by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Jan 6, 2017 | Strategy & Analysis
This is the eleventh installment in a multi-part series. Browse the Protective Use of Force index to read more.
via Deep Green Resistance UK
Deep Green Resistance advocates for the sabotage of infrastructure. Some nonviolent advocates discuss the use of sabotage in relation to nonviolence.
In The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Gene Sharp does not classify the sabotage of property as violent, but states that sabotage could become violent if it causes injury or death. He considers that certain actions (including removal of key components, vehicle fuel, records or files) can fall somewhere between sabotage and nonviolent action. He describes that when nonviolent action has not been successful, sabotage has sometimes followed. Sharp does not describe any instances of sabotage being used by a disciplined nonviolent movement. In his view, sabotage is more closely related to violence than nonviolence, in terms of principles, strategy, and mechanisms of operation. [1]
Sharp also lists nine reasons why sabotage will seriously weaken a nonviolent movement:
- it risks unintentional physical injury;
- it may result in the use of “violence” or the use of force against those who discover plans of sabotage;
- it requires secrecy in planning and carrying out missions, which also may result in “violence” or the use of force if discovered;
- it only requires a few resisters, which reduces large scale participation;
- it demonstrates a lack of confidence in nonviolent actions;
- it relies on physical destruction rather than people challenging each other directly;
- sabotage and nonviolence are rooted in very different strategies—nonviolence in withdrawal of consent, sabotage in destroying property;
- if any physical injury or death happens, even if by accident, it will result in a loss of support for the nonviolent cause;
- sabotage may cause increased repression. [2]
Ackerman and Kruegler agree with Sharp and recommend avoiding sabotage and demolition, but they do identify “nonviolent sabotage” as a form of economic subversion that renders resources for repression inoperative by removing components, overloading systems and jamming electronics. [3]
Branagan differentiates nonviolent property damage and sabotage. Property damage that occurs during a nonviolent action may involve, for example, a hole in the road that has minimum impact, especially compared to ecological, structural, cultural or physical violence. In his model, sabotage is defined by conducting sustained systematic attacks on property, and then getting away with it. [4]
Bill Meyers describes that sabotage was the primary tactics used by Earth First! in the US in 1989. However, during this period nonviolence activists joined the group, arguing that sabotage is a form of violence that feeds a cycle by giving those sabotaged the excuse for their own violence. They also conflated property destruction with violence against persons. Meyers explains that by 1990, this shift in participants’ ideological stances regarding violence resulted in the transition of Earth First! from a revolutionary group that was a genuine threat to the corporations destroying the earth into a much less physically threatening group.
To conclude this run of articles, over the last seven posts I’ve attempted to: define nonviolence and pacifism; explain what nonviolent resistance is; describe its advantages; signpost you to where you can learn more about struggles and who is advocating for nonviolent resistance; and finally how nonviolence and sabotage fit together.
Pacifism is clearly based on good intentions and an understandable desire for a world at peace. Nonviolent resistance is a very important tactic in our struggle. But crucially, it can not be the only tactic if the movement for environmental and social justice ever hopes to be effective. If the planet is to remain livable in the medium term then the movement needs to determine which tactics are most likely to succeed. Regardless of the differences of opinion and focus within the movement, the movement as well as the planet are losing. Being wedded to mostly nonviolent tactics is a major cause of this failure.
Strategic nonviolence has an important part to play in our resistance but the need for some nonviolent advocates to only advocate pacifism or nonviolent resistance in any circumstances and try to mandate it across whole movements, is counterproductive and causing the movement to be less effective.
An act of sabotage or property destruction is violent or nonviolent depending on the intentions and the way they are carried out (see post 4). I don’t think that sabotage or property destruction of nonliving things such as buildings, vehicles, and infrastructure in the defence of life can ever be considered violent.
In the next run of posts I will explore the problems with nonviolence and pacifism.
This is the eleventh installment in a multi-part series. Browse the Protective Use of Force index to read more.
