Recently, I found an interview with filmmaker Velcrow Ripper on diydharma.org, a Buddhist meditation site based in Vancouver. Ripper is best known for his film “Scared Sacred,” and more recently for “Fierce Light,” an exploration of spirituality and activism. The interviewer asked Mr. Ripper to comment on my recent short film “Star Wars, the environmentalists’ version” a satire written by author Derrick Jensen and part of my upcoming film END:CIV. Here Jensen envisions the rebel alliance fighting Darth Vader and the Empire with letter-writing campaigns, banner drops and vegan cream pies.
But Ripper misses the philosophy and the point of the film, so he misrepresents both:
…That idea of a violent response being the only response and that everything else is basically wimpy, is basically what you might say is one of their perspectives.
Clearly, Ripper is not familiar with Jensen’s work, but he’s heard about it from Jensen-bashers. It’s the dogmatic pacificists who attack Jensen most often, slamming the urgent reality that we must do everything we can, now, to end this destructive culture. Over-reacting and sensationalizing Jensen’s ideas, as Ripper does, is typical of the criticisms I hear from some members of my community.
Here is a passage from Jensen’s Endgame, and one that he has repeated at hundreds of talks he has given across North America.
We need it all. We need everything. We need people chaining themselves to trees, we need people taking out dams, we need people liberating animals, we need people working rape crisis hotlines, we need people working with medicinal herbs…
That’s the wonderful thing about everything being so fucked up. No matter where you looks there’s great work to be done.
When presented with such shallow criticism of his so-called “violent” stance, Jensen replies that this is the reason he wrote Endgame in the first place. Endgame is a two-volume, one-thousand-plus-page opus that offers a detailed critique of civilization and the modern environmental movement. Everyone who wants a better world should read the whole thing.
Let’s not mince words — Jensen does call for radical action, and he does not discount non-violent civil disobedience as a powerful tool for change. Jensen’s criticism of the environmental movement (and the left) is that they won’t even discuss any other tactics even when faced with the very real possibility of total environmental collapse. He cites many examples in which organizers put up a “Gandhi wall” when any suggestions of property destruction or sabotage are proposed.
This is exactly what Ripper has done in this interview. He has discounted other forms of activism which he deems “violent,” and erected a walled sanctuary where only his “spiritual” brand of activism can live. I would be in agreement with Ripper if we had unlimited time to stop the presently unfolding ecological catastrophe. But I believe the urgency our situation will not allow enough time for us to convince the CEOs, the politicians, and the military to go on ten-day meditation retreats, so they can find their inner child and therefore stop their destructive practices.
What activist Lierre Keith recently told me in an interview fits perfectly in this context. “Spiritual purity does not matter on a planet that’s hotter than Venus.”
I could go on exposing the many blunders Ripper commits on this interview, such as comparing our movement to the Republican party and even calling us “hate-filled.” But that would deviate from the main point.
What we are calling for is for diversity of tactics. We should use the right tactic that will work (and win) for the right situation and not try to apply non-violent civil disobedience as the only way to make change. To do so is not only irresponsible, but it’s an insult to people like Stokely Carmichael, Geronimo, John Brown and many others, who fought valiantly in the pursuit of a better world. Even Rosa Parks herself stated in her autobiography that she never believed in non-violence and that she kept guns in her home to protect her family.
In these times of economic, political and ecological uncertainty, we need all hands on deck. No tactic should be discounted on the basis of dogmatic and unfounded views. Serious thought should be given to all the options that we have at our disposal, especially when time is of the essence.
———————————————————-
Derrick Jensen will host a Q & A in Vancouver on October 24th as a fundraiser for END:CIV.
Velcrow Ripper will be present at a screening of “Fierce Light” on October 10th in New York City.
Join the forum discussion
on this post
I actually quite like Derek Jensen, even if don’t agree with everything he says, and I thought your video was hilarious. I’m all for a diversity of tactics. I’ve been an activist for 25 years, and I’ve seen it all, when it comes to non-violent direct action, from sabatoge of machines, to hunt sabs, etc. I’ve been shot at by the IDF in Palestine, and I’ve been in occupation under siege in numerous instances. I’m not a pacifist – I believe we are in a state of emergency, and a diversity of tactics is needed, and action is needed. I draw the line at killing, that’s all. But I question the need to spend so much energy and creativity attacking your allies. Your video made no mention of “diversity of tactics” – all I saw was a hilarious, and well made attack on the environmental movement, and I was asked to respond to that. I wonder, if time is of the essence, should we not be focusing on solutions rather than attacking each other, when we have the same end goals? I’m actually not that wild about what Scott did – I probably should have just told him I wouldn’t play that game, because I’m not big on all this divisiveness. Good luck with your film. It’s hard as hell to get a film made, and all the power to you.
Thanks for your response Velcrow, but when I heard your interview it sounded pretty much like an attack on the radical environmental movement, a movement that I identify with, and I for one couldn’t let it slide. While I agree that there’s too much divisiveness and sectarianism, I think healthy debate is not wasted time but time well spent indeed. Again thanks for taking the time to respond and good luck.
Interesting timing in this, because last night I got together here in NYC with some people from Friends of Brad Will. Brad was a media activist who was killed while filming in Oaxaca - his story is an important part of Fierce Light. He was a good friend, an anarchist, a freegan and very much a radical. Brad and I filmed side by side for Indy Media during 9.11, on the Zapatista Carvan, at anti globalization protests, and at the world social forum. His friends that I met with last night also fall into the radical side of the movement, and in our discussions last night, the subject of what I dubbed “vanilla activism” came up. They made the point that there are times when this kind of activism - giving a few bucks to green peace etc. - can actually stand in the way of people creating real change. Just make them feel good about themselves, while the world burns, and that could very well be true. The kind of activism I call Fierce Light is not light weight, or a mask for justifying privelege. My main point is that a spiritual perspective and fierceness can go hand in hand. If I was careless in the way I framed that - implying that spiritual activism is the only way - I do apologize. Nothing irks me more than people being “holier than thou”, something activists and spiritual types alike fall into, and I’d hate to come across that way. As I do remember saying in the interview, I’m glad Derek is out there doing what he’s doing - it keeps us on our toes, and helps us to avoid getting complacent. You’re right - a healthy debate is important. One thing we definitely agree on is that we live in a time of enormous crisis.
I look forward to seeing your film!