Endgame Volume I_ The Problem of Civilization - Derrick Jensen [134]
Bringing down civilization is not about being morally pure—morality defined, of course, according to those in power—but instead it is about defending our own lives and the health and lives of our landbases.
Bringing down civilization is millions of different actions performed by millions of different people in millions of different places in millions of different circumstances. It is everything from bearing witness to beauty to bearing witness to suffering to bearing witness to joy. It is everything from comforting battered women to confronting politicians and CEOs. It is everything from filing lawsuits to blowing up dams. It is everything from growing one’s own food to liberating animals in factory farms to destroying genetically engineered crops and physically stopping those who perpetrate genetic engineering. It is everything from setting aside land so it can recover to physically driving deforesters out of forests and off-road-vehicle drivers (and manufacturers and especially those who run the corporations) off the planet. It is destroying the capacity of those in power to exploit those around them. In some circumstances this involves education. In some circumstances this involves undercutting their physical power, for example by destroying physical infrastructures through which they maintain their power. In some circumstances it involves assassination: At a talk someone asked me what, given the opportunity, I would have said to Hitler, and I immediately responded, “Bang, you’re dead.” She then asked what, given the opportunity, I would say to George W. Bush . . .
All morality is particular, which means that what may be moral in one circumstance may be immoral in another. And the morality of any action must be put into the context of a system—civilization—that is killing or immiserating literally billions of human beings, killing our collective future, killing our particular landbases, killing the planet. In other words, our perception of the morality of every particular act must be informed by the certainty that to fail to effectively act to stop the grotesque and ultimately absolute violence of civilization is by far the most immoral path any of us can choose. We are, after all, talking about the killing of the planet.
Just last night I shared a stage with Ward Churchill, a Creek/Cherokee/Métis Indian, and author of more than twenty books (I asked how many, and he laughed and then said it’s a bad sign when he no longer remembers the precise number). Ward is known for his militancy, as you can probably guess from some of his titles—Struggle for the Land: Indigenous Resistance to Genocide, Ecocide, and Expropriation in Contemporary North America, and Pacifism as Pathology: Reflections on the Role of Armed Struggle in North America come to mind—and he’s known as well for his clarity of thought and expression on issues of resistance. So it came as no surprise when he said onstage, “What I want is for civilization to stop killing my people’s children. If that can be accomplished peacefully, I will be glad. If signing a petition will get those in power to stop killing Indian children, I will put my name at the top of the list. If marching in a protest will do it, I’ll walk as far as you want. If holding a candle will do it, I’ll hold two. If singing protest songs will do it, I’ll sing whatever songs you want me to sing.