KATHY (BHA): Why did you decide to request political asylum in Canada instead of somewhere else?
JOHN TRUDELL: We came to Canada because Leonard Peltier came to Canada in 1976 asking for political asylum. Members of the Canadian Justice Department, in collusion with members of the FBI and United States Justice Department, illegally extradited Leonard Peltier back to the U.S.
They were able to do this because they could hide behind the criminal charges that Leonard had filed against him. Now, in order to extradite Leonard back to the U.S., in violation of extradition law, the FBI committed perjury within the Canadian Court System. And this was done with the knowledge of some Crown attorneys. Extradition attorneys. When we come to Canada ourselves, we want to bring this issue back up. That not only has Peltier been illegally convicted in the U.S., he was illegally sent back to the U.S. by the Canadian Government that was in power at that time. We wish to bring this issue back up in front of the Canadian people on the whole Peltier case, Daryl and myself.
So that’s one of our reasons of picking Canada. Because this time we qualify for refugee status according to the international definition set up by the Geneva Convention Standards Committee. We technically and legally qualify for political asylum the same way that Leonard Peltier did. The difference between our case and Peltier’s case is that we have no criminal charges filed against us at this time. This time we’re going to bring this issue back up in Canada again, only the way we see it is this time they don’t have criminal charges to hide behind in order to violate our due process. So, we picked Canada for this reason, because there is still a political question.
It is our belief and our knowledge that the Canadian Government and the American Government are owned by the same Corporate State. I mean they own both Governments. But this is not an obvious fact to most people. I mean there is a great many Indian people that are aware of what’s going on in the Canadian Government. But we hope to be able to bring this issue back up so that we can make it more clear. Because we have been depending too much on just dealing with the United States Judicial System and the United States Court System in our efforts to free Peltier. We want to bring the question back up to the International level, and it was within the Canadian Government that a criminal violation took place at the International level. That was the illegal extradition of Peltier back to the U.S.
Whereas the United States, which is one of the criminal parties in this activity, we can’t get them to accept any responsibility for illegally extraditing Peltier back to the U.S. We’re going to bring it back to the attention of the Canadian people and hopefully they will make their voices felt to the Canadian Government about this case.
During the Survival Gathering planned for the Black Hills next July, does the Leonard Peltier Defense Committee plan to play an active role by providing information on political prisoners in the U.S.?
Well, I’m working with the Leonard Peltier Defense Group which is separate from the Peltier Committee. I think that is a question that can best be answered by the Peltier Support Committee that is in Los Angeles, or the one that is in Port Angeles in Washington State. Personally, the way I see it we are involved in this whole issue of Indian Prisoners of War that are locked up in the cages. I don’t know what specific participation we will have at the Survival Gathering next summer, but that will be something that will be decided amongst the Peltier people. I don’t have the say, I mean, it’s not my decision to make, as to how much participation will or will not go. It’s our belief that in dealing with Leonard Peltier’s case that we feel that more people should take some individual responsibility in attempting to represent Leonard and in attempting to get Leonard a fair trial. We feel that more people should take more responsibility.
When it’s time to ask for participation in the Survival Gathering from Peltier people on the case of Prisoners of War and Political Prisoners, then I think that this invitation should be extended to the cross section of Peltier people that are involved in helping to get Peltier freed. That isn’t a decision that should be left to one person to make, whether that one person is myself or anyone else.
What role do you see for the Black Hills Alliance in helping you, Daryl, and Leonard?
Daryl and myself, we’re asking for Political Asylum up here on a personal basis, and that we fear for our physical and our political rights and safety in the U.S. And we feel that a part of this threat against our safety is because of our association with Leonard Peltier. And another part of this threat to our safety is because of the relationship of the Leonard Peltier case to the Nuclear Land Grab, the energy corporations grabbing uranium off the Indian peoples land bases, and what we see is happening, is we are victims in a larger sense of the nuclear process.
