by Dr David Drake, DM Reg., Sept 11, 2017
I was recently invited along with a group of social change
activists to attend a private gathering at the Des Moines Catholic Worker
Berrigan House with two young women — Jessica Reznicek, 36, and Ruby Montoya,
27.
The purpose was to discuss how progressive folks think about
the actions they both admitted to along the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). I
had previously met Jessica when she and a friend were camped out in front of
the Iowa Utilities Board last winter on a prolonged fast to protest the IUB's approval
of the pipeline through Iowa. I had brought her hand warmers and we spoke
briefly. In deciding to accept the invitation, I had concerns and wanted to
hear what these two women and others had to say about tactics that go beyond
more common civil disobedience associated with successful movements for voting,
civil rights and for peace in Vietnam.
Jessica wrote me and others in the invite:
"As many of you know, Ruby Montoya and I have engaged
for the past year in various forms of what we believe to be peaceful resistance
against the Dakota Access pipeline. In July, Ruby and I claimed responsibility
for having undergone an 8-month-long property destruction campaign against DAPL
infrastructure in an effort to halt construction.
"It has not gone unnoticed that our friends in the
peace and justice communities of Iowa have been somewhat slow to publicly
support our activities. In fact, most of our allies have remained completely
silent, although many have reached out and support us personally.
"We understand that overwhelmingly the hesitance of
support from our friends stems from unexamined belief systems regarding
property destruction as violent, as well as from a fear of government
oppression. For example, if a building is burning, and a baby is trapped
inside, do you not break the window of said building to rescue the child? Do
you not act from love and compassion? Is it violent and criminal to break the
window of the building so as to rescue the child at risk of smoldering to
death?
"Ruby and I have not acted from a place of anger, but
rather one of love and compassion, with a commitment to nonviolence and peace.
We do not embrace nonviolence merely as a tactic, but rather as a lifestyle. So
naturally, we feel frustration when we are misunderstood and labeled as
violent. We are asking, however, that those of you on this email list consider
taking part in a conversation surrounding property destruction as a viable role
in the movement."
Our evening conversation lasted 90 minutes. Of the seven in
our circle, we each spoke of our concerns and hope around their actions. I
spoke of my sadness for each of them — knowing each may spend some years in
prison for their actions. Another member spoke of inspiration by their
commitment while yet another stated that these two women "are putting
their lives on the line" and that they are "reasonable warriors for
the planet."
Jessica and Ruby stated their actions paused the
construction for 90 days to save sacred ground and under a source for drinking
water. This action was taken after multiple involvements in demonstrations and
civil disobedience. I agree with a close friend who wrote me: "On the one
hand I find myself reacting with some envy to their sense of moral certainty
and commitment. It makes life very clear. Yet in this case, I can't get my head
wrapped around any long-term benefit to their tactic. I suppose history will
tell. I could have a change of heart, but right now I don't see myself getting
involved with consideration of property destruction as a legitimate tactic for
social change."
I don't know that pipelines of dirty oil for export to other
countries will be stopped — especially with the current President — although I
do believe they should. I support nonviolent public protest and in some cases
actions that may end in arrest and facing the consequences. Support for the
destruction of property may encourage further acts, some of which may go even
more extreme.
I believe a turnout by masses of people committed to social
change and the courts may save us. In the meantime, I wish these two young
women leniency by the courts. They are
clearly not terrorists.
No comments:
Post a Comment