Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Extreme Activists
Arson is often seen as a legitimate tool to use in protest, usually against growth. An anonymous email sent to local news groups said that the arson was the work of the Earth Liberation Front, which would mark the first time the group has struck here in Maryland. The purpose of the action was "to strike at the bottom line [of Ryan Homes]... "We warn all developers that the people of the Earth are prepared to defend what remains of the wild and the green..."The group did cause $300,000 worth of damage to the homes. Other than that, the results will all be counterproductive to their cause. The builders will collect insurance, then will have to rebuild the homes in the hopes of recouping the losses and will also use more resources to rebuild.
Most importantly, however, is that this will cause further negative opinion among people with a neutral or negative opinion about environmentalism. Although the people with negative opinions may never be convinced that there are some sane people with sane ideas who consider themselves environmentalists, people with neutral opinions can be swayed further towards the negative. The importance in this lies in the fact that even ideas with serious merit are more likely to be brushed aside if they have even a hint of environmentalism.
Using public speaking as an example, the person supporting a cause has the responsibility to respect the audience's viewpoints, even if he doesn't agree with them. If that respect is not there, the audience will feel it on some level and will not be receptive to the cause. Part of that respect is understanding to some degree how the audience's background affects their view on the subject at hand, and then using that information to relate the argument to the audience. Yes, the audience has a responsibility to hear and be patient to some extent, but the majority of it lies with the speaker. The speaker is the one asking the favor of fair judgement from the audience. If the speaker taints the message with a lack of respect, the audience will not listen.
The arsonists' act has the same effect on the overall debate, especially on the topic of smart growth: it taints the message and it tunes out people who might have otherwise been convinced with a reasoned, thoughtful debate.
The arsons may at first seem similar to the riots in China, but the situations are too different to make a useful comparison. The villagers in China had submitted complaints for up to a year without a response. These complaints were a great deal more serious than that of the arsonists: their crops were rotting from the inside out, the water was undrinkable and there was a dramatic increase in birth defects. Additionally, the villagers attempted a peaceful protest first; things got only got ugly when factory guards and local officers tried to stop them. For the villagers, these riots can mean the difference between life and death in a country where protesting is the only means of recourse. For the arsonists, these protests are only a way to get attention, although not the type that they would expect.
Oh, and one last comment: In the email, they had the audacity to use Tolkien as an excuse for this action: "The Ents are going to war."