When we look at Leonard Peltier’s case, the firefight that Leonard is accused of being involved in, this took place the same day that the Tribal Chairman, Richard Wilson was signing 1/8 of the peoples land base to the Interior Department, and there’s uranium in that area. And in relationship to the fire in Nevada, when my family was assassinated. This once again goes back to that Reservation is also rich in uranium. So we see that all of our political activities that we have been dealing with in the Indian Community, is that we’re talking about self-determination and control of our governments and our lives.
As we’re talking about these things from our communities, just from the perspective of our human rights, we are a threat to the energy corporations. It’s the corporations need for uranium. And 55% of the mineable uranium in the U.S. is on our peoples lands. So this is the problem that we ran into. So when we look at a system from organizations such as the Black Hills Alliance, we think that any type of position that is taken to protect the Earth from this onslaught that is being committed against it by the energy corporations and by many people who don’t understand what’s happening, we feel that the most effective way to help Leonard Peltier’s case, to help this situation that Daryl and I are caught in, is to continue to intensify the effort to stop the uranium mining. Because this is the one thing here where we’re all affected and all involved. And when we look specifically back to the politics of the case surrounding Peltier, Daryl Butler and myself, we know that in the end that several of our people have been placed in a position that they have been placed in and its all been done because we are offering resistance on a land base that the energy corporations want control of the minerals on. So the BHA or any group of people to be supportive of us, one thing they can do is intensify their efforts against the uranium mining and the entire nuclear process.
I think a second thing they can do would be to make an attempt to inform people in the communities as to what is happening with Leonard, Daryl and myself. I think that enough time has passed that we are a politically aware enough people, that people should understand why Daryl Butler and myself would seek political asylum out of the U.S. And there shouldn’t be any quibbling about whether it was tactically right to pick Canada or not. The issue must be supported.
What does sovereignty mean to you?
Sovereignty to me means more than just owning the land. Sovereignty means the ability to live our own natural way, with our own natural spiritual ways. Our own natural philosophical way, under our own natural laws. Sovereignty means these things to me. That we have a say in how our lives are going to be lived. That we have a say as a people in what is going to happen to the land base that we have and what happens to the children that will he brought up to perpetuate our society. Sovereignty means that we are free to act as the race of people that the Creator made us, not the stereotyped label that the U.S. Government or capitalist nations have created us into being. Sovereignty means that we should be free to be ourselves.
What kinds of actions can people take to help accomplish sovereignty?
I think that the first thing that people can do in helping accomplish sovereignty is to recognize their own individual personal sovereignty, and to start conducting their lives in a way that is going to reflect that. Too many times in our lives we accept no from these who exploit us, and we go to them and ask them for fairness, well too many times in our lives they tell us no, and too many people just accept that. In order to start dealing with sovereignty as a personal concept I think that more people should start resisting what the Government and the corporations are doing to them, whatever form this resistance takes.
People have to start dealing with sovereignty on a personal level and as a personal concept before it can then become a proof reality. I don’t have any specific plans. This is up to individual people, but it’s to stand up for what’s right, that’s the only thing that I can see. It can take a lot of form. Maybe some people are going to have to do a lot of reading, maybe some people are going to have to go out and do a lot of community organizing in order to learn more and more about what’s going on, but it’s an individual choice. I think that for true sovereignty we can become more representative of our people, of the Indigenous people. Then I think, in areas of true sovereignty, I believe that we’re going to have to expect our people to act in a more representative way. And I think that we’re going to have to clean up our act internally a little bit, and start living more, the philosophy of protecting the Earth. More of that kind of a way of thinking and more of that type of a philosophy than one of protecting our organization or our sources of funding.
So, internally within the Indigenous peoples movement, I would say that for sovereignty we’re going to have to look at our philosophical values, and which is more important to us. Protecting the Earth or protecting our federal programs or protecting the name of our organizations or protecting our people or what. We’re going to have to really make some conscientious decisions about that.
Do you have recommendations for young people who want to work and are trying to work, but who are getting caught up in the problems that are going on in AIM leadership?
