i'm sorry, but it is totally inappropriate to be referring to the desecration of a world heritage site that is thousands of years old as an "own goal".
How so? What is inappropriate about it?
You feel I am minimizing it? If so that is not my intention.
I didn't see anywhere in the post an attempt to defend GreenPeace in that situation. In fact he acknowledged that they had screwed up royally.
I think his observation was a fair one in that GreenPeace screwing up here is being propagandized into that they are always bad. That's it. They scored a brutal own goal here and in a war (for want of a better word) where propaganda and PR is everything this stunt backfired big time. It was a dumb, ignorant, poorly thought out mission.
I saw the post as an attempt to deflect from the core of the story. This case is an example of how GreenPeace steps over the line to get their message out. They deserve all the criticism this gets them
You can criticize Green Peace for their stupidity in this instance but for every goof up Green Peace does, industry does it 10 fold. Green Peace damaged some man made artifact but industry is destroying our environment. In my book our environment is more important and Green Peace plays a part in protecting it.
I can't say that I've ever been a fan of Greenpeace, but I nonetheless feel for the serious members of the organization who are having their voice drowned out by the multitudes of idiots and narcissists flying the same banner as them. This particular stunt ranks #1 amongst the worst PR stunts I've ever witnessed in my life, to desecrate a world heritage site borders on villainous in my eyes. There damn well better be a very strong message sent when they're brought to justice
for the most part a lot of the original and a lot of the serious members of Greenpeace have left. A lot of the criticisms of Greenpeace have come from a lot of ex members.
Greenpeace has gone from a serious environmental advocacy group to a fund raising group with fairly radical aims. I think one of the founders even recently talked about how Greenpeace got rid of their science head in Europe because that person wasn't political enough.
I am all for environmental lobby groups. Greenpeace on the other hand has basically become the corporation that they used to protest against and have become more interested in the money that they're raising to pay their executive salaries.
Greenpeace needs to go through a major reformation.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
In my 20s I was a member of Greenpeace and left as I wasn't in agreement with a number of their stances. And today they have ramped up their campaign against GMOs. HOWEVER, I find that when they make mistakes, and this was a HUGE one, I find people relish those mistakes because they are against all the goals of the organization, even the laudable ones.
However, they are one of, if not THE biggest activist voice out there on climate change. They have the money to buy ads. They have the resources to organize protests. They have the power to influence policy. And corporate interests would LOVE to see them shut down.
As for the founding members speaking out, I'll assume you are referring to Patrick Moore and not Paul Watson. Moore got out because he found that Greenpeace was more concerned about Green than Peace. Are we saving the environment because it has intrinsic value or because it serves human needs? He is more towards the latter and found Greenpeace was moving more towards the former. Moore also believes that Greenpeace needs to stop being anti-science (nuclear power, anti-GMO) which I agree with. The breaking point for Moore was the plane:
From the DailyMail:
Quote:
The row comes after Pascal Husting, Greenpeace International’s Programme Director, was exposed earlier this year as having commuted the 250 miles between Luxembourg and Amsterdam by plane since 2012.Each trip is believed to have cost Greenpeace £200 and would have generated 142kg of carbon dioxide emissions, it was said.
Dr Parr said Mr Husting's behaviour was 'a mistake' and 'should never have happened'.
Although I disagree with a number of their stances, they are still the biggest power out there giving a voice to combating global warming and I don't see anyone else powerful enough to fill the void if Greenpeace were shut down.
In my 20s I was a member of Greenpeace and left as I wasn't in agreement with a number of their stances. And today they have ramped up their campaign against GMOs. HOWEVER, I find that when they make mistakes, and this was a HUGE one, I find people relish those mistakes because they are against all the goals of the organization, even the laudable ones.
Yeah, and when a "big bad oil company" releases 60,000,000 milliliters of wastewater in a pipe rupture, people LOVE it. People love the fact that oil prices are in the ####ter and layoffs are going to come (see layoffs in the oilpatch thread). It's the same everywhere when your beliefs are incongruent with the goals of the organizations.
Interestingly, when oil companies screw up, they spend billions of dollars cleaning things up and making things right (no matter how little social capital that money actually buys). Greenpeace seems to have taken the "we're sorry you're offended" route, and still have defenders like you talking about their good points.
I think it's fantastic people are up in arms over this. Hopefully they feel the same way about this mining company that drove heavy machinery over the Nazca lines, last year.
I think it's fantastic people are up in arms over this. Hopefully they feel the same way about this mining company that drove heavy machinery over the Nazca lines, last year.
Looks like that article was only put up just this week, or at least the commenters only being from the past few days would make it appear so, so the condescension is hardly deserved. Looking for an English version of the original story from the time it happened yields weird sites like paranormalpeopleonline, abovetopsecret and gadling, as well as the semi reputable redditt, but nothing from major news organizations.
I think it was pretty dumb what greenpeace did, but in places like S.A. industry has very little environmental boundaries. A lot of people wouldn't have a voice if it weren't for organizations like greenpeace.
In my 20s I was a member of Greenpeace and left as I wasn't in agreement with a number of their stances. And today they have ramped up their campaign against GMOs. HOWEVER, I find that when they make mistakes, and this was a HUGE one, I find people relish those mistakes because they are against all the goals of the organization, even the laudable ones.
It's not the goals people are against, in instances like this it's the methods used. Whenever there is an outcry against Greenpeace it's not so much what they are saying, it's how they are saying it.
It would seem that those that have opposed doing much at all about global warming are feeling pretty smug about this one.
