That being said, I would like to start by saying I was really disturbed in class tuesday when, looking down to my left, I spied a copy of the Sentinel with a front page article about the attack on a UC researcher.
My aim is, to stimulate a discussion on why someone would feel compelled to commit the inexcusable and inconceivable crime, of attacking a staff member at their home. This not only is an immature and irresponsible way to go about achieving your goals; it is bound to undermine any of the constructive and positive work being done by other more chemically balanced, intelligent individuals in the field. By doing something of this nature and level of idiocy, the positions, reasoning and very foundations of all other peaceful, lobbying activists are slowly being chipped away at.
The general populous does not understand or accept the practices of 'direct action,' and with the exception of in novels, anarchy has never been seen to propagate a functioning society. Attacking someone at their home is a dangerous action for all involved. Not to sound like a mom, but what if the researcher was a member of the NRA (I know, highly unlikely cause it's SC but still). It's totally legal for someone to shoot an intruder, and that is the only way I can see this action garnering any support for its cause. Martyrdom is a useful tool, but a pricey one and I just don't understand why people would risk death and penitentiary for one small action. What could it accomplish to begin with? What were they planning on doing if they succeeded? Take the researcher hostage? What about the wife and children.... Kill him? Kill all of them??? I mean seriously guys, where were you going with this one?
Furthermore, how (if perhaps the aim was just to get caught and make the front page of a small town newspaper) does the 'success' of this event effect, or have any sway on the tide of animal activism? For Christ's sake, we live in SANTA CRUZ!!!!! WE'RE FUCKING LIBERAL AS IT GETS YOU NUTJOBS!!! Huntingdon Life Sciences I can understand, I've done the research on them and yeah- they are shady as hell. But this is a sanctioned University of California, with the most green, pro-animal demographic of inhabitants and staff I have ever experienced. Why here?
Lastly, I would just like to say that this struck a bit of a personal chord and I'm sorry for the profanities. I have a history of breast cancer in my family and since the researcher was doing MEDICAL RESEARCH on it, I was a bit extra-emotional about the incident. I would be very interested if anyone could shed any light on this action's intentions. Insights- even opposing mine- are gladly welcomed as I myself, am currently at a loss.
3 comments:
I would encourage you to look for further sources on this situation because there are many different versions of this story circulating.
The one from the news paper is by far one of the most critical of the protesters. Let's face it, mainstream media is not always the best source for unbiased information. There are deep motivations for the media and their supporters to want to create a bad image of activists. I've seen it time and again, and now I'm not one to believe everything I read.
Other perspectives of the same story tell of police brutality and exaggeration of what happened by the use of terms like "attack" and "terrorist" when describing the protesters.
There are MAJOR discrepancies when considering all aspects of the story including the physical contact, and the condition of the wife and kids"
Since I wasn't there, to see what actually happened, I think it is important to take all of the perspectives into consideration.
Thanks, that's a really good point. It did occur to me to look up the article and link it, as well as other mentions of this incident in periodicals/blogs/etc. However I was trying to post before 8 so I said screw it. That was an oversight on my part. I'll update and post links when I find some new info! : )
I would agree with 'I am an animal'.. Believing everything that is read in the newspaper is definatelly setting oneself back by ranting on biased information.
In addition, even as liberal as Santa Cruz is, that doesnt mean that animal testing isnt taking place here. It just goes to show how socially acceptible testing has become, completely forgotten even by those who are claimed "as liberal as it gets you fucking nutjob".
As for the practices of 'direct action' and not understanding how someone would "risk death and penelty for one small action".. you must not understand what direct action is.. It takes putting the issue you believein before yourself.. It is an unselfish act.. something many of us know NOTHING about..
Sitting around, waiting for "lobbying activists" to "chip away at" the issue is what most people spend decades 'supposedly' backing, spending their whole life without lifting a finger to do something about what actually enrages them..
Im not saying that legislature is useless, because I do believe that it is truly needed.. but reform wont come about if no one makes a rustle.. shit stays the same like that..Direct Action is just as needed as legislature..
Post a Comment