Earth First! and The Monkey Wrench Gang
Response by Edward Abbey (author of Monkey Wrench) to the editorial about his book. Abbey first clarifies that in no way is Earth First! “pledged to ecological sabotage”, but rather they are dedicated to saving the environment and therefore must engage in “acts of civil disobedience where useful”. He then explains that the book is a fictional work, not a manifesto, and not to be taken as such. He ensures that however the reader chooses to interpret his work is the readers business and that if anyone feels impelled to act out the exploits in the book, that is a matter of their own individual conscience and to be decided on their own.
He then draws the distinction between the term terrorism and sabotage. Terrorism, he writes, is an act of deadly violence carried out against people and/or living things and gives the examples such as the government committing terrorism against its own citizens (like the incident at Kent State) or corporate entities doing the same against land and all the creatures who depend on that land for their lives and livelihoods (like Exxon or Mobil Oil). He draws the distinction that a bulldozer that tears up a mountainside for the possibility of strip-mining coal is the true terrorism; damning a flowing river or cutting down trees—these are examples of terrorism. The people who stop these machines and save the environment, he argues, are practicing sabotage. Sabotage is merely the application of force against inanimate property (such as machinery) and that is never used to conjunction with any violence against living creatures of any kind.
In the story, the Monkey Wrench Gang uses sabotage to protect the land against the true terrorism: that of industrialism. They do so only when all else fails and they are morally justified to defend nature. My favorite point he makes is here: “not only justified but a moral obligation, as in the defense of one’s own life…family…home…one’s own nature, against violent assault” (Abbey 335). Most people, environmentalist or not agree that endangered species issues are worth raising awareness if not worth protection (I know not everyone, but much more seem to agree on this than other issues); why can’t people raise awareness about endangered climates? What about endangered habitats and endangered ecosystems?
In lieu of our class discussion on Wednesday, I think his writing is extremely important. Sometimes you have to revert to extremes to get the job done. I refer not to sabotage directly, but even the justification of the sabotage and the language used in doing so. I think Hargrove’s quotation on page 334 about how Earth First! seems to be more radical than any other environmentalist group from the past is entirely accurate and the very point of their organization!! He writes of how environmentalist movements from the 20th century were effective; they were only effective in raising awareness of the issues. Nothing has truly worked thus far; just like in political campaigns, maybe it is time to resort to radical, extreme actions. If that works, then I see less harm in engaging in these ‘dangerous’ conversations than in NOT doing so. If I am not in class on Friday, don’t worry; I’ll be dancing on Rick Perry’s desk.
I like your distinction between terrorism and sabotage. I thought it was a really interesting point that he considered some forms of environmental degradation terrorism as well.
ReplyDeleteAnd I neither support nor don't support you dancing on Perry's desk; but if you did, I would admire you...