Comments on: Civil disobedience = terrorism … Duh!

By: tom

tom — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:17:55 +0000

i’m not saying native americans have been historically passive; look at AIM for instance. when compared to the actions and policies of neo-colonial states however, native americans have shown themselves to be diplomatic, and in search of peaceful means to achieve an end. this cannot be said for the governments of canada or the u.s.

communication is the most important thing, but there does always comer atime when push comes to shove and we offer the rulers of the world a flat out refusal.

“sometimes all i wanna say is fuck nike…”

By: Patrick

Patrick — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 05:58:25 +0000

“The only real way to do this is to continually spread the word in a level-headed way and educate people about animal rights. I hate to say it, but this is going to be a slow process that could take generations, maybe even centuries, to complete.” - dumididdee.
I completely agree. I ran across this ‘interesting’ piece of literature in a textbook of mine and thought it was a nice example of the indoctrination of young people against animal right activists.
“Most people accept the necessity for animal experimentation to advance knowledge, as long as it is performed humanely and with teh proper respect for the animal’s welfare. However, a vocal and increasingly violent minority seeks the total abolition of animal use for human purposes, including experimentation. These people subscribe to a philosophical position called ‘animal rights.’ According to this way of thinking, animals have the same legal and moral rights as humans do. If you are an animal lover, you may be sympathetic to this position. But consider the following questions. Are you willing to deprive yourself and your family of medical procedures that were developed using animals? Is the death of a mouse equivalent to the death of a human being? Is keeping a pet the moral equivalent of slavery? Is eating meat the moral equivalent of murder? Is it unethical to take the life of a pig to save the life of a child? Is controlling the rodent population in the sewers or the roach population in yourhome morally equivalent to the holocaust? If your answer is no to any of these questions, then you do not subscribe to the philosophy of animal rights…Animal rights activists have vigorously pursued their agenda against animal research, sometimes with alarming success. They have manipulated public opinion with repeated allegations of cruelty in animal experiments that are grossly distorted or blatently false. They have vandalized laboratories, destroying years of hard-won scientific data and hundreds of thousancs of dollars of equipment (that you, the taxpayer, had paid for). Using threats of violence, they have driven some researchers out of science altogether.”
With this type of material being taught in the classroom and passed off as objective, it is of no surprise to me that there seems to be a backlash against animal welfare and animal rights groups. There needs to be a rational and logical discussion about these issues in order for there to be any progress. This might be difficult if one side of the debate is marginalized and pushed so far off the map of rational discourse that they have been labeled ‘terrorists’.

By: bits

bits — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 02:19:25 +0000

anyone else have such a list?

By: bits

bits — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 02:11:16 +0000

i fuckin’ love when a video (such as PETAs)/song (meat is murder-conflict)/speech (paul watson)/book (sea of slaughter) has that ability…to energize and concentrate anger instead of throwing you just into despair. It’s too bad that the feeling only lasts for a bit until your back to an inert blob desperetly reading articles, drinking vodka and playing games.

And that’s why i always tell the new agers that my “power animal” is the Awak. And syphilis.

now to find someone with this book

By: Hairhole

Hairhole — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 08:34:27 +0000

I just started reading ‘Diet for a New America’. Just a few pages in, and already I’m getting that boiling in my blood. The words ‘If Liberty isn’t given, it should be taken’ seem to be resonating pretty strong with me right about now.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:56:12 +0000

I did my part by playing “Apparently I’m a PC Fascist” and “Nailing Descartes to the Wall/(Liquid) Meat is Still Murder” when I was DJing for my campus radio station today — and “Money” by Choking Victim.

The day-care kids’ parents probably weren’t entertained, but being hardcore has its price.

Go Oilers!

By: bits

bits — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:35:27 +0000

will grave-robbing be considered a “loss of income”?…probably.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ordshire/4632132.stm

tragically funny tho

By: bits

bits — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:16:14 +0000

Id say that those natives who fought have become heroes in the eyes of their people and offer hope to them that something CAN be done. They remember wounded knee and the other great battles…they take more pride in those than they do in a council sitting down to negotiate and getting annally raped over and over for three hundred years by fat white pigs.

Also, I re-read dumds article and I would say that the civil rights, indigenous struggle and the end of apartheid all had fairly violent movements on the part of the oppressed (although I can’t think of any violent feminists from that time-period, although a lot of their gains were borne from the bloodshed of both world wars, I’d argue). Mandela specifically broke away from the old party to join the new ANC because pacifism was not working (I’m not at home so can’t reach over for his biography, but he definatlt went north to train with other anti-colonialist groups…was it in Angola…?)..urg. This is making me angry, I must admit. Alas, canada won’t be far from enacting similar legislation (I know Alberta had some hefty tresspassing penalties created for logging areas about two years ago)…I’m leery of even adding my email address here and, sadly, won’t order a new EF! subscription as that will be on a list at the border, no doubt. Fuck them for putting ELF on the most-wanted terrorist list….

By: bits

bits — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 18:00:15 +0000

“I can’t even think of ONE instance in history where violence brought liberation on such a sweeping, meaningful scale as did the aforementioned non-violent ones. ”
hmm, I would argue that all those movements had a fairly large and important violent aspect. A huge reason why so many began to listen to M.L.King jr. was because the whites were becoming nervuos over malcolm X’s rhetoric (and later the Black Panthers). Again and again in these movements there is a huge base of slow-but-steady reformist actions, speeches, protests, letter-writing, law creation which are very important, but they are reformist and the powers that be don’t generally care if a few squawk. But when there is suddenly a small but direct-action group which cannot be controlled, then the law-creators become frightened and take a better look at the reformists. Suddenlt a few small crumbs does not sound too bad in the face of a growing support for radicalism. There’s a book called “Green rage” by manes where he tries to find out how the radical animal/earth factions came to be and through interviews there are these groups like sierra club, WWF that state the creation of groups like Greenpeace was necessary to any gains. Lerts say sierra club asks for a reserve of 200 sq km, the neo-libs/cons ho and hum and say “maybe 50 sq km”, the sierra tries to get more through small reforms, but the greenpeace comes in and says “if you don’t give 200 sq km, then we will create a huge international spectacle/boycott, spike a large amount of trees and create blockades. After a few years Greenpeace softened up and a few founders broke off to create EF and the sea sheps, who say we’ll do this and with ELF/ALF also destroy tour equipment and try to cost you millions. Now the powers take a closer look and offer 100 sq km, and voila, a sanctuary is created.

I hope that made sense and wasn’t too horrifically long

By: dumdiddee

dumdiddee — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:18:50 +0000

Tom - I don’t mean that violence is to be avoided in all cases, but in many cases it is futile or counterproductive. For instance, if native americans decided to take to arms at this point in the game they would be doomed. Sure, they would be justified and have moral authority to do battle, but they would have no chance of winning and ultimately their people would be no better off, in fact they would probably be worse off.

And by the way, many courageous tribes *did* violently resist the european invaders.