'wounding the beast' is a binary interpretation
in a relational world, there is only relational transformation.
in trying to represent relational transformation, a convenient tool is language, like ours, which converts the dynamics of relational transformation to terms of 'things' and 'what things do' and thus construct a 'semantic reality' that we tend to use for our 'operative reality' [one that orchestrates and shapes our individual and collective behaviours].
everyone comes up with their own 'semantic reality', as kevin tucker does and as you are doing. these 'semantic realities' are generally supported by historical narratives. as howard zinn pointed out, historical narratives are subjective and can portray the same dynamics [e.g. colonization] in very different ways (as different as night and day). nietzsche similarly affirms this;
an action in itself is quite devoid of value ; the whole question is this: who performed it? One and the same ” crime ” may, in one case, be the greatest privilege, in the other infamy. As a matter of fact, it is the selfishness of the judges which interprets an action (in regard to its author) according as to whether it was useful or harmful to themselves (or in relation to its degree of likeness or unlikeness to them).”— Nietzsche on ‘Morality’ and ‘Herd Behaviour’ in ‘The Will to Power’
this 'sense-giving plasticity' in using 'historical events' to construct a convincing 'semantic reality' arises from the fact that 'construction' and 'destruction' are not two separate actions but are conjugate aspects of the one dynamic of relational transformation. one starts with a basic storyline as to 'what the situation really is' and then gathers historical and factual data that will fill in the blanks. These semantic realities are presented by their authors; e.g. Kevin Tucker, Squee, etc. as if they are 'the reality' or an approximation thereof, but none of them reconcile with the physical reality of our personal, actual, natural, relational experience.
there is no way to choose between these differing 'semantic realities' other than by the principle of Lafontaine; 'La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure', which generally amounts to rallying around a chosen 'semantic reality' the largest group or bully gang who have the power to make that 'semantic reality' the 'official operative reality' to orchestrate, shape, drive and direct individual and collective behaviours of those who end up 'subscribing' to it.
as we know, this sort of herd behaviour can lead to situations that fail to meet expectations; "Hey, this downstream current we put our canoe in is speeding up; ... didn't you say that the rapids and cataracts were on the plan B voyage rather than this one?'. Bohm calls this 'incoherence', where, when there is divergence between the actual result and the expected result [based on a rationally constructed 'semantic reality', the rationally constructed 'semantic reality' (the flaws in which are the source of the problem) is used to try to put things right'. ].
unlike Euro-American language and culture users, indigenous anarchists do not elevate 'semantic reality' into an unnatural precedence over 'actual experience' as the reference for orchestrating and shaping individual and collective behaviour. instead, actual experience is continually polled through 'learning circles' where every individual in the relational social dynamic gets to share 'what is really going on' in the continually unfolding present. this process enables 'distributed cognition' in its participants, unlike the extrapolating/generalizing of one's personal experience and observations used in the construction of 'semantic reality'.
'civilization', seen in these terms, is not, as kevin tucker says; "the system that is killing the planet and all life on it" which implies that 'there are better systems' that enable man to live in harmony with nature [hunter-gatherer?, re-wilding?].
the concept of a human social system such as 'civilization' and/or 'hunter-gatherer' is a constructed, 'being'-based, 'semantic reality' that does not exist in the physical reality of our actual, natural, relational experience; i.e. the world is given only once, as a transforming relational continuum, 'subject and object' are only 'one'. our experience is of our unique situation in the transforming relational continuum and is not 'captured' in someone or other's 'semantic reality'.
trying to rally support for different 'semantic realities' is what politics is all about and it promotes division. russia's version of the history of the modern world will never reconcile with the united states' history of the modern world. there is no 'correct' 'semantic reality', they are all necessarily subjective because they deliver visualizable narratives based on subject-verb-predicate language/grammar constructs [a convenient reduction that delivers 'economy of thought' [Mach] because it gets rid of the relational interdependence in the physical reality of our actual, natural, relational experience.
sure, there is a problem with 'civilization' and that problem is with people confusing 'semantic reality' for 'reality' and rallying groups of people around particular 'semantic realities', all of which are subjective because while 'semantic reality' is built from things that 'be' and what these 'being things' do, the physical reality of our natural experience is of inclusion in a transforming relational continuum.
Western civilization owes its dysfunction to putting 'reason' based 'semantic realities' into an unnatural precedence over the physical reality of our actual, natural, relational experience. science and domestication are included in this; i.e. they use reason-based 'semantic realities' aimed at producing logically-formulated 'desired results'. although successful in achieving logical results, the physical reality is that such activities are the source of externalities and side-effects [transformation] that are unaccounted for in the scientific and reason based 'semantic models' themselves. it is true that DDT kills mosquitoes and it is true that child-soldiers kill innocent civilians, but such truth is innately incomplete due to unstated externalities and thus to use such logical truths as the 'operative reality' is a recipe for dysfunction.
the path to a solution to this civilizational dysfunction is therefore not to continue to search for a better 'semantic reality' [all of these are subjective] but to reground the reference we use to direct our individual and collective behaviour, in EXPERIENCE instead of using this or that 'semantic reality' as the reference.
kevin tucker is correct in that we need 're-grounding' in 'experience';
"That’s a reason why I think rewilding is so vital: it is about experience. Without grounding, what do we have to say or offer? Where can we go?
but he is in error in believing that we have to 're-wild' to get regrounded. what we have to do is to acknowledge that 'semantic reality' is subjective and ungrounded in experience because 'being' is a false foundation that underpins the construction of 'semantic reality'. our experience is 'beyond reason' and is accessible through sensation and intuition. when a person sets aside his 'head-voice' and uses his 'heart-voice' to share his experience, we listen and understand and hear 'his truth'; i.e what actually transpires in a transforming relational continuum is beyond the capability of rationally constructed 'semantic realities'.
i am not critiquing your subjective construction of recent history, as such reconstructions can provide useful insights, but in the end, what matters is what people are actually experiencing, and there is no way to get to that but by giving people an opportunity to share their experience, and it is by way of this 'distributed cognition' as comes through such sharing that our understanding of what is really going on is enlarged.
in this forum, there are competing views that support this or that 'semantic reality' and there are also competing views as to whether rationally constructed 'semantic realities' are fit for being used as a reference to orchestrate and shape individual and collective behaviour. 'civilization' is the assumption that this is the case. 'rewilding' appears also to assume that this is the case.