[Peace-discuss] RE: Population control

[Ricky Baldwin]

Phil,

I'd appreciate it if you did not paint with such a
wide brush.  I did not, nor have I ever "lauded" the
practice of tree-spiking.  I merely seek to set the
record straight.  Much of what people believe happened
during the tree-spiking fad of the 90s never did.  It
was hype.  But we can't allow ourselves to believe
everything we read or hear, especially when the source
has a vested interest in fooling us.  

There was an organized attempt during this period,
still going on   in a modified form, to drive a wedge
(as Tom says) between the American working class and
environmental activists:  "Workers are too dumb and
self-centered to see beyond their noses," 
"environmentalists are just eggheads who never worked
a day in their lives and care more about trees than
thier fellow human beings," etc.  It was cleverly
done, playing on differences that actually existed. 
Most propaganda, even the most vicious lie, has at
least a kernel of truth if it is to be effective.

I'll respond to Tom's thoughts separately, but I
wanted you to know where I am coming from on this. 
For the record, I do not condone tree-spiking.  Any
more than I condone hijacking a big airliner and
slamming it into a building full of people.  But I
still think it's important to tell the truth.

Hope you see what I mean-
Ricky 

--- Phil Stinard <pstinard at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks, Tom, for writing a thoughtful reply to
> Ricky's defense of 
> tree-spiking.  When I read Ricky's post, I was too
> shocked and upset to 
> write anything constructive, so I set it aside for
> the night, and woke up to 
> find your well-written reply.  Acts leading to the
> death or injury of others 
> are NOT actions that should be lauded by people of
> peace.  Thanks for making 
> this clear.
> 
> --Phil
> 
> 
> >Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:00:16 -0800 (PST)
> >From: Tom Mackaman <tmackaman at yahoo.com>
> >Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: Population control
> >To: Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>,
> >	peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> >Message-ID:
>
<20060124060016.49429.qmail at web81411.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> >Ricky,
> >
> >   In your postscript, you write that "the practice
> of tree-spiking gets a 
> >bad rap."  Deservedly so!
> >
> >   In its defense, you claim that  "in fact spiked
> tree areas were 
> >generally posted with warnings --- the purpose
> being to protect the trees 
> >not to injure the workers."  Even if there were
> "generally"[!] warnings, 
> >your justification posits a false dichotomy.  Of
> course, the purpose of the 
> >spiking was to save trees, but how would it do so? 
> By the credible 
> >physical threat to the bodies of those who would
> harvest and process the 
> >tree.
> >
> >   Your next line implicitly places the
> responsibility for injury or death 
> >on lumberworkers:  "Unfortunately a very few
> workers either chose to ignore 
> >these warnings or were coerced into doing so by the
> boss, and injuries 
> >resulted."  Unfortunate indeed!
> >
> >   And attempting to invoke the memory of Bari as a
> means to show why 
> >tree-spiking "gets a bad rap" doesn't work, in
> since Bari was part of a 
> >section of Earth First! who sought to distance the
> movement from direct 
> >action methods that could potentially hurt people,
> and in particular 
> >tree-spiking.  She correctly understood that the
> backlash against the 
> >environmental movement caused by such tactics far
> outweighed any potential 
> >good it might do.
> >
> >   Finally, whether or not you have no moral qualms
> with tree-spiking, I 
> >think that in the end it's best to judge based on
> resutls.  What would a 
> >historical balance sheet on tree-spiking tell us? 
> (1) Whatever short-term 
> >victories might be attributed to the practice, if
> any, the destruction of 
> >old growth timber and the deforestation of the
> world continue, no doubt 
> >more rapidly than before; (2) The practice has
> discredited the entire 
> >environmentalist movement in the eyes of working
> people in lumber producing 
> >states.  Coming from Northern Minnesota, I can
> attest to that myself.  
> >There were few instances of tree-spiking, but at
> least there the anger that 
> >those "militants" created have damaged their cause
> beyond repair.  And in 
> >states like MN, Oregon, Washington and elsewhere,
> the far right has used 
> >such tactics as "wedge issues" to break apart the
> old labor-liberal 
> >alliance.  That was no doubt inevitable for a
> number of reasons, but I'm 
> >sure that Earth First! had not planned on
> >  accelerating the process.
> >
> >
> >   Tom
> >
> >
> >
> >Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >   Looks like I missed another doozy.
> >
> >But before I launch into how the problem with
> >population control is in who's doing the
> controlling,
> >etc., etc., (I agree with most of what I've been
> >reading anyway) is it possible to find out what
> >exactly the proposal was and what the thinking was
> >behind it?
> >
> >Ricky
> >
> >P.S. The practice of tree-spiking gets a bad rap,
> but
> >in fact spiked tree areas were generally posted
> with
> >warnings --- the purpose being to protect the trees
> >not to injure the workers. Unfortunately a very few
> >workers either chose to ignore these warnings or
> were
> >coerced into doing so by the boss, and injuries
> >resulted. The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW)
> >worked with both loggers and environmentalists in
> the
> >Pacific NW during the 1980s and 90s, since they
> both
> >had the same enemy: big capitalist logging
> companies,
> >which were the ones eliminating both logging jobs
> >(thru mechanization) and forest (sometimes old
> growth
> >and sometimes clearcut). Judi Bari gave her life
> for
> >making the connection.
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>
http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com