This isn’t something that I would say to just the young people. Something that I think that all of us as people are going to have to think about is that people shouldn’t get caught up in the quarrels of the leadership. Sometimes the leadership starts quarreling amongst itself, and when the leadership starts to do this they’re no longer looking out for the good of the people, they’re only looking out for their own individual vested interest. This is true in any leadership struggles that takes place, amongst blacks, whites, or Indians, no matter who it’s amongst.
When the leadership starts bad mouthing each other and fighting each other over irrelevant issues, that means that they are no longer looking out for the interest of all the people. They have become more specific in looking out for their own interest. I think what the people, old, young, middle aged, all the people, have got to do is start talking amongst themselves to be deciding how it is they want to be represented. But they should not be taking sides because one name is more famous than another or something of that nature. They should only take sides on issues that are going to affect all people, and that are going to be good for all of the people. It’s not who’s saying it anymore, it’s what’s being said that must be listened to. If people are wasting their time by bad mouthing each other and calling each other names, then the rest of the people shouldn’t follow that example, the rest of the people shouldn’t act like that. Let the people be leaders again for awhile, cause when we look at the leadership quarreling amongst themselves the only leader we really have is the Creation, the Great Spirit, that’s our leader, not men. So, I think the people should remember that when the leaders start quarreling amongst themselves.
What are your present feelings about the Indian Movement leadership? Do you think it has potential?
I think that the leadership has to reevaluate it’s position. I think that the leadership should look at it’s intentions, and it should look at it’s values. Because there’s too much bickering going on. There’s too much difference in opinion going on amongst the leadership of the Movement, and we’re trying to pretend that the difference in opinion does not exist. We’re trying to have a pretend unity. And I think this is really bad for the movement. I don’t think it would be hard to straighten it out, but a lot of it depends on how sincere the leadership is going to be, and how willing the leadership is going to be to stop quarreling amongst itself and to be in a more out front way with the people.
We have to answer for when we acted in the role as leaders for the people, and I think that it’s time to have an accountability session and we start explaining what our values are to the people. I don’t mean just this fine rhetoric rap, and everybody see who can talk the best, but I mean we should explain our actions. We go to the Sweat Lodge and pray for humility, then we should act like we’re humble when we’re amongst the people instead of arrogant. If we’re going to go to the Sundance and offer sacrifice and show the people that we’re willing to sacrifice through the Sundance, then I think we should sacrifice some of our jealousies and our egos and our love of money and our love of titles. I think that we should sacrifice some of these insecurities and try to work together more collectively, but that does not seem to be the case of what’s happening right now, and I think that it’s very bad for the people.
The people will perpetuate the quarrels of the leadership. It’s a real situation. It’s who’s going to be the biggest leader and who’s going to be the most Indian. When we get into quarrels amongst ourselves, the only persons that we hurt is our own people. That does not hurt our enemy at all. It doesn’t even put a dent in our enemy, it only helps our enemy to perpetuate the colonial hold over the resources and lives of our people. If we are going to be leaders, then we have to understand that. We have to recognize that. When we base our movement, and our values in the movement on the egos of the leaders, then all the enemy has to do, the enemy being the U.S. Government and agencies such as the FBI, all this enemy had to do is send liars in amongst the people to agitate our egos, and we’re quarreling amongst each other. And it neutralizes us just like massive amounts of federal dollars to any individual leaders. They neutralize these people’s effectiveness, because pretty soon they go from protecting the rights of the people to protecting their vested interest in their program. And the Government has always found bribery to be a very effective way to deal with the people. We’re dealing in a time. Let’s take for example, the 1868 Ft. Laramie Treaty area. You see, the Government is trying to bribe the people with this forced land claim settlement, and the leadership who says that it is busy looking out for the rights of the people are so busy quarreling amongst itself, or so busy rationalizing and justifying what it did three years ago, that the Feds are going to get away with forcing this land claim settlement on the people. We should he talking about constructive things that are going to help the people. We shouldn’t be attacking each other the way that we’ve been doing, and when I say we, we’ve all been doing it. Those of us who define ourselves as the leadership and have fought public recognition as the leaders of the Movement, we have been quarreling amongst ourselves, and we have been having difference of opinion. And as long as this situation exists, there are more constructive things that we could be doing, and we can try to be finding a way to deal collectively, together against the U.S. Government and its colonial mentality.
