Here’s another viewpoint on the ELF’s tactics, which I preface by saying that I do not endorse nor commit violence. First, the media’s use of the word ‘violence’ without a discussion of what it means in an intelligent discourse is disingenous at least and manipulative at worst. Do we mean only direct physical harm, or something broader?
It seems the Emerald uses ‘violence’ for any action that directly or indirectly causes physical, emotional or financial harm; hence, damaging property is ‘violence.’ If this is the case, then many actions of SUV-makers, timber harvesters and the government that privileges their behaviors are certainly violent. Violence is committed on the working poor and the environment every day, and yet the media won’t call it terrorism. In responding to this terrorism, the ELF is no more the “extreme edge,” as you say, than any others throughout history who have said, “You have committed enough violence against us — we will respond with violence until you stop.”
Which brings me to my second issue. Your statement, “History shows that most political change came through nonviolent means,” is demonstrably false. Pre-civilization nomads fought over territory and resources. Fiefdoms were overthrown through violent means. Actually, beyond Gandhi and Dr. King, I can’t think of many examples of peaceful political change. When people remain peaceful, those in power squeeze harder. Most political change has happened because oppressors kept upping the ante of oppression — although no one would call it oppression — until people said, “Enough.”
Particularly disturbing in this situation is that the media won’t admit that the way corporations behave today is violently oppressive to most of humanity. As long as thoughtful discourse refuses to discuss this, people will turn to “violence” out of desperation for a better solution. When the powers-that-be refuse to talk about the reality of their actions, “violence” occurs, as we saw with the Boston Tea Party.
Revolution is coming slowly this time because corporations, in collusion with the government, have persuaded the masses that owning a car and a TV and being able to buy an unwholesome burger for 99 cents equals freedom. Well, it doesn’t. It’s still slavery, and people are catching on. And please don’t say that Americans should effect change through politics, because only the rich can buy political speech in this country; after all, the Supreme Court decreed that money is speech. Politics doesn’t work for the poor in today’s world.
Again, I do not endorse violence as a means of achieving social change. History has shown that violent change simply results in new oppressors. This doesn’t achieve anything real. I certainly wish that everyone would stop the violence so social change could occur without damaging anyone’s property or environment or livelihood or life. But violence flows freely in America, from the government to businesses to workers to consumers to activists to action heroes to school kids, and there seems to be no end in sight.
As long as violence is held supreme in this country — and is used by businesses and activists alike to get their way — then I have to disagree with your central point. The ELF’s ‘violence’ is an effective approach; it has proven so in the past, and sadly, it appears that it will continue to be in the future.