Endnotes
- Politics of Nonviolent Action, Gene Sharp, 1973, page 608/9
- Politics of Nonviolent Action, page 609/10
- Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: The Dynamics of People Power in the Twentieth Century, Peter Ackerman and Chris Kruegler, 1993, page 39
- Global Warming: Militarism and Nonviolence,The Art of Active Resistance, Marty Branagan, 2013, page 124
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Jan 4, 2017 | Lobbying
by Real World Radio via Intercontinental Cry
After eight years of struggle, communities in Santa Cruz Barillas, Guatemala, are celebrating a decision by Spanish company Ecoener-Hidralia to leave Guatemala and start the “process of extinction of Hidro Santa Cruz S.A.”
The Dec. 29 announcement signals the end to a tragic legacy of political persecution and imprisonment, criminalization of resistance, threats and the murder of social leaders.
The aggressiveness of the hydro dam’s proponents reached its highest point with the murder of community leader Andrés Pedro Miguel, attributed to security officers hired by the multinational company. Legal authorities, even in light of undisputed evidence, decided to keep this crime unpunished.
The outrage of communities was used as an excuse by the Guatemalan government, led by Otto Pérez Molina, to declare a state of emergency in the area and imprison several people.
“As the people of Barillas we see this as a great victory. This is an important achievement towards the defense of the territory and the natural resources of the people, and it is a message for other companies in the country and the world,” said Basilio Tzoy, member of the Departmental Assembly of Huehuetenango and CEIBA – Friends of the Earth Guatemala, in an interview with Real World Radio.
Tzoy believes that the “key factor” for this victory was the struggle of “the people through community consultations since 2007, and then with the support of different organizations and individuals who opposed the state of emergency in 2012 and advocated for the freedom of the political prisoners.”
Tzoy also highlighted the importance of the solidarity shown by regional and international organizations that acted to stop the advance of the project, for instance through the International Mission on Human Rights carried out in 2013 in the framework of the 5th Latin American Meeting of the “Network of People Affected by Dams and in Defense of Rivers, Communities and Water” (REDLAR).
Another important action, according to him, was the delivery of over 23 thousand signatures gathered by Friends of the Earth Spain and the Alianza por la Solidaridad to the Guatemalan Ambassador in Spain, demanding the definitive withdrawal of the multinational company from the country.
The struggle continues
In addition to celebrating this victory, the communities have identified as next steps to strengthen the solidarity with the q’anjob’al and chuj peoples of San Mateo Ixtatán municipality, who are facing the advance of hydroelectric projects owned by company Promoción y Desarrollo Hídricos (PDHSA). According to Tzoy, the leaders of these communities, who live in a heavily militarized territory, have “over 17 arrest warrants against them and over 50 legal complaints,” for defending their territories.
With reference to the territories occupied by Hidro Santa Cruz, the activist said that starting next year, the local organizations will meet to define how they will be recovered.
In the framework of the 20th anniversary of the peace agreements today, December 29th, Tzoy said that Guatemalan social movements have been meeting for over two months now, carrying out actions to demand the State the right of Indigenous Peoples to their territories and to denounce the attacks and criminalization of the struggles of the communities.
As a conclusion, Basilio Tzoy addressed “the people of Latin America and the world resisting neoliberalism: the struggles take long and are hard, but the fruits can be reaped as long as they persevere,” said the Guatemalan leader.
This article was originally posted at RadioMundoReal.fm and edited and re-published at Intercontinental Cry under a Creative Commons License. Featured image by www.papelrevolucion.com.
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Dec 28, 2016 | Strategy & Analysis
This is the tenth installment in a multi-part series. Browse the Protective Use of Force index to read more.
via Deep Green Resistance UK
The aim of this post is to inform those interested in researching how to strategically confront the state using nonviolent direct action or force; and how this information might be applied to their situation.
Two books describe and analyse a number of struggles. In Strategic Nonviolent Conflict, [1] Ackerman and Kruegler analyse a number of nonviolent conflicts based on their Twelve Principles of Strategic Nonviolent Conflict, which I described in a previous post. The conflicts include: the First Russian Revolution 1904-1906; Ruhrkampf regional defense against occupation, 1923; the Indian Independence Movement, 1930-1931; Denmark occupation and resistance, 1940-1945; El Salvador civic strike, 1944; Resistance against the Polish Communist Party, 1980-1981.