We should be finding ways to go amongst our people and to explain to our people and get our people to understand on how serious this situation is, to be signing away the land and accepting money in return for the land, things like this. This quarrel amongst ourselves about, well, who’s more Indian than who, and this quarrel amongst ourselves about, well, half breeds against the full bloods and this tribe against that tribe and this state against that state, it’s all bullshit and it only serves the needs of the United States Government, and it does nothing practical or good for us.
I think that we have an obligation and a responsibility to stop that from happening and if we are perpetuating it and we are not stopping it, then I think we really have to look at our own situation. I’m stepping out of it. I know that I’m an instrumental part of this quarrel. I know that the things that I have done wrong has had as much to do with creating this situation as much as anybody else, and I understand it and I’m just withdrawing from that situation. I didn’t mean for it to happen. I don’t like it now that it’s here, and I wish that I could change it, and the only way that I can see it changing is to say that, well, I’ll no longer be a leader.
I no longer seek that title or that recognition as a leader, and it seems as though some of the things that I have been doing maybe make problems for some people within AIM. This is also why I disassociate and say, well, I no longer represent AIM. I’ll just just represent my own ideas, because if AIM people become offended by what I have to say, then I’m creating more divisions. And I don’t care to do that at this point. This is the time when many serious things have got to be done. I’m trying to keep myself together so that I can effectively deal with the things that I have to deal with and it’s all dividing energy. I know that there’s a lot of people going to maybe not like what I’m saying, but you see, I’m only, you know, I’ve been a part of AIM for years, I’m still a part of AIM, I’ll always be a part of AIM, it’s just that I’m not going to represent AIM. I can’t now, because I don’t understand how I can represent AIM. I don’t want to represent people who are quarreling and fighting amongst themselves, you know. I don’t want to do it. I I don’t want to be representing hustle philosophies. There are certain things I don’t want to represent and I’m sure that many of the things I do on my personal weaknesses. I’m sure that people don’t want to be represented by a womanizer, or egotist, money lover, or whatever my weaknesses happen to be. I’m sure people don’t want to be represented by weakness. That’s why I think that those of us who have called ourselves leaders, I think we’d better get back to understanding the way that we say that we believe. We say that we believe that we’re a spiritual movement, then I think that we should become a spiritual movement and quit just talking it. I think we should live it. That’s just the way that I believe that. I don’t mean to get anybody pissed off at me or make anybody mad, and I’m trying not to say anything out of vengeance, out of personality conflicts I have with other people. I just think that this is a situation that has happened, and I’m as guilty as anybody else of helping to create this situation and I feel the most effective way I can help to correct the situation is to no longer participate in it.
It’s my hope that as a member of an Indigenous People of the western hemisphere, I hope that my relations won’t turn on me or won’t disavow me or disclaim me. Or I hope they won’t turn their backs on us just because of the way I feel about this, it’s just my opinion. I’m not trying to force it on anybody. It’s just that I wanna do it this way, and I hope that nobody will try to force their opinion on me.
I know that there are going to be accusations that I quit AIM, but it has nothing to do with quitting. How can I quit the struggle? I think that anybody that makes that accusation against me, then that’s a prime example of what I’m talking about. Maybe it’s not a popular decision, but I wished that people would respect it. We want to help Peltier, we got all this work that has to be done, and we see the AIM people quarreling, we see all this stuff going on, and we know this doesn’t help Peltier. We know it doesn’t help anybody in the end except our enemy.
How do you see the Survival Gathering?
I can’t say what I’m going to see out of the Survival Gathering. I see potential to being able to inform a lot of people and to get a lot of people to work together collectively in an effort that is going to benefit the Earth and the people. I see that type of an opportunity. As to what the reality of what the gathering will be I don’t know yet. There needs to be more work done. As we get closer and closer to that date I think it’s an opportunity to do some really good things, but it depends on how we act ourselves.
