The ballot or the bullet? A famous Malcolm X speech possesses that title, a speech that I have spent some time listening to this morning. Let me inform you that this is an intense thing to be filling your head with this early in the day, with heavy sentiments of militant Black Nationalism. This philosophy of black self-reliance rings appealingly in the inner-lobes of the common radical, for it calls upon that aspect in all humans to not sit down and accept the injustices that are so prevalent and visible in our daily lives. Moreover, said world-view actually applies to many other groups other than blacks, and therefore has some merit in terms of application in the contemporary world.
Take the green movement, for instance. At best, all the protests in the world may have had some minor affect on those who perpetrate the biggest atrocities against our environment. However, without hitting them in their pocketbook or in their teeth they will undoubtedly continue their polluting practices as long as they can justifiably do so for profit. That is the essence of capitalism- as long as there is a profit to be made it does not matter how one goes about getting it as long as that potential wealth is inevitably cultivated for personal use. (On a side note, that major source of evil is also a major source of progress in humanity; therefore one must be careful in the criticism of the profit motive. However, for our purposes we will assume certain negative aspects of the motive outweigh the positive ones, which may reflect reality in the sense that most profit cultivation goes completely unregulated and consequently has many extremely negative consequences for society in its functionality.) So shall the Greens try to change the system from the inside, with sit-ins and protests and all the benign non-violent actions that are easily and consistently ignored by the greater profit seeking community? Or, shall something more be done to curtail the destruction of our planet? (Which, unfortunately, is probably the only one we'll ever get.)
A good starting point for the latter question is to evaluate the issue in terms of how much it really means to us; the more urgency possessed by the cause, the greater the justification for movements with bite. This piece of logic, when applied to the environmental movement, presents a wedge that can be difficult to reconcile between different factions within the movement. Team Immediate-Armageddon, led by Al Gore, looks at certain scientific data and assumes a sort of end-of-the-world scenario looming in which the world is going to rapidly undergo massive transformations that will be detrimental to human life. Supplement that theory with a time frame of 50 to 100 years and you’re looking at an equation in which young people living today will see the effects of this disaster in their own lifetimes, giving them a strong cause to see through an effective remedy. However, based on the contrary assumption that Al’s timing may be off by quite a bit, we are truly looking at a bit of a different scenario. For instance, instead of this process occurring in 50 or 100 years it hypothetically could actually take more like a thousand years. In that outlook, even for someone who perceives his or herself to be an ardent environmentalist, the case for militant action seems weak and unnecessary. Therefore, as we shall see, the case for a militant self-reliant philosophy as a reaction to some contemporary problem may very much depend on the urgency and breadth of the problem. The more urgent and pressing, the more justifiable certain extreme actions may be.
If the level of action is to be justified by urgency, we are now placed with a situation in which the facts matter. Hmmm, lets see... what is our environmental situation? Are we destroying natural habitats at an alarming rate? Are we reducing the number of species that exist on Earth every day? Are we creating an environment near our major urban cities in which children cannot play sports outside without threat of contracting asthma? Are we creating a gigantic swirl of photo-degradable plastic in the North Pacific Gyro that could eventually poison the ocean in an unimaginably harmful way? Unfortunately the answer to all of these questions, and many more like them, is si senorita. Moreover gosh-darn it, if the facts matter than the fact finders should be listened to. Scientists do not deserve the treatment given to them under the years of 2000-2008 in which they have practically been viewed as witch doctors participating in hedonistic rituals (so-called laboratory experiments) that result in theories which inconveniently go completely against the literal interpretations of the bible that are constantly being espoused by those scoundrels who occupy the bully pulpits of the world. (I'm amused and encouraged to think of many scientists as modern-day Heretic Heroes).
Therefore, if the facts matter, and the facts are that shit is going south fast, what’s next? This is where we get to Malcolm and his notion of the ballot or the bullet. Can we expect that our politicians are actually going to do anything that will favor the environment when it almost certainly will be a blow to the capitalists (their most ardent supporters) who look to exploit it? The cynic in me knows the answer to that question, and if a pragmatist is reading this than you also know the answer. There hardly exists the precedent of politicians choosing to side with the environment (whom has no vote or even political sway for that matter) over the very real interests of the capitalists who use their profits to help prop up these puppets in Congress and the Presidency. It just will not happen this way, and those who protest so loudly need to understand this fact. Malcolm knew that when it came to black nationalism, and we should know that when it comes to protection of the environment. As the political scientist Amartya Sen stated, people get what they demand, and more crucially, do not get what they do not demand. If we think going to the polls and voting for party one or party two is demanding something, we are fucking kidding ourselves.
Therefore, we should not shy away from a form of militancy that gets results. By that, I mean that the first thing we should do is huff and puff and try giving a shit; it begins by getting pissed off about the situation. We should always attempt to emphatically exhaust any political or diplomatic options when dealing with any sort of contentious issue such as the preservation of the environment. However, if taking a plastic red cup and painting it green is their idea of participating in saving the world, I refuse to buy that load of horseshit. The facts matter, and THE FACT IS THAT PAINTING OR CALLING SOMETHING GREEN DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. Thus, until we have some sort of system that holds accountability for the claim of “greenness,” we should be vigilant in our actions and skeptical with our ears and eyes, hearts and minds. Brothers and Sisters I have seen the mountaintop, and it is inhabited by plants and animals- not buildings and factories and money and suffering. Long live the spirit of Militant Environmentalism X...