In The Failure of Nonviolence, [2] Gelderloos describes and analyses over thirty nonviolent and militant struggles, which have occurred since the end of the cold war. He uses a four point criteria: whether a movement seized space for new social relations; whether it spread an awareness of new ideas (and secondarily if this awareness was passive or whether it inspired others to fight); whether it had elite support; whether it achieved any concrete gains in improving people’s lives.
The struggles he lists are: The Oka Crisis, The Zapatistas, The Pro-Democracy Movement in Indonesia, The Second Intifada, The Black Spring in Kabylie, The Corralito (in Argentina), the Day the World Said No to War, The Colour Revolution, Kuwait’s “Blue Revolution” and Lebanon’s “Cedar Revolution,” The 2005 Banlieue Uprisings, Bolivia’s Water War and Gas War, Kyrgyzstan’s Tulip Revolution, The Oaxaca Rebellion, The 2006 CPE Protests, 2007 Saffron Revolution, The 2008 insurrection in Greece, Bersih Rallies, Guadeloupe General Strike, UK Student Movement, Tunisian Revolution, The Egyptian Revolution of 2011, The Libyan Civil War, The Syrian Civil War, 15M Movement and General Strikes, 2001 United Kingdom Anti-Austerity Protests, 2011 England riots, Occupy, The 2011-2013 Chile student protests, The Quebec Student Movement, and The Mapuche struggle.
The Global Nonviolent Action Database is also an online resources with some 1,000 examples of nonviolent actions.
Gelderloos also offers a very comprehensive list of those individuals advocating for pacifism and nonviolence. [3] Other organizations active in this realm include: the Albert Einstein Institution; the International Centre on Nonviolent Conflict, the Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies, Waging Nonviolence and Campaign Nonviolence.
The Radical Think Tank in London has been researching the ways in which nonviolent direct action could be used in the UK. Its members have identified three key mechanisms to enhance political participation and mobilisation to increase the campaign’s likelihood of success: (1) the conditional commitment or pledges; (2) dilemma actions, a lose-lose situation for the authorities; and (3) fostering open space, where people can talk freely about what’s bothering them, which is empowering and motivates them to act. They have also mapped out a number of hypothetical campaign progressions which combine all three mechanisms in order to show how much more effective they can be when combined.
This is the tenth installment in a multi-part series. Browse the Protective Use of Force index to read more.
Endnotes
- Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: The Dynamics of People Power in the Twentieth Century, Peter Ackerman and Chris Kruegler, 1993
- Failure of Nonviolence, Peter Gelderloos, 2013, page 48-97
- Failure of Nonviolence, page 160-215
To repost this or other DGR original writings, please contact newsservice@deepgreenresistance.org
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Dec 19, 2016 | Strategy & Analysis
This is the ninth installment in a multi-part series. Browse the Protective Use of Force index to read more.
via Deep Green Resistance UK
Advocates of nonviolent methods argue that their approach holds a number of advantages over using force.
One argument often made is that “violence” or the use of force weakens the movement, that it shifts attention to this form of resistance and away from the issues at stake. Some also argue that the use of “violent” means or force can give the government the excuse it needs to use violence against the movement. [1]
Gene Sharp argues that using nonviolent methods or “weapon systems” unfamiliar to police and military increases the activists’ total combat effectiveness. According to Sharp, any state repression against the nonviolent movement would expose state violence in the worst possible light, and shift public opinion and power relations towards the nonviolent group. In this way, organizers of nonviolent actions aim to cut off the sources of a regime’s power—one being its capacity for violence—rather than to attack the resources and the infrastructure produced by that power. Sharp considers that, in a sense, this may constitute a more direct attack on the opponent than could be achieved with “violence” or the use of force [2].
Marty Branagan contends that nonviolent actions have resulted in extraordinary achievements, are ethically superior, and are more effective. He also argues that nonviolence replaces the win/lose power play, which leads to a physical, legal and psychological response, with a win/win solution of cooperation. Nonviolent methods also avoid the long-term inter-generational hatred caused by “violence” or force. Branagan cites several studies that indicate that nonviolent struggles result in governments that better observe democratic rights. [3]
Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan conducted a statistical analysis of the effectiveness of nonviolence by compiling 323 major nonviolent campaigns between 1900 to 2006 and subjectively rating them as “successful,” “partially successful,” or “failed.” [4] However, the rating of reformist movements as successful, for example, do not use a revolutionary criteria. [5] I’ll explore the issues with this study in a future post.
