[Peace-discuss] RE: Population control

[Phil Stinard]

Hi Ricky,

I was just responding to what you wrote:  "The practice of tree-spiking gets 
a bad rap," followed by a justification of how the workers were warned by 
signs that you say they ignored, or their bosses made them cut down the 
trees anyway.  It sounds like a defense of the practice to me, but if it's 
not, then thanks for the clarification.

--Phil

PS -- How do you know that the workers were warned by signs in all cases?


>From: Ricky Baldwin <baldwinricky at yahoo.com>
>To: Phil Stinard <pstinard at hotmail.com>, peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] RE: Population control
>Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 08:09:32 -0800 (PST)
>
>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