’t yet care enough. There’s a kind of action that doesn’t emerge from discussion, from theory, but instead from our bodies and from the land. This action is the honeybee stinging to defend her hive; it’s the mother grizzly charging a train to defend her cubs; it’s Zapatista spokesperson Cecelia Rodriguez saying, “I have a question of those men who raped me. Why did you not kill me? It was a mistake to spare my life. I will not shut up - this has not traumatized me to the point of paralysis.” It’s Ogoni activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, murdered by the Nigerian government at the urging of Shell, whose last words were, “Lord, take my soul, but the struggle continues!” It’s those who participated in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. It’s Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull and Geronimo. It’s salmon battering themselves against concrete, using the only thing they have, their flesh, to try to break down that which keeps them from their homes.
I don’t believe the question of whether to use violence is the right one. Instead, the question should be: Do you sufficiently feel the loss? So long as we discuss this in the abstract, we still have too much to lose. If we begin to feel in our bodies the immensity and emptiness of what we lose daily, intact natural communities, hours sold for wages, childhoods lost to violence, women’s capacity to walk unafraid, we’ll know precisely what to do.
in Earth First! Journal, May-June 1998, p. 5
Derrick Jensen: “Činy sú hlasnejšie než slová” (1998)
Každé ráno, keď sa zobudím, pýtam myself whether I should continue writing or go to blow up the dam. I tell myself that I should continue writing, although I'm not sure if this is correct. I wrote the book and stimulating for I, but it's not the lack of words or lack of activism, which kills salmon here in the northwest (pozn.prekl., In the USA). These are dams. Anyone who knows anything about salmon knows that the dams must go. Anyone who knows anything about politics knows that the dam will remain. Scientists study, politicians and businessmen lie and staying bureaucrats do sham public meetings, activists write letters and press releases, and salmon are still dying. Unfortunately I am not alone with my inability or unwillingness to act. For example, members of the German resistance movement against Hitler from 1933 to 1945 showed tremendous blindness all too familiar: Despite the fact that they knew that Hitler should be removed to create a "decent" government spend more time creating paper versions of this theoretical government, instead of that it be removed. It was not lack of courage, which caused the blindness, but rather false sense of morality. Karl Goerdeler, for example, even though he was tireless in creating this new government steadfastly condemned the assassination of Hitler, believing that if it was sitting face to face, Hitler would be allowed.
We also suffer blindness and that we must learn to distinguish between true and false hope. We must eliminate false hopes that are blinding us to real possibilities. I believe someone is actually that our protests will cause that Weyerhaeuser or other transnational timber corporations stop destroying forests? I believe someone is actually that the same corporation administrators, who say that "we hope that salmon may die, so we just continue to live on" (Randy Hardy of the Bonneville Power Association) will act differently, and not so as to fulfill our desires? Someone actually believes it is possible to stop the pattern of exploitation is as old as our civilization legislative, judicial or other means than a complete rejection of thinking that constructs this exploitation, following actions based on that refusal? Someone actually believes that those who destroy world stop just because their so we kindly ask peacefully or because you can lock your hands in front of their offices?
Maybe some of those who still believe that the purpose of government is to protect its citizens against the activities of those who destroy. The opposite is true:
political economist Adam Smith was right when he said that the main purpose of government is to protect those who keep the economy from the wrath of disabled people. Expect institutions to do otherwise than to annoy the water, ridding the slopes of vegetation, eliminate alternative ways of life and committing genocide is unforgivable naive.
Many German conspirators hesitated in removing Hitler from office because they promised loyalty to him and his government. Their considerations have caused more hesitation than their fear. How many of us have yet to eradicate the false bottoms of faith in the legitimacy of this government, which we swear allegiance to children? How many of us fail to cross the border to violent resistance, because they still believe that this system can somehow reformovateľný? And if I do not believe so what are we waiting? As Shakespeare rightly said, "Thus conscience makes cowards of us all."
might say that comparing our government with Hitler, this overstates the case. I'm not sure he would agree on salmon, or features, nor the people of Peru, the Irian Jaya, Indonesia or in any other place where people pay with their lives for our cultural activities.
If we survive, we must realize that kill omissions as well as act. We must realize that, as Hermann Hesse wrote, "We kill when close our eyes to poverty, suffering or shame. We kill because it's easier to agree, or pretend to approve degenerate social, political, educational and religious institutions, instead, that we fought against them vigorously. "
main - and in many ways the only - issue of our time is this: What are reasonable, appropriate and effective response to the horribly destructive behavior? How often, those who are working to slow the destruction they can clearly describe the problems. Who would know? Problems are neither minor nor cognitively challenged. But even if we are faced with daunting task of creating an emotional response to this clearly inexplicable problems, generally suffer failure of nerve and imagination. Gandhi wrote to Hitler, where he was asked to stop committing atrocities and was confused when it did not work. I continue to send letters editor of the local corporate newspaper referring to untruths and I am constantly surprised by another absurdity.
not suggesting that well-directed program asasinácií solve all our problems. If it were that simple, now I would not write this essay. The assassination of Slade Gorton and Larry Craig, for example, two senators from the Northwest whose work could be kindly described as permanently ekocídna would delay the destruction of nothing more than to write them a letter. Neither sporadic nor yourself, Gorton and Craig are the only instruments for the enactment ekocídy, like dams, corporations, chain saws, napalm and nuclear weapons. If someone wanted to kill them, others would come to their place. Ekocídne programs that originate in the disturbed psyche of Gorton and Craig would have died with them, but common nature of the impulses within our culture would continue fully, which would make the exchange as easy as buying new hoes.
Hitler was also elected legally and "democratically" as Craig and Gorton. Hitler also showed a desire the death of his culture sufficiently clear that captivated the hearts of those who elected him to power and to maintain the loyalty of millions who actively implement its plans. Hitler, as Craig and Gorton, as George Weyerhaeuser and other corporations, directors, acted alone. Why then rozpozávam differences between them?
current system has already started crumble under the weight of their environmental sins, and this can help. Transfer our allegiance from illegitimate economic and governmental entities to our culture and country, our goal must be to protect, by any means possible, and mimoľudských human inhabitants of our country. Our goal as a target for demolition crews building downtown, help must be our culture fall in place when the fall took the lease of life.
talk presupposes distance, and the fact that we are talking whether violence is appropriate, suggests to me that is not sufficiently interested. There is kind of actions which are not emerge from the discussion of theory, but instead of our bodies and the earth. This action is bees that bites to protect their hive, the mother grizzly, which will build a train that defended their young, it is the Zapatistas hovorkiňa Cecelia Rodriguez, saying, "I have a question for the men who raped me. Why did you kill me? It was a mistake to save my life. I'm not going quietly - netraumatizovalo me to the extent of paralysis. "It is a strain of Ogoni activist Ken Saro-Wiwa, murdered by the Government of Niger at the urging of Shell, whose last words were, "Lord, take my soul, but the struggle will continue!" They're the ones who participated in the Warsaw ghetto uprising. It's Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull and Geronimo. These are the salmon hádžuci of concrete, using the only thing you have, your body, to try to break what keeps them away from their homes.
I do not believe that asked whether the use of violence is the right one. Instead, the question should be: Do you feel the loss sufficiently? While we shall discuss the abstract, we still have much to lose. If we feel in our bodies vastness and emptiness, what a day lost, intact natural communities, zapredané hours for pay, childhood lost to violence, the ability of women to walk without fear, we know exactly what to do.
The Earth First! Journal, May-June 1998, pg. 5
0 comments:
Post a Comment