Ackerman and Kruegler write that most nonviolent methods are chosen because they are the most effective and least costly means available, and that nonviolent action is often chosen because a military response is not an option. [6]
Mike Ryan describes two distinct arguments that support adherence to nonviolence: the ideological argument and the practical argument. Ideologically, nonviolence is seen as good/right and violence is bad. Practically, it is argued that it’s not the right time for violence; it alienates the people; it results in repression; and it will result in unfavorable press. [7]
This is the ninth installment in a multi-part series. Browse the Protective Use of Force index to read more.
Endnotes
- Politics of Nonviolent Action, Gene Sharp, 1973, page 597
- Politics of Nonviolent Action, page 453/4
- Global Warming: Militarism and Nonviolence,The Art of Active Resistance, Marty Branagan, 2013, page 58
- Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict, Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, 2012
- Failure of Nonviolence, Peter Gelderloos, 2015, page 42-6
- Strategic Nonviolent Conflict: The Dynamics of People Power in the Twentieth Century, Peter Ackerman and Chris Kruegler, 1993, page 4
- Pacifism as Pathology, Ward Churchill, 1998, page 126/7
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Dec 17, 2016 | Strategy & Analysis
This is the eighth installment in a multi-part series. Browse the Protective Use of Force index to read more.
via Deep Green Resistance UK
Srdja Popovic, one of the organisers of Otpor, the nonviolent group that challenged Slobodon Milosevic in Serbia, now offers nonviolence training through the The Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS). Popovic views a nonviolent campaign as a war, but one which is fought with different kinds of weapons or sanctions. [1] He argues that a successful nonviolent struggle requires nonviolent discipline, unity, and planning. [2] He points out that the state employs fear and the threat of arrest or more terrifying repercussions to make the people obey:
All oppression relies on fear in order to be effective…the ultimate point of all this fear is not merely to make you afraid. A dictator isn’t interested in running a haunted house. Instead, he wants to make you obey. And when it comes down to it, whether or not you obey is always your choice. Let’s say that you wake up in some nightmare scenario out of a mafia movie, where some wacko tries to force you to dig a ditch. They put a gun to your head and threaten to kill you if you don’t start shoveling. Now, they certainly have the power to scare you, and it’s certainly not easy to argue with someone who has a pistol pointed right at your temple. But can anybody really make you do something? Nope. Only you can decide whether or not to dig that ditch. You are totally free to say no. The punishment will certainly be severe, but it’s still your choice to decline. And, if you absolutely refuse to pick up that shovel and they shoot you dead, you still haven’t dug them a ditch. So the point of oppression and fear isn’t to force you to do something against your will – which is impossible – but rather to make you obey. That’s where they get you. [3]
Popovic then explains that once those involved with Otpor moved past the fear of the unknown—and of being arrested—they were able to blunt the state’s oppressive power:
The best way to overcome the fear of the unknown is with knowledge. From the earliest days of Otpor!, one of the most effective tools the police had against us was the threat of arrest. Notice I didn’t say arrest but just the threat of it. The threat was much more effective than the thing itself, because before we actually started getting arrested by Milošević’s police, we didn’t know what jails were like, and because people are normally much more afraid of the unknown, we imagined Milošević’s prisons to be the worst kind of hell…But then when things started getting heated, a lot of us actually were arrested, and when we got back we told the others all about it. We left out none of the details. We wrote down and shared with our fellow revolutionaries every bit of what had happened in the jails. We wanted those about to get arrested themselves – we knew there were bound to be many, many more of us picked up by the dictator’s goons – to understand every step of what was going to happen to them. [4]
While this reasoning may not be appropriate in all socio-political contexts (such as for survivors of rape, assault, domestic abuse, and hate crime), it’s useful as a real world example of the power of knowledge in organizing a movement.
