The mis-use of the words "radical", terrorist" and "conservative"

brianlux

I don't really want this to simply be a rant but in some readings posted here and elsewhere this subject keeps coming up: The mis-use of the words "radical", "terrorist" and "conservative". My hope is that we can at least have an interesting and perhaps useful discussion about some of the misunderstandings.

The word "radical" gets tossed around to refer to the actions of people who make attempts to protect wildlife, preserve the environment and work for social justice. Actions by groups like (the original) Earthfirst who worked in opposition to the Black Mesa coal mine and the Glen Canyon dam in Arizona were referred to as "radical". It seems to me (and others who think like I do) that what is truly radical is the exploitation of the environment leading to our own demise and that efforts to stop those actions are merely attempts to do what makes more sense. Saying that doing something to protect life is "radical" doesn't really make sense.

Members of groups like (the original) Earthfirst!, (the original Greanpeace) and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society are often labeled "Eco-terrorists". That term is completely erroneous in these examples. Sea Shepherd actions have often been referred to as "eco-terror" and yet none of them and those they oppose has ever been seriously injured or killed. The use of the word "terror" here is just wrong. The original Earthfirst! group and the entire history of Sea SHepherd have had in place a commitment to do no harm to any human. This is well documented by both groups. (post-Watson Greenpeace has not had such a good record).

Those who work for environmental and animal welfare causes are the most conservative of people and yet they are termed "radicals" or "terrorists" when in fact they are very conservative. Their desire is to conserve. I consider myself very conservative.

The use of words like "bad" or "sick" to mean "good" or "excellent" in terms of popular culture is one thing. We know these words mean their opposite. But to use defamatory language against those who work for the benefit of the environment and social issues is just wrong.

Well, OK, I guess this is a rant. Sorry!

jeffbr

Good post, Brian. I've been interested in this for years. I admit to using the term eco-terrorist 15-20 years ago when there was a lot of talk of tree spiking by Earth First, and a bunch of arsons reportedly committed by the ELF (Earth Liberation Front). I might still consider those sorts of events terrorism, but I know the Earth First tree spiking was being blown out of proportion at the time. In the Pacific Northwest, we had/have a pretty substantial logging industry, and these sorts of stories made the news regularly. But as time went by, it was hard to find any record of loggers dying or being seriously hurt by the spikes, so I became more suspicious of the media and the government fabricating fear, than of Earth First spiking trees.

brianlux

jeffbr said:

Good post, Brian. I've been interested in this for years. I admit to using the term eco-terrorist 15-20 years ago when there was a lot of talk of tree spiking by Earth First, and a bunch of arsons reportedly committed by the ELF (Earth Liberation Front). I might still consider those sorts of events terrorism, but I know the Earth First tree spiking was being blown out of proportion at the time. In the Pacific Northwest, we had/have a pretty substantial logging industry, and these sorts of stories made the news regularly. But as time went by, it was hard to find any record of loggers dying or being seriously hurt by the spikes, so I became more suspicious of the media and the government fabricating fear, than of Earth First spiking trees.

All of the tree spiking ever done caused one serious injury to a mill worker but what's often overlooked and even more often under-reported is that the injury would not have resulted if property safety measures in the mill had been in place.

ELF definitely crossed that border and their actions were renounced (as they should have been) by Dave Foreman and others who founded the early Earthfirst! movement.

What is often misunderstood is the difference between "sabotage" and "terrorism". When those words are improperly used, misunderstanding occurs. I don't think that is very often unintentional.

No honest and conscientious environmental defender would put another human's life or well being in jeopardy.

HughFreakingDillon

terrorism is not defined as human casualties; it's defined as causing feelings of terror in the community at large. so if people become fearful of those that are causing damage to property, then I'd consider that a form of terrorism.

interesting take on conservatism, though. I hadn't thought about it in that way. I would use the term "conservationists" rather than conservatives though.

brianlux

HughFreakingDillon said:

terrorism is not defined as human casualties; it's defined as causing feelings of terror in the community at large. so if people become fearful of those that are causing damage to property, then I'd consider that a form of terrorism.

interesting take on conservatism, though. I hadn't thought about it in that way. I would use the term "conservationists" rather than conservatives though.

Technically correct on both points HFD. However, using the word "terrorist" to describe groups like the original Earthfirst! and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is dishonest and misleading. The corporations that destroy ecosystems and cause species to become extinct (well before there time) are far more terrorist than defenders of wildlife and environment. The corporations, illegal fishing and whaling operations, unrestricted mining operations, clear cutting operations, etc, cause death, the organizations I mentioned seek to preserve life. Which sounds more like terrorism?