Environmental groups that are not as big as Greenpeace rarely ever have their voices heard. They are small, disorganized and powerless. The bigger an environmental group gets, the more a target they have put on them and people look for all the hypocrisies and ways to discredit them so that they are as powerless as the other environmental organizations.
Obviously Greenpeace made a mistake. But this is being extrapolated into "Greenpeace is always bad" and that is a huge win for the global warming deniers. Without strong environmental organizations, WITH MONEY, only one side of the issue will ever be heard.
Thats ridiculous. Greenpeace are terrorists. They attempt to get their message across through use of fear and over the top nonsense and are willing to destroy irreplaceable national monuments to do it. They are detrimental to their own cause.
How you get your message across and how you deliver your message is often just as, if not more important, than your message itself.
If I told you to stop eating fish by beating you in the face with a dead fish you'd tell me in no uncertain terms where to go and then go and kill ten dozen fish just to show how much you hate me.
Beating people over the head with your message just doesnt work and has never worked and the people who still use that methodology need to be put out to pasture.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
Eventually scholars concluded that the lines were not chiefly for astronomical purposes, but Reiche's and Kosok's work had brought scholarly attention to the great resource. It is widely believed that they were used as part of worship and religious ceremonies related to the calling of water from the gods.[2]
Reiche used the profits from the book to campaign for preservation of the Nazca desert and to hire guards for the property and assistants for her work. Wanting to preserve the Nazca Lines from encroaching traffic after one figure was cut through by the Pan American Highway government development, Reiche spent considerable money in the effort to lobby and educate officials and the public about the lines. After paying for private security, she convinced the government to restrict public access to the area. She sponsored construction of a tower near the highway so that visitors could have an overview of the lines to appreciate them without damaging them.
Her theory at the time was that the lines had astronomical and agricultural significance. The drawings could represent the constellations as known to the Nazca people, and many of the lines point to solstice events.
To see the lines you had to go in a plane, or observe them from an elevated platform. It is so dry at Nazca there is not not much erosion.
The idea that the lines were done with the help of ETs was ridiculed.
Agreed. I wrote a research paper back in university for a South American anthropology course on the Nazca Lines, and after studying the physical evidence, most researchers now believe the lines/creations had to do with a ritualistic gathering of water by the Nazca people. Especially in a dry area like Peru (though it wasn't as dry back then as it is now), water would take on an especially spiritual quality. Archaeologists have found remains of markings in the ground around the area which appear to be holes created for large ancient tent pegs, most likely set up for the mass holy pilgrimage, and the ceremony with it. Some of the drawings themselves show evidence of pointing to what appear to be (now) dried up former sources of underground water.
As for the giant markings, sure, they can't be seen properly from the ground. However, they can be seen quite well when crossing over the mountain range (which are not as steep now as they were back then, due to erosion), where the Nazca people would have been coming from. It's simply religious ceremony/pageantry, not alien. The whole ridiculous "aliens" theory was started by Swiss author and alien buff Erich von Daniken, who back in the 60's wrote how they appear to be runways and pictures of spacemen, and conspiracy theorists have run with it ever since (oh, and he's also served jail time for jewelry embezzlement and fraud to acquire a 6 figure loan, so you know he's legit).
Regarding Greenpeace, I fully agree with creating environmental awareness, but the way they went about it here is just mind-boggling. After viewing the photos, I do believe they weren't actually intending on desecrating the hummingbird itself (they put the words beside it, not on it). But the complete lack of awareness and knowledge on the sacred area, and how fragile the ground is there, is simply staggering (they walked right through the lines in sneakers, for jebus sake!).
Reading Greenpeace's response, its pretty clear this had been planned for months, which makes it all the more damning for the complete lack of an attempt to educate themselves on how to not disturb the area. I'm truly blown away at the sloppy, careless, and lack of cultural & historical sensitivity employed here, especially since they claim to hold themselves to a higher standard than big industry in these areas. As already mentioned in this thread, it truly is on par with desecrating Stonehenge. The Nazca Lines are such a huge part of Peruvian identity, criminal charges absolutely need to be laid here. Greepeace deserves all the flack they get over this fiasco.
When you're a large, well-known corporation widely seen as the defensive voice on environmental preservation, and it's regarding an organized, pre-planned stunt on a fragile, culturally significant UNESCO site, "Oops, we didn't realize..." is far from an acceptable response.
Last edited by Sainters7; 12-14-2014 at 03:55 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Sainters7 For This Useful Post:
A flippant response from someone firmly on the right wing side. Expected.
You know, I was going to comment about how my response was unfair since you - for probably the first time since you've been on this site - managed to get involved in a topic without trying to make yourself the centre of it.
Then I saw your next post. It is actually a wonder that you manage to pry yourself away from a mirror long enough to 'enlighten' us with your views.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
While a spokeswoman for Greenpeace said the group was "absolutely careful" when rolling out the banner, the video proves otherwise. The stunt resulted in calls for legal action, and officials have since released new drone footage showing the extent of damage caused at the site.
Nazca is a notoriously sensitive ancient site, where a single step can cause irreversible damage. The unique look of the lines is attributed to the contrast of the black rocks that rest atop white sand. Typically, tourists have to pay for flight tours if they want to get a view of the giant drawings that take the form of various animals and plants etched into the ground.
"They are absolutely fragile," the country's culture minister Luis Jaime Castillo told BBC. "They are black rocks on a white background. You walk there, and the footprint is going to last hundreds or thousands of years. And the line that [Greenpeace has] destroyed is the most visible and most recognized of all."
Castillo has threatened to sue the group members who participated in the event. Participants included citizens from Chile, Germany, Brazil, Austria, Argentina, and Spain.