He explains that in order for the average citizen to really engage with an issue, they need to believe something to be unfair or wrong. [5] Like Sharp, Popovic believes that “in a nonviolent struggle, the only weapon that you’re going to have is numbers.” [6] Nonviolent struggles try to win by converting people to the cause. Following this reasoning, Popovic advocates that a nonviolent campaign be relatable to arouse the sympathy of the masses. [7]
Author Tim Gee writes in Counterpower: Making Change Happen, that power is “the ability for A to get B to do something that B would not otherwise have done,” and that “if the interests of those in power are not threatened…the likelihood of rulers voluntarily giving up power altogether is small.” [8] Gee proposes a strategic approach he calls “counterpower, which turns traditional notions of power on their head. Counterpower is the ability of B to remove the power of A.”
The concept of counterpower involves challenging accepted truths or refusing to obey. Economic counterpower can be exercised through strikes and boycotts. Physical counterpower can mean fighting back or nonviolently utilizing human bodies to disrupt, stall, or permanently end the perpetration of injustices. [9] Gee goes on to describe four stages to a successful campaign: consciousness, coordination, confrontation, and consolidation. [10]
Mike Ryan makes the astute observation in Pacifism as Pathology that writers from the 1800s did not state that nonviolence means the “absolute, constant and permanent absence of force or violence.” Doug Man’s “The Movement” and Pat James’ “Physical Resistance to Attack: The Pacifist’s Dilemma, the Feminist’s Hope” argue that it’s important to use the least forceful response that is appropriate to that situation, rather than not using force under any circumstances.
If Man’s and James’ view on the acceptable level of violence were adopted by nonviolence movements today, then the ideological distance between nonviolent resisters and advocates of violent resistance would stem more from differences in analysis and choice of tactics, rather than the current focus on what’s moral or strategic. [11]
This is the eighth installment in a multi-part series. Browse the Protective Use of Force index to read more.
Endnotes
- Blueprint for Revolution: How to Use Rice Pudding, Lego Men, and Other Non-Violent Techniques to Galvanise Communities, Overthrow Dictators, or Simply Change the World, Srdja Popovic, Matthew Miller, 2015, page 88
- Blueprint for Revolution, page 213
- Blueprint for Revolution, page 130
- Blueprint for Revolution, page 131
- Blueprint for Revolution, page 143
- Politics of Nonviolent Action, Gene Sharp, 1973, page 52
- Blueprint for Revolution, page 204
- Counterpower Why Movements Succeed and Fail, Gee, Tim, 2011, page 200
- Counterpower, page 13
- Counterpower, page 130
- Pacifism as Pathology, Ward Churchill, 1998, page 136
To repost this or other DGR original writings, please contact newsservice@deepgreenresistance.org
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Dec 16, 2016 | Lobbying, Repression at Home
by Noah Weber
On Sunday, March 7, 1965, roughly 600 African Americans and their allies gathered and marched towards Montgomery, Alabama in order to take a stand and draw attention to the fact that 99% of Selma, Alabama’s registered voters were white, and that the African American community was being denied their legal right to vote. The unarmed men and women who marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge were met by a heavily armed police force and were tear gassed and beaten horrifically. In the end, 17 marchers were hospitalized, and another 50 were treated for injuries caused by the police.
On Sunday, November 20, 2016, more than 400 Native Americans and their allies marched on the Backwater Bridge outside of Cannon Ball, North Dakota. The Water Protectors had been demonstrating peacefully for months in order to preserve sacred burial grounds and protect their only source of clean drinking water from the oil-bearing Dakota Access Pipeline. However, this unarmed march was meant to clear vehicles that had been set up by DAPL to block the Backwater Bridge. They were attempting to clear the road so that emergency medical vehicles could have faster access to the residents and campers at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. After being trapped on the bridge by heavily armed police, the marchers were hosed with water cannons in 23°F temperatures, and shot with rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray, and concussion grenades for more than 7 hours. 26 people were hospitalized, and more than 300 were treated for injuries caused by the police forces.
It is highly likely that neither group of marchers knew the full extent of the violence that they were about to experience as they marched on these bridges for the first time. However, they certainly knew what was in store for them for any subsequent actions. After the first march on Montgomery, the nation was horrified by the images broadcast by media sources, and on March 9, more than 2500 people showed up for the second march on Montgomery. Due to a pending decision, and a restraining order issued by Federal District Court Judge Frank Minis Johnson, the marchers turned around on the Pettus Bridge.