How do you see yourself fitting into the Survival Gathering next summer?
I’m trying to survive on the Western Hemisphere, that’s my role in the Survival Gathering, just trying to survive every day. I’m asking for political sanctuary in Canada right now because of certain events that have happened in the U.S., so I can’t be making any long range plans that I’m going to be down in the Black Hills next summer participating in that.
How much organizing work do you want to do, such as speaking engagements, etc?
Getting involved in doing speaking engagements, because of my political situation now with the U.S. Government and the FBI, I can’t just come running into the U.S. to do speaking engagements. What I would like to do if possible is to be able to come back to the U.S. and visit at certain times. I have relations and I have all my friends, everybody I‘ve worked with and struggled with in the Movement is there, and I would like to be able to come back into the U.S. once in a while anyway to at least visit with my relations and do some work that has to be done. But I’m in a situation here because of the political asylum, political sanctuary, refuge status thing that I’m going through up here in Canada. I don’t know that I can just run freely back and forth across the U.S. border without having to face some kind of an obstacle placed there by the Federal Government.
One of the things I wished people would understand is that number one, the United States of American, that’s not the center of all political activities for one thing, they didn’t create the idea of political freedoms or anything of that nature in the United States of America. Just because we have to leave the territorial boundaries of what is described as the United States of America does not mean that we cannot participate in the struggle. The struggle that we are engaged in involves the entire Western Hemisphere. We are the Indigenous People of the Western hemisphere and our struggle must not be limited to one particular geographical boundary such as the United States. So when we come into Canada, what is called Canada, when we come here dealing politically with the Canadian Government, we also come with the understanding that our commitment to the struggle to Leonard Peltier and to the anti-nuclear thing, to the protection the Earth that our commitment is as strong now as it was when we were in the U.S. We’ll continue our efforts in the struggle. We get confused sometimes because people think, well these guys went to Canada does that mean they quit the Movement? That kind of a situation. We think that’s just really a politically stupid opinion. People shouldn’t even be considering that, that’s just a stupid position to take, to pass a judgement on us like that. We’ve been involved in the struggle a long long time and although people may not understand what we’re doing sometimes, people may disagree with what we’re doing sometimes, we understand that situation, but our commitment to the movement, our commitment to the struggle has not changed one little bit. It has only become more intensified because of the things that have happened to us.
That explains why you’re disassociating yourself from AIM and the BHA. As I understand what you’re saving, it means you won’t be representing any organizations. But you will be keeping on in the struggle.
AIM is the American Indian Movement, the American Indian Movement is in the U.S. for one thing. The BHA is in the U.S., I am no longer in the U.S., so I don’t see how I can practically in a practical sense represent either organization. We’ll take it in beyond that, dealing with the reality that is going on right now in the U.S. and in various places, it seems to me that there is a lot of internal disagreements within the American Indian Movement, especially amongst the leadership, there’s a lot of internal disagreements about who should answer to who and what should be done when, and this kind of a thing. It seems like competition has stepped in amongst the leadership of the American Indian Movement, and we’re no longer working together as a collective group, and this is producing a quarrel. I don’t want any part of the quarrel. I don’t want to be involved in that quarrel.
Just from my own personal point of view, I’ve got scores to settle my own self and a part of that settlement does not mean quarreling amongst my own people or having to perpetuate hard feelings amongst my own people. This is why I chose not to represent the American Indian Movement at this time, because I’m just tired of all the disrupting things that have been going on, and I have things that have to be done that I have to work on and be committed to, and if my belonging to the American Indian Movement and choosing to act independently on my own is causing problems amongst the people then I think that I should remove myself from that situation and no longer cause some of those problems.
