NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/environm/5351

Text File | 1993-01-06 | 3.1 KB | 58 lines

Newsgroups: talk.environment
Path: sparky!uunet!psinntp!newstand.syr.edu!SUVM.SYR.EDU!DRPORTER
From: [e-mail] (Brad Porter)
Subject: Re: A new outlook on activism.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Syracuse University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 15:58:06 EST
Lines: 47

In article <[e-mail]>
[e-mail] (Dean Alaska) writes:

>
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Brad Porter) writes:
>>
>>If you were to call a large newspaper and say:  There's going to be an
>>illegal timer cut at this place at this time, what are the chances they
>>aren't going to respond.  The media loves this kind of stuff.  Physical
>>blockading won't be nearly as effective as reporters and maybe cameras
>>taping everything.  There are easier ways and more effective ways of
>>accomplishing the same goals.  It seems, however, that some people need
>>to get their own name in the paper though these actions.  It looks
>>bad in this rather environmentally aware society.  Which is more important -
>>stopping the timber cut, or proving how dedicated one is to the cause?
>>All to often the answer is the latter.
>>                                  -Brad Porter
>
>Newspapers in small lumber towns won't care about the cut, most likely.
>If there is a protest, they will most likely cover it, but not without
>the protest.  Of course, this isn't true of the LA Times, but there
>aren't too many illegal cuts in Los Angeles.  Many of such protests
>actually serve the purpose of saving the trees since the cut will be
>stopped whenever the glacial legal processes can be brought to fore.
>If the blockade succeeds in stopping the timber cut, then how can
>one tell whether proving dedication is the main cause?
>
>I think
>your main point is that its better to work with people rather than
>against them, and I agree with this.  But it only works when there
>is some form of consensus about the general goals and the debate
>is about facts or methods that can be analysed.  If I value
>biodiversity highly and someone else thinks keeping their job for
>a few more years is worth more than the existence of a species,
>finding common ground can be difficult.
I agree, it can be, but the image of activists is that they don't really try
to find a common ground.  Publicity-wise you're going to lose this battle.
If the reporters who give the on-scene report are the same ones who care
more about the industry than the illegal timber cut then the fact that
it was illegal may never be published.  Activisim loses the publicity
battle.  I'll admit, the scenario you've painted is one of the less radical.
The activists that need to be stopped are the ones who "save the animals",
even domesticated ones, at all cost.  The blockade is not THE MOST effective
action available.  As a last resort, well maybe it's tolerable.
                                       -Brad Porter
DRPORTER@SUVM
>==============================================================================