Ultimately, on March 17, Judge Johnson ruled that the civil rights activists’ right to march could not be abridged by the state of Alabama, writing “The law is clear that the right to petition one’s government for the redress of grievances may be exercised in large groups…by marching, even along public highways.” Meanwhile, on March 13th, President Lyndon Johnson met with Alabama Governor George Wallace in an attempt to prevent further violence and harassment from being directed at the civil rights activists. While unsuccessful with Wallace, President Johnson introduced a bill two days later to Congress. That bill became the Voting Rights Act. While it took time for the bill to pass, President Johnson deployed 2000 soldiers of the U.S. Army, 1900 Alabama National Guard troops under federal command, and unknown numbers of FBI and Federal Marshals to protect the demonstrators as they successfully continued their march on March 21.
When I showed up on November 24 to bring supplies and provide medical support at the Oceti Sakowin Camp, there were an estimated 3500 people at camp. When I left at the end of the week, there were roughly 10,000. Dozens of countries, and hundreds of tribes from around the world are expressing outrage and concern over the violence and harassment directed towards the Water Protectors at Standing Rock. These communities are also outraged that the pipeline was originally supposed to pass north of Bismarck, ND, but was rejected as being too dangerous to pass near that overwhelmingly white community’s water source, and instead was relocated to pass through traditional Lakota lands and under their Missouri River water source without any conversation regarding indigenous concerns and opposition to the pipeline.
Governor Jack Dalrymple of North Dakota is escalating his rhetoric towards the safety of the people camped at Standing Rock. He has threatened anyone bringing food and clothing donations to the camps with $1000 fines. This week, he threatened to oust the Water Protectors from their camps in the name of safety, due to winter conditions. However, the Water Protectors are not going to leave, and making someone homeless in winter is unconscionable. Using water cannons on peaceful demonstrators in sub-freezing temperatures shows that safety is not Dalrymple’s top priority. Getting people to vacate the land is his priority.
The Water Protectors are going to continue to march, pray, and peacefully demonstrate, regardless of the violent reactions from DAPL security and police forces. They are doing everything that they can to stand up for their rights in a peaceful manner. They are waiting for action from President Obama. It is time for a sit-down between President Obama and Gov. Dalrymple. It is also time for an immediate and decisive response from the Obama administration to ensure the safety of peacefully assembled citizens and their right to clean water. This means troops standing with the Water Protectors, not opposed to them. President Johnson was not perfect, but he has been judged by this nation, and the world, to have been on the correct side of history on civil rights in the wake of Bloody Sunday. Due to the shared history of abuse and denied rights, despite laws and treaties on their side, it is difficult to see why President Obama praises one group’s actions, but has yet to do anything of substance for the other.
Bloody Sunday
When will troops protect the Water Protectors? So far the only troops acting in such a capacity are the veterans recruited by Wes Clark Jr. My thanks go out to Mr. Clark and his veterans. However, anything short of deploying troops to protect the peacefully assembled demonstrators, in conjunction with pushing a bill through Congress to extend the rights of indigenous communities over the governance of their own land, would be a shameful act by the Obama administration. This is your Pettus Bridge, Mr. President. On which side of this historic bridge do you stand?
Taking the least effective route to enact change is not praiseworthy. A teacher would award a D for such effort.
While the ruling by the Army Corps of Engineers sounds nice, demonstrators are still fighting for Lakota rights on land that is considered to be federally-owned, but was granted to the Lakota “in perpetuity” by the government. The Lakota never relinquished their right to this land. The government took it.
There are still Federal Police and Army Corps vehicles on Lakota land. They are still on the north side of Cantapeta Creek…with the DAPL security forces. I will believe something has changed when Federal forces are standing shoulder-to-shoulder WITH the Standing Rock Water Protectors, indigenous rights have been extended by law, and the pipeline is re-routed or terminated. Until this happens, nothing has changed.
Noah Weber is a nurse and a farmer from Montana. He volunteered as a medic at the Oceti Sakowin Camp at Standing Rock, though most of his time went to ensuring everyone in the medic, healer, midwifery, and warming tents had wood, warmth, and functional stoves.
Featured image: Standing Rock, by Rob Wilson