As far as quitting the struggle, quitting the movement, like I say you know “quit” why would we quit. We have every reason to stay involved. But commitment to the freedom of our people goes beyond organizational egotism and it just goes beyond personal egotism. Our commitment to helping our people and protecting the land, that’s the only thing that justifies our existence. So how can we quit? We could never possibly quit. How can I quit after what the U.S. Government did to my family in Nevada? How could Daryl Butler quit after they just came and told him they’re going to kill him? It doesn’t matter about any trial acquittal, he’s going to die. How can we quit? It’s got nothing to do with all the quitting and I think that’s just the wrong kind of terminology for people to use.
We’re still the Indigenous people of the Western Hemisphere, we haven’t sold out, we’re just going to continue the struggle the way that we see best. We’re tired of quarreling. It’s just as simple as that, we’re tired of talking unity and then quarreling amongst ourselves. We’re tired of seeing it, we’re tired of experiencing it, we’re just tired of it happening. So that’s why it’s not got nothing to do with quitting. We look at it more like this is another beginning for us. We can continue to go and we’re going to be working for the freedom of Leonard Peltier. We’re going to continue in our efforts in that struggle. We’re going to continue our efforts in stopping this nuclear attack against the Western Hemisphere. We’re going to continue to work the programs we believe have to be worked. But when we look around we see how much energy gets wasted amongst the people and the people quarrel amongst themselves, because of differences of opinion.
Maybe we see a different way to do some things, and it’s not possible for us to answer everyone’s questions, but we would hope after the movement being in existence long enough that we would respect each other enough to be supportive of each other when we have to do some things and we just can’t sit around and get everyone’s approval. So we just think that there are things that have to be done and we don’t want to get bogged down in the internal disagreements that seem to be getting in the way. We think that personal jealousies, internal disagreements, ego conflicts, things of this nature are hurting the people very bad. At this point it’s our belief that because the leadership of the people can’t get together and be willing to resolve the differences amongst themselves, that the people are suffering. We think it’s time that we get back to understanding that the Great Spirit is our leader and not men. I think it’s time for that understanding. If we’re going to follow the leader, then we should follow the ways of the Pipe, or Sweat Lodge, or the Sundance, we should follow these ways, we shouldn’t be following men.
A lot of people are wondering about your association with Jackson Browne and other people who are known as “stars.” People seem to think that you have a lot of money coming from stars, and that you have lots of influence over them. What do you have to say about this?
My friends are my friends and I don‘t try to hustle my friends. I try to make it a policy not to hustle anybody. Jackson Browne, and myself, yes we are friends. We’re friends and we worked together in the anti-nuclear movement and we continue to do the work that we feel is necessary to be done. If there are people who do not understand that or people that are upset as to who my friends are, well there is nothing I can do about that at all. I don’t go around and tell people they can’t have their friends, and I have an understanding with Jackson anyway about how we work together, and we’re working together on the merit of the issue and the basis of the issue, not because he’s a famous man who can give money or has the potential to raise that money. I see the work that Jackson has been doing in the anti-nuclear movement and I know that he is putting forth a very good strong effort in helping to stop this nuclear attack against the people and against the land. I know that he’s doing constructive work in that area. I have no control over the man’s mind. I can’t command performance Jackson Browne to be anywhere. We wouldn’t be operating on the premise of respect. So I have to respect certain of his privacies and I know that he will respect certain of my privacies.
But if people are of the idea that because I know Jackson Browne, that this is a hustle, that this is a good way for us to write a proposal and get somebody to raise some money for us, if people look at my relationship with him like that then I question their judgment, their stability, and I question their intentions. This is a whole new thing to me because this is the first time that people have been concerned about who my friends are, it’s a totally new experience. I’ve been in the movement for years and years and years, and I haven’t had any problem with who my friends are, but all of a sudden I seem to be having this problem prop up. I don’t really know what to say about it, or how to deal with it. Jackson Browne has his own mind, he makes his own commitments and he’s got his commitments to the anti-nuclear movement, and I’ve got my commitment to protecting the Earth and helping Peltier and in some ways there are times that we work together, and we do work together when we can, but that doesn’t mean I can tell him what to do. The fact that we have become friends, that’s a personal situation. It’s wrong if people expect that I should exploit my friends. I think that they are wrong to expect that, because I know they wouldn’t like it if I exploited them.