HughFreakingDillon

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

terrorism is not defined as human casualties; it's defined as causing feelings of terror in the community at large. so if people become fearful of those that are causing damage to property, then I'd consider that a form of terrorism.

interesting take on conservatism, though. I hadn't thought about it in that way. I would use the term "conservationists" rather than conservatives though.

Technically correct on both points HFD. However, using the word "terrorist" to describe groups like the original Earthfirst! and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is dishonest and misleading. The corporations that destroy ecosystems and cause species to become extinct (well before there time) are far more terrorist than defenders of wildlife and environment. The corporations, illegal fishing and whaling operations, unrestricted mining operations, clear cutting operations, etc, cause death, the organizations I mentioned seek to preserve life. Which sounds more like terrorism?

the former, Brian, to be honest. the corporations, while doing disgusting things, aren't causing the human race to be fearful for their safety or change their behaviours because of their actions.

But I get what you are saying.

brianlux

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

terrorism is not defined as human casualties; it's defined as causing feelings of terror in the community at large. so if people become fearful of those that are causing damage to property, then I'd consider that a form of terrorism.

interesting take on conservatism, though. I hadn't thought about it in that way. I would use the term "conservationists" rather than conservatives though.

Technically correct on both points HFD. However, using the word "terrorist" to describe groups like the original Earthfirst! and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is dishonest and misleading. The corporations that destroy ecosystems and cause species to become extinct (well before there time) are far more terrorist than defenders of wildlife and environment. The corporations, illegal fishing and whaling operations, unrestricted mining operations, clear cutting operations, etc, cause death, the organizations I mentioned seek to preserve life. Which sounds more like terrorism?

the former, Brian, to be honest. the corporations, while doing disgusting things, aren't causing the human race to be fearful for their safety or change their behaviours because of their actions.

But I get what you are saying.

If any individual or company that is needlessly destroying nature and the believes that other individuals or groups that defend nature are causing them to be fearful, they only have themselves to blame. Beside, the groups I mentioned have never seriously injured or killed anyone nor have had any of their owned seriously injured or killed. And if groups that defend nature cause groups that destroy nature to change their behavior, the defenders of nature have done their job.

If a military is being aggressive toward another state, that might be termed "terrorism". But if a military (think "Seven Samurai") is doing defensive maneuvers, that is not terrorism, it's defense.

cincybearcat

Spoken like a true radical eco-terrorist Brian!!!

brianlux

cincybearcat said:

Spoken like a true radical eco-terrorist Brian!!!

That's right!

I mean, wait now, you mean, ummm...

HEY, WAIT A DOG GONE MINUTE!!

Smellyman

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

terrorism is not defined as human casualties; it's defined as causing feelings of terror in the community at large. so if people become fearful of those that are causing damage to property, then I'd consider that a form of terrorism.

interesting take on conservatism, though. I hadn't thought about it in that way. I would use the term "conservationists" rather than conservatives though.

Technically correct on both points HFD. However, using the word "terrorist" to describe groups like the original Earthfirst! and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is dishonest and misleading. The corporations that destroy ecosystems and cause species to become extinct (well before there time) are far more terrorist than defenders of wildlife and environment. The corporations, illegal fishing and whaling operations, unrestricted mining operations, clear cutting operations, etc, cause death, the organizations I mentioned seek to preserve life. Which sounds more like terrorism?

~standing ovation~

brianlux

Smellyman said:

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

terrorism is not defined as human casualties; it's defined as causing feelings of terror in the community at large. so if people become fearful of those that are causing damage to property, then I'd consider that a form of terrorism.

interesting take on conservatism, though. I hadn't thought about it in that way. I would use the term "conservationists" rather than conservatives though.

Technically correct on both points HFD. However, using the word "terrorist" to describe groups like the original Earthfirst! and Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is dishonest and misleading. The corporations that destroy ecosystems and cause species to become extinct (well before there time) are far more terrorist than defenders of wildlife and environment. The corporations, illegal fishing and whaling operations, unrestricted mining operations, clear cutting operations, etc, cause death, the organizations I mentioned seek to preserve life. Which sounds more like terrorism?

~standing ovation~

Thank you good Smellyman!

rr165892

What is that penguin doing a ridiculous Cam Newton impression?

brianlux

rr165892 said:

What is that penguin doing a ridiculous Cam Newton impression?

Haha!

Actually, that image is fitting because some penguins are endangered and non-radical not-ecoterrorists would love to see them protected!