Take the green movement, for instance. At best, all the protests in the world may have had some minor affect on those who perpetrate the biggest atrocities against our environment. However, without hitting them in their pocketbook or in their teeth they will undoubtedly continue their polluting practices as long as they can justifiably do so for profit. That is the essence of capitalism- as long as there is a profit to be made it does not matter how one goes about getting it as long as that potential wealth is inevitably cultivated for personal use. (On a side note, that major source of evil is also a major source of progress in humanity; therefore one must be careful in the criticism of the profit motive. However, for our purposes we will assume certain negative aspects of the motive outweigh the positive ones, which may reflect reality in the sense that most profit cultivation goes completely unregulated and consequently has many extremely negative consequences for society in its functionality.) So shall the Greens try to change the system from the inside, with sit-ins and protests and all the benign non-violent actions that are easily and consistently ignored by the greater profit seeking community? Or, shall something more be done to curtail the destruction of our planet? (Which, unfortunately, is probably the only one we'll ever get.)
A good starting point for the latter question is to evaluate the issue in terms of how much it really means to us; the more urgency possessed by the cause, the greater the justification for movements with bite. This piece of logic, when applied to the environmental movement, presents a wedge that can be difficult to reconcile between different factions within the movement. Team Immediate-Armageddon, led by Al Gore, looks at certain scientific data and assumes a sort of end-of-the-world scenario looming in which the world is going to rapidly undergo massive transformations that will be detrimental to human life. Supplement that theory with a time frame of 50 to 100 years and you’re looking at an equation in which young people living today will see the effects of this disaster in their own lifetimes, giving them a strong cause to see through an effective remedy. However, based on the contrary assumption that Al’s timing may be off by quite a bit, we are truly looking at a bit of a different scenario. For instance, instead of this process occurring in 50 or 100 years it hypothetically could actually take more like a thousand years. In that outlook, even for someone who perceives his or herself to be an ardent environmentalist, the case for militant action seems weak and unnecessary. Therefore, as we shall see, the case for a militant self-reliant philosophy as a reaction to some contemporary problem may very much depend on the urgency and breadth of the problem. The more urgent and pressing, the more justifiable certain extreme actions may be.
If the level of action is to be justified by urgency, we are now placed with a situation in which the facts matter. Hmmm, lets see... what is our environmental situation? Are we destroying natural habitats at an alarming rate? Are we reducing the number of species that exist on Earth every day? Are we creating an environment near our major urban cities in which children cannot play sports outside without threat of contracting asthma? Are we creating a gigantic swirl of photo-degradable plastic in the North Pacific Gyro that could eventually poison the ocean in an unimaginably harmful way? Unfortunately the answer to all of these questions, and many more like them, is si senorita. Moreover gosh-darn it, if the facts matter than the fact finders should be listened to. Scientists do not deserve the treatment given to them under the years of 2000-2008 in which they have practically been viewed as witch doctors participating in hedonistic rituals (so-called laboratory experiments) that result in theories which inconveniently go completely against the literal interpretations of the bible that are constantly being espoused by those scoundrels who occupy the bully pulpits of the world. (I'm amused and encouraged to think of many scientists as modern-day Heretic Heroes).
Therefore, if the facts matter, and the facts are that shit is going south fast, what’s next? This is where we get to Malcolm and his notion of the ballot or the bullet. Can we expect that our politicians are actually going to do anything that will favor the environment when it almost certainly will be a blow to the capitalists (their most ardent supporters) who look to exploit it? The cynic in me knows the answer to that question, and if a pragmatist is reading this than you also know the answer. There hardly exists the precedent of politicians choosing to side with the environment (whom has no vote or even political sway for that matter) over the very real interests of the capitalists who use their profits to help prop up these puppets in Congress and the Presidency. It just will not happen this way, and those who protest so loudly need to understand this fact. Malcolm knew that when it came to black nationalism, and we should know that when it comes to protection of the environment. As the political scientist Amartya Sen stated, people get what they demand, and more crucially, do not get what they do not demand. If we think going to the polls and voting for party one or party two is demanding something, we are fucking kidding ourselves.
Therefore, we should not shy away from a form of militancy that gets results. By that, I mean that the first thing we should do is huff and puff and try giving a shit; it begins by getting pissed off about the situation. We should always attempt to emphatically exhaust any political or diplomatic options when dealing with any sort of contentious issue such as the preservation of the environment. However, if taking a plastic red cup and painting it green is their idea of participating in saving the world, I refuse to buy that load of horseshit. The facts matter, and THE FACT IS THAT PAINTING OR CALLING SOMETHING GREEN DOES NOT MAKE IT SO. Thus, until we have some sort of system that holds accountability for the claim of “greenness,” we should be vigilant in our actions and skeptical with our ears and eyes, hearts and minds. Brothers and Sisters I have seen the mountaintop, and it is inhabited by plants and animals- not buildings and factories and money and suffering. Long live the spirit of Militant Environmentalism X...
No comments:
Post a Comment