What do you think about the anti-nuclear movement’s common strategy of using Civil Disobedience?
I think that the civil disobedience is a federal trap, because the United States Government has been training all of its police agencies on how to deal with civil disobedience. They’ve been doing this since 1972. They have been preparing their police states and their police agencies on how to deal with civil disobedience. I think that every time someone goes to a Seabrook, or they go to any of these nuclear reactor sites, and they get arrested, and to showing their personal protest, they think they’re getting arrested on a misdemeanor arrest, trespassing. That part of it’s true, but it’s not the whole truth. The whole truth is their getting busted on a national security arrest, alright, and they will be labeled as national security threats. That emergency energy board that Carter and them are creating, when this board is finally seated and it has unserved the constitution and a few other, uh, these national security busts are going to come back to haunt the people that got arrested, and, I think that civil disobedience should be looked at in an entirely different way.
What alternatives do you see to using civil disobedience for the anti-nuclear movement?
There are two alternatives that I can think of, and I’m sure that there’s much more if people would just think about it. But the two that come to my mind is that I think that we should start working in regions, and attempting to organize people to boycott businesses for one day, start organizing around that concept, and doing it in cities and regions. It’s not that civil disobedience must be stopped, I think it’s just we have to understand civil disobedience and we have to understand the difference between civil disobedience, and peoples resistance, and I think that the people’s resistance should be much broader than just the narrow concept of civil disobedience and a sense of going to a nuclear reactor site and getting yourself arrested, and becoming known thereafter as security risks. I think it’s more that people should start thinking in terms of maybe trying to organize boycotting areas where we won’t participate in anything, we’ll just boycott businesses, like a strike, and trying to get people to do it along the lines against nuclear development rather than doing it for wages and all the other things they have done to us.
Everybody being competitive, like the farmers and truckers, everybody, I think within the movement, in a movement organizing, I think it would be wise, it might be a good idea to try something along those lines. Or another one, but I don’t know if people would agree with this, but I think that burning the American flag is also a legitimate protest, that if the people would just gather and publicly demonstrate together and burn certain amounts, numbers of the American flag as a protest, because it’s a legal protest, it’s a moral protest, it’s an entirely justifiable way for the people to speak their opposition to the nuclear state. There’s nothing unamerican or unpatriotic or nothing bad about burning the American flag. And the reason is that according to military rules, according to the American government’s concepts, the only proper way to dispose of the American flag after it has been desecrated, is to burn it. And now strangely enough the American government and the American concept of desecration of the flag is if it touches the ground. They consider that to be a desecration, if it touches the Earth. I think it’s very strange myself. But anyway, it’s a matter of what we interpret desecration to be. I think that the whole nuclear radioactive death that they intend to create, and the police state that it must create, I think that’s bad against the flag, that’s a desecration of the flag. And all the lives, the broken treaties, poverty, and the sexism, and the ageism, and the racism, the attack, the nuclear attack against the Earth, this whole uncaring attitude feeling towards the Earth, that’s all a desecration of the flag, because allegedly the flag is supposed to represent the symbols and the principles of freedom, and respect, and dignity. Their flag is supposed to honor good, but the ruling class rich, the corporate state that controls the use of the flag, they have desecrated all these intentions. So, therefore, I see burning the American flag as an alternative. But again, this is up to wherever people’s consciousness is it coming to. There’s going to reach a point when the people must do something to grab the attention of the ruling class, and tell them we’re really serious about this.
But just to base the entire civil disobedience on walking up to a nuclear reactor site and getting busted. We’re giving the other side too much of an advantage, because later when the emergency energy board gets created, they’ll come to pick these people up as they progress their nuclear program along. So, I think it’s just a matter of, if people don’t like my solutions or what my ideas are about, I think it’s just a matter of at least they should think about it, and they should come up with a way to deal with it. ~
SOURCE: Tara Evonne Trudell