Plane Stupid Turns Nasty, Gets Some Anger
Posted by keith on March 19th, 2008
It’s always interesting to see what happens when the target of an Unsuitablog article reads that article. I know they do, and I have had a few interesting responses from companies in particular, as well as a couple from political offices. I made the decision from the outset that nothing would be exempt from this site if there was a good reason for including it: there are lots of reasons ranging from simply exposing a hypocritical company to making an organisation question their motives.
On the occasion of publishing this item I was prepared for a backlash. Some of the most stubborn personalities exist within environmental groups, and unlike businesses who take criticism as part of the job (no CEO genuinely believes they are doing business for the good of the planet), NGOs and the like really think the way they operate is for the best: or rather, the people who run the NGOs think they know what is best. I know several committed current and former NGO members who really are doing the right thing, but from all my dealings over the last umpteen years with these groups (I have taken part in more actions than I can remember), it is clear they are in the minority.
Stubbornness can be directed in a positive way, as can anger: in fact, anger and stubbornness are vital elements in ridding the world of a system that constantly seeks to brainwash and coerce individuals into thinking that the way of life it promotes is the only life you can have. When anger becomes disproportionate, and manifests itself in petty threats, though, then you realise that the perpetrator is feeling both threatened and out of control. Here are two examples:
http://thesietch.org/mysietch/keith/2008/03/07/plane-stupid-plane-pointless/#comment-304
http://thesietch.org/mysietch/keith/2008/03/07/plane-stupid-plane-pointless/#comment-309
I’m big enough to look after myself, but am not going to waste time taking up the offers: I have far more important things to do than try and convince an angry person that they are targeting their passion in the wrong direction; when they have calmed down then that will be the right time. But better than that, I believe that the person in question is genuine, and just needs to understand that their symbolic actions are fruitless – the system will not change, people have to reject the system entirely and work towards something better. How that happens is manifold, but it must happen.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:08 am
I agree completely that it is first and foremost the consumer who is at fault, and therefore should be challenged. (In any modern democracy, the people are overwhelmingly responsible for ANYTHING that happens.)
But I wonder about the matter of strategy and tactics. Attacking things at the source, where there’s a finite number of highly public (and therefore vulnerable to publicity) targets, seems a more promising line of action than being a public scold, where few are likely to take it personally, and few have any significant personal responsibility anyway.
I say, yes, we should “scold” the public, but still expect the most results from direct action.
Also, there’s the matter of recruiting cadres, and keeping them committed. I imagine a direct action brings in more new members, and a greater proportion of them as activists, than public education advertising and doing the media rounds. All of that is hard, important work, but some people very much wish to go further, get out there and get physical. I know I wish I could, but I’m currently living somewhere (NJ) where the last such direct action was by SHAC, some years ago, and they were pretty much broken up here (and animal rights isn’t really my issue anyway, though I sympathize with it to an extent).
March 19th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Hi Russ
I agree that there is most definitely a place for direct action, as opposed to symbolic non-direct action. I also don’t believe scolding the public will get very far – there is almost always a negative reaction – they need to be taught a different way of living, just like the corporations “teach” people to consume; and it does work with many people. Corporations have successfully been doing it for a couple of centuries.
I am genuinely shocked at the number of committed people who have decided to take the corporate shilling (or the NGO shilling, it’s really the same thing in most cases) rather than carry on with a radical mindset. Just because something doesn’t work first time, doesn’t mean that a rethink is not worthwhile – throwing in the towel and going mainstream is a huge loss, personally and potentially for all of us. I won’t name names, even though I could.
Cheers
Keith