Spike's exuberant flame about nonviolence at the Headwaters campaign is quite interesting. While I am not an EF!er, I am a long time nonviolence preparer who has worked with people taking part in several of the larger Headwaters demos of '95-'97, as well as in the Redwood Summer of 1990. I was one of the peacekeepers that Spike felt was restraining the revolution at Stafford in 1997.

I share some of Spike's feelings about the inadequate implementation of nonviolence guidelines at some Headwaters actions. I don't mean that these actions were violent. But, like Spike, I thought some protesters were confused and did not implement nonviolence with more imagination and creativity than just sitting down or milling around in the road. Unlike Spike, I don't think this means forest activists should quit being nonviolent. Quite the opposite, I think it means they need to work on their nonviolence so that they will be more effective next time.

I was especially struck by Spike's version of the Dillon Creek action at which people did not try to stop the loggers from dumping water on the locked down activist because that "would provoke violence." Without knowing the particulars, I won't comment on what occurred, but I will comment on what Spike reported. The point of a nonviolent action is to make a highly principled moral statement that will resonate in the hearts of those who hear about it. Being attacked for making that statement is a side issue. To put it another way, you are being nonviolent, not them. You follow your conscience and others react as seems appropriate to them. If you allow your plans to be canceled because someone else threatens violence, then you will soon be unable to act at all.

What is most interesting about Spike's discussion of nonviolence, and his call to discontinue it, is what he doesn't mention. In the fall of 1997, the Headwaters campaign included three of the most successful nonviolent actions in years: the lockdown at Pacific Lumber's headquarters in Scotia last September and the two in October at Bear Creek and US Congressman Frank Riggs' office in Eureka. During these actions, Humboldt County deputies used swabs to rub pepper spray into the eyes of locked-down activists.

I cannot think of any other forest actions during the entire struggle to protect the ancient forests that achieved the national attention that the three pepper spray incidents did. The bravery of the victims, and the moral and physical courage they displayed garnered not only national attention but almost universal outrage. The police, on the other hand, have had to hire counselors to help them deal with the outpouring of national disapproval of their torture techniques. The sheriff's office is in disarray and under attack in several court cases.

The pepper spray actions were not perfect from our end, but they were spectacular successes. They show that the great nonviolent actions are not confined to Gandhi's time in India or Martin Luther King's marches in the South 30 years ago. The extraordinary power of nonviolence to reach national public opinion, and to gain national public support, is still available to us today. Forest activists have the power to achieve similar successes this year. This is the time to build on what has been achieved so far. To me the question should not be: Do we continue nonviolence? Nonviolence is a huge success. The question is: How can we build upon the momentum we have had with nonviolence?

Were I working on plans for 1998's Headwaters campaign there are two things I would make major priorities. One is support of the pepper-spray victims during their criminal trials in Eureka and their federal suit against law enforcement. The ongoing national attention to these events creates an unprecedented chance to reach and shape public opinion about the Headwaters forest crisis.

The second thing is building upon these actions. Look at the videos that the Sheriff was kind enough to make. What worked? What didn't work? What future actions can be done that build upon these actions?

Planning a successful nonviolent action is not easy work. Most of Gandhi's and King's actions failed, and they knew nonviolence best. Undeniably, luck helped make the pepper-swab lockdowns successful in comparison to the dozens of similar lockdowns with much smaller results. But luck only comes to those who act. And it doesn't take many people to make a successful action. The Headwaters forest will be far better served by four people doing a good nonviolent action than 200 who do a confused and purposeless action.

Spike, someone with your intelligence and your obvious willingness to put yourself on the line is the kind of person most likely to succeed with nonviolent action. Don't give it up because some of those around you are not effective or don't understand it as well as you do. Look for those who do understand, who are willing to do the work and withstand the violence, and together you can create the actions that can save the forest.